Talk:Ink

Chinese Ink
In one place the article says "The Chinese inkstick is produced with a fish glue, whereas Japanese glue (膠 "nikawa") is from cow or stag.[6]" whereas elsewhere it says it is made with animal/hide glue. Although inconsistent I won't change it until I can confirm one or the other. LuKesi (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Modern Applications is just bashing Printer Companies
The modern applications section reaks of orignal research, and is pretty much un related to this article, which is about ink, not printers. As such I have decided to be bold and remove the section. If you want to add it back in please, make sure to find citations and keep it relevant to how ink is used today, maybe include ink in commercial printing.Lotu (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Walnut ink
My research shows no truth to the claim that walnut ink was used by "old masters". I make ink from pre-seventeenth century recipes as a hobby. I have made multiple inquiries to the British Museum, Irish Museum, the Smithsonian and other such institutions. So far all have replied that not only is there no proof of Walnut Ink being used but indeed that it would make a poor ink as it is not at all lightfast.

I am very interested in the sources used to come to the conclusion that Walnut Ink was used by "old masters". Mostly because I would love for it to be true and to have a recipe to try and make. Please let me know. Dave 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The flesh surrounding the walnut seed (ie what would be the part eaten in peaches, apricots etc) can be used as a dye.

It should be clarified that "gallnuts" are the product of an insect infestation rather than seeds/nuts proper.

Jackiespeel 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed two odd phrases (walnut ink / naked woman)
I'm not sure (yet) whether this first edit relates to Jackiespeel's above comment. I've just removed two odd phrases from the article : "Use of walnut ink in antiquity is in mild dispute." and "image: naked woman." The latter was not associated with any image, and gave no context for being there, and was just all-around weird, so I deleted it.

The walnut ink thing also seemed a little like a non sequitur. It was said right after the assertion that the old masters used walnut ink, so I definitely see the context / connection, but no citations are given for either assertion (that walnut was used by the old masters, or that it wasn't). Either way, somebody needs to put in a reference, even if it's just to evidence of the disagreement itself.

Anyway I hope this has not pissed anybody off. Jessicapierce 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (update) In the meantime, until someone can supply a source, I've changed the wording of the sentence to say that these inks "are thought to have been used by many of the old masters". Jessicapierce 16:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (update) Please see source citation below. Also, Iron Gall ink WAS used in antiquity at least as far back as the Romans.  I have changed the sentence to reflect that the ancient masters use iron gall ink but it is erroneous to think they used walnut.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystborne (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From the British Museum manuscripts folks. I sent them an e-mail and it literally went all over the world and finally ended up with their prime expert.

"From: Cheryl--- Sent: Thu 15/02/2007 07:34 To: --, Sophie Subject: Re: Public enquiry no 69: An Inquiry into ink on manuscripts


 * Dear Sophie,


 * I am working in Cairo at the moment, so away from my books, but I am sure that I have never seen any recipes for using walnut as an ink. We have many for textile and paper colouring, but it wouldn't be a good ink because it's not very light fast etc. It quickly turns from black to brown - especially in sunlight, and in paper colouring (and maybe also textiles) it's known to be more brown than black. I am working with a turkish master caligrapher and art historian, who says that he has never heard of any reference to walnut ink in Turkey (or the Islamic) mss. Nor has there been any analysis that has identified it as an ink.


 * If I hear anything to the contrary I will let you know,


 * All the best,


 * Cheryl"


 * Sorry but I had hoped for a more positive answer Dave 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also some possible confusion explained "Rather confusingly the latin name for Walnut is Gallica - Gallic nut, which does not refer to galls but to the location ( Gaul ) of the tree." Also from Sophie of the British Museum.  Dave 04:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And Finally


 * "Dear Alice,


 * David --'s enquiry about walnut ink found its way to us – the conclusion we have come to is that walnut juice was never used as ink (or at any rate it has never been identified). Thanks for passing it on, anyway!


 * With best wishes,


 * Barry -


 * Dr Barry -


 * Head of Conservation Research


 * The British Library
 * 96 Euston Road
 * London NW1 2DB"

Dave 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern ballpoint pen ink
What's that stuff? It's so shiny and sticky and iridescent.. I can't help but think it's a petroleum product.


 * It most likely has many petroleum based ingredients. (the coloring definately being one of them) Caffeine927 (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with section "poisonous ink"
The section states that : "A chemical... p-Anisidine... is very hazardous", however the MSDS sheet for p-Anisidine states "Harmful if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Mild sensitizer. May cause contact dermatitis. (Some sources suggest that this chemical is extremely toxic, but that seems not to be in accord with the LD50s below, nor with the data for the ortho compound, which suggest that it is not especially hazardous.)"

- http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/AN/p-anisidine.html

PiAndWhippedCream 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The section also states that ink being harmless is a common misconception.. Uh.. I'm pretty sure most people think all ink is horribly poisonous, hence 'ink poisoning.' .. heck, I think a lot of people think pencils use lead and thermometers still use mercury, cuz they're always worrying about poisoning from those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I think this section needs serious editing, been this way for 10 years? I'm of course no expert in "Ink Health Effects", But the section almost has no references. Please make an up-to-date edit if you know the field. SepehrAln (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

toner as ink
What do you think about changing the definition here of "ink" to include powders, not just liquid. Using a powder (ie toner) for the same purposes of ink is a very new thing, but I think it qualifies as "ink". Frotz (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said on the Talk page for toner, I don't think toner qualifies as ink in the sense used in this article, and I don't think most technical people who work wiht toner would call it is ink. Anyone else want to help resolve this?  Pzavon (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the OED doesn't support such a co-identification. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly toner is a mixture of ink and developer. The ink can be either wet, or what is more commonly used today "Dry". almost all copiers and laser printers. Use Dry Ink. It is the substance used to color a surface to make text or a image. I was one of the technical people who worked with it. And for at least the last 35 years it has been called Dry Ink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revad58 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Dry Ink" has been a marketing term for many years. It is more accessible to non-technical purchasers and allows one term to encompass a variety of products including pure toner and products that incorporate toner with carrier in one cartridge.  Everyone I've encountered who is involved in the manufacture of the product calls the coloring agent encapuslated in plastic simply "toner".  It is the sales people, and those who need to talk to them, who use other terms  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzavon (talk • contribs) 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Crucial Omission
There's nothing here on octopus ink. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.201.12 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is now an article on octopus and squid ink entitled Cephalopod ink K-22-22 (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Omission
Sumi ink - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

waering of ink ?
please let me know that a paper writeen before 50 years and written before 2 years can be detected and  if so  whats the tequnique used for detecting ? and also want to know more about the theory of the same ....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.31.60 (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What is ink
Opening words of the article say:


 * Ink is a liquid.

Okay, fine. But then later the article says:


 * Inks generally fall into four classes:
 * Aqueous
 * Liquid
 * Paste
 * Powder

Am I the only one that sees a problem? 98.82.22.154 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC) The bold facing was added by moi.


 * "Aqueous" and "liquid" can be collapsed into "liquid". Powder was already addressed a year and a half ago (see above).  That leaves paste.  I think we can safely say "Ink is a liquid or paste...".  Frotz (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been like this for ten years! And aqueous and liquid aren't synonymous, as alcohols and oils can also be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A different egg white ink....
I watched a YouTube video made by a person making an icon. Ink was made using the clear water from boiled egg whites; the foamy part was discarded. The fluid was ground together with pigment and water in order to make a pale "egg white ink" meant to draw a pale image on the icon panel. The gilding and painting with egg tempera then commenced. The video made it seem like this was a well-known ink, at least among iconographers, but it was new to me (a non-iconographer). Is this the only use for this version of egg white ink? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What was left is something called glaire. It is a binder for panel paints and can be used in inks. However, it is not very good for use on bendable surfaces as it is not as flexible as tree gum saps. It would be great for use on icons.

IantheGreen (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with order of info in "Types."
Here is the initial info in "Types":


 * Ink formulas vary, but commonly involve two components:
 * Colorants
 * Vehicles (binders)


 * Inks generally fall into four classes:


 * Aqueous
 * Liquid
 * Paste
 * Powder

The section is then divided into three sub-sections, "Colorants," "Pigments," and "Dyes." Are pigments and dyes vehicles? If so, then there should be two sub-sections, "Colorants" and "Vehicles."

The terms "formula," "component," "vehicle," and "binder" all need explaining.

But the second topic, the classes of inks, is not informative at all; how do these classes differ, and what is each class of ink for? In the intro it is stated that liquid inks are for writing and drawing, and paste inks for printing, so these themes need development along with the two new classes. Wordwright (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Insoluble pigment
How are insoluble pigment particles in pigment ink kept in suspension?

The Christian Science Monitor
Not do degrade Wikipedia's authority based on cults, but I am an expert on ancient European manuscripts. And I have seldom heard of any black pigment used, apart from carbon black. Which is still the primary pigment used today. 79.106.203.50 (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Goodness knows when that was added, or by whom. Feel free to remove it, if you think it's nonsense - I don't imagine that anyone would consider the Christian Science Monitor to be a reliable source on the subject of ancient European pigments. If you have access to better sources (it sounds like you do), please write something better and cite those sources. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Found it. That text was added in December 2005 by someone editing without an account; the Christian Science Monitor source was added the following month. Looks like it's just been sitting in the article unchallenged since that point. Please, if you are an expert on this topic, write something better and provide a citation to a reliable source on this subject matter. I can help with formatting the citation if you're not sure how to do it. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)