Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,832   Posts: 1,582,311   Online: 1026
      
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 104
  1. #61
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    I have to ask, but who is confused? I am serious, is there any manufacturer that says to mix anything in a manner that anyone is confused about?

    For eg, I went to Freestyle and opened a few tech pubs (the Kodak one I got from Kodak.com and Liquidol I have in my darkroom as a tech pub), I am not confused, is anyone else, or is this just a debate of what is better to use? I think it is clear when the manufacturer writes a tech manual what to do; I am not confused with any manufacturer's manuals. Kudos to PE for providing a nice example on his and Troop’s Liquidol of how to mix just incase anyone was confused!!

    Czech Republic:
    Foma, FOMACITRO STOP BATH FOR BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOMATERIALS
    "For use, the concentrate is diluted with water in the ratio of 1 + 19."

    Germany:
    Adox Adotech CMS II developer
    "Dilution: 1 + 29"


    England:
    Ilford- "For all film fixing applications ILFORD RAPID FIXER is diluted 1+4 with water."

    US:
    Kodak, Dektol: "Dilute 1 part concentrate with 2 parts water"

    US: Liquidol, "To make the working solution, mix the stock solution and water in the ratio of 1:9. For example, to make 1000ml of working solution at 1:9 dilution uses 100ml of stock and 900ml of distilled water (temp 20c/68F)....."
    Last edited by zsas; 05-24-2012 at 07:18 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: forgot the liquidol one...
    Andy

  2. #62
    dwross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oregon Coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    850
    Andy,

    You make, of course, an excellent point. Most commercial products are pretty clear with their instructions. The problem for me and for many APUG memebers is that we write about photography -- either on personal webpages or on forums, or books. I develop recipes and have been writing like this example: "This is the negative for the title print — f/11, ¼ second, in Defender 55Dwr 1:1 with a splash of 2% BZT, for 5 minutes."

    Now that I realize it's ambiguous, I'll have to change every notation on my website. It won't be enough to make a disclaimer/explanation in one place. No one reads a website that way. Ah well, it'll be a good excuse to also root out leftover Klingon notation from my move to Expression Web and to update expired hyperlinks. Sheesh! I think I'd rather weed my garden (and since I live in a rainforest, that's saying a lot.)

    d
    www.thelightfarm.com
    Dedicated to Handmade Silver Gelatin Paper, Film, and Dry Plates.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,070
    Since this is one of many dilution thread on APUG and almost all of them go exactly like this one, at this point, no one should be confused. Besides, as Andy said, most manufacturers use the notation of their choice and explain in English what they meant by it, it's very clear.

    The only one that I am confused on is the Ilford Rapid fixer. Their tech pub and the label on the bottle conflicts with each other. (The bottle label says 1+3 with water and tech pub says 1+4 with water) I'm thinking this is a case of misprint.

    Before I joined APUG, I always read x:y as ratios. I never knew the proper scientific notation mentioned in these threads. Of course this being the Internet, we have to argue until everyone agrees on one true universal fact.....

    Mooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  4. #64
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,922
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    The only one that I am confused on is the Ilford Rapid fixer. Their tech pub and the label on the bottle conflicts with each other. (The bottle label says 1+3 with water and tech pub says 1+4 with water) I'm thinking this is a case of misprint.
    I have an older Ilford Rapid Fixer bottle which has a label added on top of the main label. The main label says 1 + 3, whereas the label on top (which appears to have been added by Ilford) says 1 + 4.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #65
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,530
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    I have an older Ilford Rapid Fixer bottle which has a label added on top of the main label. The main label says 1 + 3, whereas the label on top (which appears to have been added by Ilford) says 1 + 4.
    Matt;

    We don't know what this means. They may have changed recommendation, notation or whatever.

    PE

  6. #66
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Matt, that is strange re Ilford fixes, I am seeing it too:

    Exhibit 1 Hypam, brand new, outside label:


    Exhibit 2.1 Rapid Fix, brand new, outside label:


    Exhibit 2.2 Rapid Fix, brand new, inside label:


    Exhibit 3.1 Rapid Fix, 12 years old, outside label:


    Exhibit 3.2 Rapid Fix, 12 years old, inside label:
    Andy

  7. #67
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,754
    Images
    40
    I am now totally convinced! Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, too!

    It has been fun!
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,909
    The HYPAM and RAPID thing......its a mis-print and it seems to have been perpetuated for as long as I remember........

    1+3 Works aok 1+4 Works aok ( and is cheaper ) guess which one you should use.

    I was always taught as x to part x I think its clearer.

    In my youth I used to mix up the AGFA Colour chemistry ( powders ) for the gravity tanks on a friday afternoon, in a big wheeled chemical mixer, when I was taught to do it the guy who taught me said make a mound in the middle to 'about' 6 inches high and then fill it to 'about' 6 inches from the top....seemed to work!

    Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited:

  9. #69
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Thanks Simon! Mystery solved.

    So OP, I think no one is confused, manufactures write clear, it seems that dwross hit the nail on the head in stating that we all write different and what convention we use is our prerogative but I think the onus is on us to be clear, just like what PE and Troop did on the Liquidol container I posted above. If someone wants to write a formula 1:3 but it really means 1+4, he/she should explain what he/she means and vice versa. Being part of a community means to live in their conventions, saying 1:2 or 1+2, means something to 99% of us DR mixing folks, in other communities, say a crime lab in Surinam, 1:1 might mean something different, but that community knows its convention.....

    Moo......out
    Andy

  10. #70
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    730
    Images
    14
    Yuckity yuck.

    http://education.wichita.edu/saltymi..._dilution.html

    So, to conclude, the problem isn't the notation we each use in our own darkrooms, but instead the problem is when trying to communicate intent to other photographers. As has been said by several of us, the use of a '+' is unambiguous, while the use of the ':' is ambiguous since even companies don't use the same notation for their products. Kodak, in particular, is notorious for using the ':'.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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