Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,884   Posts: 1,520,549   Online: 892
      
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 104
  1. #51
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    713
    Images
    14
    It really comes down to this: When someone says "use it at 1:1", you cannot be sure if they mean 1 part developer and 1 part water, or just straight developer. If they say "use it at 1+1" then its unambiguous.

  2. #52
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,912
    Images
    65
    Well Tony, the mathematical and chemical definition of rations with dilution are as Wikipedia says. 1:1 is 1 part of A to 1 part of B. 1:2 is one part of A to 2 parts of B.

    How hard is that to understand. Now I know why we are suffering at the hands of medical people! (JK) I have a minor in Biochemistry and my prof would shoot me if I used your methodology.

    PE

  3. #53
    Toffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Point Pelee, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,793
    Images
    121
    Oh man... I can't believe I missed this thread. (while I was out making pictures) I love these!
    While we're on the subject of cows, I agree that it's a "moo point" . (definition courtesy of Joey Tribbiani)

    Don't mind me; I'll just watch from the sidelines. Carry on, boys.
    Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

    Ansel Adams had the Zone System... I'm working on the points system. First I points it here, and then I points it there...

    http://tom-overton-images.weebly.com


  4. #54
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,549
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S View Post
    It really comes down to this: When someone says "use it at 1:1", you cannot be sure if they mean 1 part developer and 1 part water, or just straight developer.
    It depends how they say the colon. If it's the normal method i.e. one to one then it's obviously one part developer and one part water.


    Steve.

  5. #55
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,764
    Do you guys put on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe or a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe?

    I used to be firmly in the 1+1 camp. But then I learned that this being the same as 1:2 wasn't universal outside photography.

    Bottom line is that everyone knows what we mean, so who really cares?

  6. #56
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    1:10 is a conventional notation and as any conventional thing it has to be agreed among users to be of any meaning. In your instruction booklet there must be a wording somewhere stating "when we indicate a dilution of 1:10 we mean 1 part of undiluted solution and 9 part of water to give a total of 10 parts" or conversely "when we indicate a dilution of 1:10 we mean 1 part of undiluted solution and 10 part of water to give a total of 11 parts". If there is no such wording, call their call centre.

    There cannot be a right convention and a wrong convention, because a convention is conventional in nature. If things were so easy we wouldn't be here struggling with theater/theatre, organization/organisation, etc.

    There are plenty of those "ambiguities" in the academic world. When you give an exchange ratio between currencies, you always have to specify which is the dividend and which is the divisor (you can avoid it only when it's obvious). So if I say that the Dollar-Euro exchange in a certain year was 1.2, do I mean €1.2 = $1 or $1.2 = €1? Believe it or not, there is no uniform convention.

    Even saying the €/$ exchange is 1.2 is ambiguous because, believe it or not, until before the advent of Forex (let's say 20 years ago) you had certain markets where that would mean €1.2 for $1 and other markets where it meant the opposite (in certain markets the second currency was, by convention, the dividend and not the divider). This might be wrong "mathematically" but it was the convention in that market and everybody understood that.

    And by the way, is it 1.2 or 1,2? Isn't it obvious that the comma is the decimal separator? I have always been taught that. My teacher would have flunked me if I had wrote 1.2 instead of 1,2. And by the way, my University teacher of Mathematics lowered the mark if we wrote the infinite symbol without prefacing with "+" because, in his little brain, "infinite" was ambiguous in meaning.

    This is like discussing on which side do we have to drive. It's a convention. Europeans drive on the right side, and the British drive on the wrong side. And they build locks so that their are opened by turning the key clockwise!

    Fabrizio
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 05-24-2012 at 03:24 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  7. #57
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,549
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    My teacher would have flunked me if I had wrote 1.2 instead of 1,2.
    When I was at school the decimal point was half way up the line like this: 1·2
    A dot on the bottom line meant multiply.

    With the arrival of the computer keyboard, the full stop became the decimal point as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Europeans drive on the right side, and the British drive on the wrong side.
    No. The UK, Australia and Japan are right. The rest of the world is wrong!


    Steve.
    Last edited by Steve Smith; 05-24-2012 at 03:45 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #58
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    When I was at school the decimal point was half way up the line like this: 1·2
    A dot on the bottom line meant multiply.

    With the arrival of the computer keyboard, the full stop became the decimal point as well.



    No. The UK, Australia and Japan are right. The rest of the world is wrong!


    Steve.
    And in school I learned that a dot half way up meant multiply. We used x until we got to algebra when it started referring to a variable then learned the dot notation.

    Obviously our version is right.

  9. #59
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S View Post
    Ilford got it right. Kodak got it wrong and has screwed a lot of people up. Heck, even Ansel Adams used the Kodak method!

    Mathematically, ratios are dilution factors, so a 1:3 is the same as "one divided by three". Otherwise, we would screw all of our students up when we teach them dilution problems. So...

    1:1 is undiluted
    1:2 is one part to one part
    1:3 is one part to two parts
    1:10 is one part to nine parts

    The plus method is unambiguous.
    No, a ratio is the relationship of two or more things to each other. Stock solution only contains one component; hence it cannot be described by a ratio.

    Therefore 1:1 can never be used to describe stock solutions.

    And it follows that
    1:2 is one part to one part
    1:3 is one part to two parts
    1:10 is one part to nine parts
    is wrong and 100% BS <== again only one component and therefore cannot be described as a ratio.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #60
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    713
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    No, a ratio is the relationship of two or more things to each other. Stock solution only contains one component; hence it cannot be described by a ratio.

    Therefore 1:1 can never be used to describe stock solutions.
    Sure it can!

    And it follows that

    is wrong and 100% BS <== again only one component and therefore cannot be described as a ratio.
    No, it's not. I do these things every day in my lab. If it were wrong, then I wouldn't have a job.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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