Lightfastness Test - Blue

[delda]

Preliminary reading: Lightfastness Test - Black

 

Result for

1. Black inks
2. Blue inks (this post)
3. Red / brown inks
4. Violet / green inks

 

Following the same experimental setup, here is the result for fountain pen blue inks:

 

(1) Between 0-100 hours of exposure

 

(2) Between 0-400 hours of exposure

 

Note that the Iroshizuku Asa-gao ink was later added to the list, when the other inks have already been exposed for about 100 hours. So the weather condition of the two batches of ink samples wasn't identical, even though the exposure time is the same.  

[OCArt]

Wow! thank you so much for doing these comprehensive tests!

[TSherbs]

I'm only seeing this now....awesome test, thanks

[welch]

I'm not convinced that this sort of light-fastness test tells us much about our ordinary use of inks. The tests tell us which inks will outlast other inks, but we do not hang our writing in sunlight. They don't tell us how long any writing will last when we close our notebook or put something in a folder, and then put them away in a file cabinet or stack our notebooks on a bookshelf. 

 

My own experience: essays I wrote in 1963 in Sheaffer's Washable Black are perfectly readable. Notes I took in 2007, using Diamine Sapphire Blue are just as readable.

 

For a longer perspective, people publish letters and journals that their parents wrote during WW2. We can find some of the vintage inks they used. I have several bottles of Parker Quink in the art-deco bottles that probably date back to 1950 or earlier. There was nothing special about the ink. It was "permanent", which meant that it was tough to wash out (or to wash off my fingers), but it did not bind itself to paper or cotton fibers. 

 

And that's permanent enough for me.

 

 

[XYZZY]

On 10/24/2023 at 8:07 AM, welch said:

I'm not convinced that this sort of light-fastness test tells us much about our ordinary use of inks. The tests tell us which inks will outlast other inks, but we do not hang our writing in sunlight. They don't tell us how long any writing will last when we close our notebook or put something in a folder, and then put them away in a file cabinet or stack our notebooks on a bookshelf. 

 

My own experience: essays I wrote in 1963 in Sheaffer's Washable Black are perfectly readable. Notes I took in 2007, using Diamine Sapphire Blue are just as readable.

 

For a longer perspective, people publish letters and journals that their parents wrote during WW2. We can find some of the vintage inks they used. I have several bottles of Parker Quink in the art-deco bottles that probably date back to 1950 or earlier. There was nothing special about the ink. It was "permanent", which meant that it was tough to wash out (or to wash off my fingers), but it did not bind itself to paper or cotton fibers. 

 

And that's permanent enough for me.

 

 

 

It's useful information from the standpoint that it is well done, well presented, and provides answers to a question that comes up frequently. 

 

I agree with your "permanent enough", though, and that it's important to consider the actual use case.

 

Whenever I read something about some ancient document being ruined because the IG ink ate through the parchment, I find it amusing that people draw conclusions based on that.  My guess is that civilization has lost far more documents to fire, moisture, mold, and war.  And probably the biggest destroyer of all might be later generations not realizing what they have and just dumping boxes of old papers into the trash.

 

In other words, what matters more is probably how you store it, protect it, and identify it for future curators.

 

ETA:  While the vast majority of what I write goes into a notebook that eventually sits closed on a shelf, there are some classes of documents, like certificates, where it's common to have them on display.  Lightfastness certainly matters for those.

[delda]

On 10/24/2023 at 11:07 AM, welch said:

I'm not convinced that this sort of light-fastness test tells us much about our ordinary use of inks. The tests tell us which inks will outlast other inks, but we do not hang our writing in sunlight. They don't tell us how long any writing will last when we close our notebook or put something in a folder, and then put them away in a file cabinet or stack our notebooks on a bookshelf. 

 

My own experience: essays I wrote in 1963 in Sheaffer's Washable Black are perfectly readable. Notes I took in 2007, using Diamine Sapphire Blue are just as readable.

 

For a longer perspective, people publish letters and journals that their parents wrote during WW2. We can find some of the vintage inks they used. I have several bottles of Parker Quink in the art-deco bottles that probably date back to 1950 or earlier. There was nothing special about the ink. It was "permanent", which meant that it was tough to wash out (or to wash off my fingers), but it did not bind itself to paper or cotton fibers. 

 

And that's permanent enough for me.

 

 

My goal in conducting these lightfastness tests is not to tell the world about people's 'ordinary' use of inks. As I stated elsewhere (not sure if I had forgotten to state it on this forum, but I do state it quite often when posting these results), this is an extreme situation, as most people don't display their writings under direct sunlight without the slightest UV-prohibitor. 

 

However, as an artist, my 'ordinary' use of inks includes creating calligraphic works and urban sketching that often then not end up being in display. For these activities, that an ink staying 'readable' enough is not sufficiently desirable, because readable traces or swatches can still suffer from colour shift that drastically alters my artistic intention in conceiving the work.

 

I had the idea of conducting these tests after I saw the signatures of my musician friends on a poster and my calligraphy works created using 'permanent inks' that were hanged in my room fading terribly. For those who are serious enough about the longitivtiy of their works, lightfastness does matter.

[XYZZY]

5 hours ago, delda said:

 

My goal in conducting these lightfastness tests is not to tell the world about people's 'ordinary' use of inks. As I stated elsewhere (not sure if I had forgotten to state it on this forum, but I do state it quite often when posting these results), this is an extreme situation, as most people don't display their writings under direct sunlight without the slightest UV-prohibitor. 

 

However, as an artist, my 'ordinary' use of inks includes creating calligraphic works and urban sketching that often then not end up being in display. For these activities, that an ink staying 'readable' enough is not sufficiently desirable, because readable traces or swatches can still suffer from colour shift that drastically alters my artistic intention in conceiving the work.

 

I had the idea of conducting these tests after I saw the signatures of my musician friends on a poster and my calligraphy works created using 'permanent inks' that were hanged in my room fading terribly. For those who are serious enough about the longitivtiy of their works, lightfastness does matter.

Obviously I don't draw with fountain pens, much less have drawings worth displaying.  But I respect it as a need.  I was modifying ink jet printers in the 90s in order to use pigment inks in tanks instead of the manufacturers' dye cartridges, for use with making prints for display.

 

I'm surprised at Asa-gao's apparent lightfastness.  I love that ink, but never considered it to be great for anything other than appearance and flow.

 

Have you tried the R&K Sketchinks?  I have no experience with them but would assume they might at least be intended for your use case.

 

Are you letting the tests continue to run?  Will we eventually see a 4000 hour report?

[TSherbs]

@delda have you ever sampled Noodler's Baltimore Canyon Blue? It is a good-looking, well-behaved "permanent" blue. You might try testing it out in the sun for your purposes. 

[delda]

@XYZZY I heard very good things about R&K's Sketch Ink. A watercolourist told me that this series is fountain pen friendly and quite lightfast. Sadly, they are quite difficult to acquire from where I am, so I haven't had the chance to try them yet.

 

Unfortunately, I have moved and no longer have access to that much space to put out a folding table under direct sunlight ... So to answer your question, no, you will not see a 4000 hour report. Besides, I don't think it's needed, as 100 hours of exposure under direct sunlight would probably equate to many decades under normal preservation conditions.

 

@TSherbs I have never used Noodler's Baltimore Canyon Blue, in fact, this is the first time I heard its name!