Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,702   Posts: 1,548,437   Online: 1011
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by R.Gould View Post
    Simple anwser, divide the total required I:E 500 by the dilution +1, in your case 25, so divide 500 by 26,round it up very slightly, and you have your dilution, 20 to 480, this works for any dilution, and came from Patterson many years ago. one suggestion, when using Patterson tanks it is better to put a bit more developer in the tank, I would suggest 600, which at 1/25 works out at 24 developer to 576 water,as patterson reels can slip very slightly up the center colum, and leave a fraction of the film out of the chemicals,
    Richard
    Thanks for this reply. I plan to attempt all of this later today. You guys rock with all the great suggestions.

    Last night I watched tv while practicing putting 120 film onto the reels. I think I have this part down.

  2. #12
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    719
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    So is a 1:1 dilution 1+0?
    Yes, undiluted. Mathematically, it's the easiest way and least prone to confusion and error.

    I think it's only chemists who think of 1:25 as one part in a total of twenty five.
    You should think of it for what it is - a dilution factor; "one divided by twenty-five". That way you can easily determine volumes so long as you know the final volume you need. For instance, if you need 750 ml at 1:25 it would be:

    725 ml / 25 df = 30 ml of developer
    725 ml - 30 ml = 695 ml of water
    --------------------------------------
    30 ml of developer plus 695 ml of water is a total of 725 ml at 1:25

    The rest of us think of it as ratio i.e. one part to twenty five parts.
    Yes, I was corrupted by my high school photography teacher, too, nearly 40 years ago! Fortunately, I was straightened out by a college biology professor (who also taught photography in the department).

    So 1:1 would be the same as 1+1 i.e. equal quantities of developer and water.
    But 1:1 is a ratio, i.e., 1/1, which equals 1. And anything divided by 1 is undiluted, in this case, straight D-76.
    Last edited by Tony-S; 02-18-2012 at 08:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,299
    Images
    302
    This could be overcome by stating, simply:
    One part of Rodinal, to 24 parts water.
    D76 undiluted.
    One part D76 to one part water.

    That, to me, surpasses the 'least confusing' criteria, because it isn't even confusing at all.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #14
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    So is a 1:1 dilution 1+0?

    I think it's only chemists who think of 1:25 as one part in a total of twenty five. The rest of us think of it as ratio i.e. one part to twenty five parts.

    So 1:1 would be the same as 1+1 i.e. equal quantities of developer and water.

    Steve.
    I have to agree with Steve on this. I am not corrupted by a chemist background however, I do have common sense. I may also add, it has always worked right, never a problem.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  5. #15
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,608
    Images
    122
    I know we have discussed this before but I have always thought of it like this:

    1:3 can be stated as 1 to 3. i.e. one part of something to three parts of something else.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  6. #16
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    719
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    This could be overcome by stating, simply:
    One part of Rodinal, to 24 parts water.
    D76 undiluted.
    One part D76 to one part water.

    That, to me, surpasses the 'least confusing' criteria, because it isn't even confusing at all.
    But unfortunately Kodak uses 1:1 while Ilford uses 1+1, thus the potential problem. If they say in their data sheet "one part D76 to one part water" then that would be fine. But they don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    I have to agree with Steve on this. I am not corrupted by a chemist background however, I do have common sense.
    I'll assume that you don't mean I don't have common sense.

    I may also add, it has always worked right, never a problem.
    And that's fine for you, but when communicating information to others, especially those who are new, 1:1 is more readily screwed up than is 1+1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I know we have discussed this before but I have always thought of it like this:
    1:3 can be stated as 1 to 3. i.e. one part of something to three parts of something else.
    But to me, and many others, "1 to 3" is one part developer and 2 parts water. The "+" symbol is unequivocal while the ":" symbol isn't.

  7. #17
    Bruce Osgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, N.Y. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,441
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I know we have discussed this before but I have always thought of it like this:

    1:3 can be stated as 1 to 3. i.e. one part of something to three parts of something else.


    Steve.
    Simply put, it is a RATIO not arithmetic.

    A 1:3 ratio means one part something to make 3.

    1 + 3 is not a ratio, it is arithmetic and means 4.

    " i.e. one part of something to three parts of something else." would equal 4 and is arithmetic.

  8. #18
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,299
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S
    But unfortunately Kodak uses 1:1 while Ilford uses 1+1, thus the potential problem. If they say in their data sheet "one part D76 to one part water" then that would be fine. But they don't.
    I know that; my little recommendation was more of a dream scenario than anything. My own philosophy is to try to never use abbreviated expressions, because they cause confusion usually, as evidenced here.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #19
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Guys, can we please not have another 500 page thread on a topic we've all beaten to death already? :-)

    I think we all know that depending on which field one is working with, 1:1 could mean straight/undiluted, because of parts vs total parts, but it's very well known to all of us, that within photo-circles, it is not parts vs total parts, but instead parts vs other parts. And since we're almost always dealing with something:water, common sense should translate 1:1 as half this, half that.

    The only people who take issue with this are the ones who cannot adapt to the "corruption" of the measuring systems being used. However, I will once again reiterate that nobody ever said that it's ratio of one part : total parts, even with the ':' notation. 1:1 makes perfect sense if you think about it as parts : other parts.

    If you see D-76 1:1 and you mix it straight because 'chemistry books say so damn it!' then you're not using common sense.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  10. #20
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,573
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S View Post
    But unfortunately Kodak uses 1:1 while Ilford uses 1+1, thus the potential problem. If they say in their data sheet "one part D76 to one part water" then that would be fine. But they don't.



    I'll assume that you don't mean I don't have common sense.
    the trouble wiyh common sense is thst it isn' very common.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin