Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,417   Posts: 1,596,641   Online: 1257
      
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 104
  1. #81
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    747
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by H2O View Post
    It is suprising as you insist on your true. One true.
    No where did I say this, so please don't say I did. There are many ways to do dilution problems and I am not disputing any of the methods described here. What I, and others, are saying is that communicating to others using the ':' is ambiguous, while using the '+' is not.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Boone, North Carolina, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    167
    Kind of an interesting conflict. I believe in British usage they read that 1:50 as 1 in 50, or 1+49. In American usage we would actually read 1:50 as 50 to 1, or 1 + 50. As Winston Churchill said, "Two countries divided by a common language".

    What surprised me is the Americans in the thread that think 1:50 means 1 + 49. They certainly weren't taught that in school, unless they had a foreign teacher who was unfamiliar with American usage.

    What confuses me is why anyone in either camp would think 1:1 = "stock solution", why would you label some thing as a mixture if it was not????? I think anyone would be more likely to say, "Do Not Dilute", if it was labeled 1:1, I would think they were using the American notation for (1 + 1). And just for the hell of it I ran upstairs to check my old bottle of Rodinal, we usually say 1:50 (50 to 1) when talking about diluting it, it is labeled 1 + 50, so those Germans seem to be using the notation in the same way we Americans do. On the other hand, my fixer is labeled 1 + 9.

    Please do not let this interfere with your "MY way is the WAY" debate.

  3. #83
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,711
    Images
    65
    So, what is unambiguous?

    How about 1 part A and 1 part B to make 2 total parts. Or 1 part A and 9 parts B to make 10 total parts. You can substitute liters, ml, oz or quarts for the word parts! This is not ambiguous.

    PE

  4. #84
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Tony I bet that everyone agrees that : can be ambiguous but in the small-analog-darkroom-chemistry-mixing-community, does anyone ever (manufacturer or member here), ever list their recipes and use the : to mean the methodology you describe, used in this community? I can just as easily post here in Swahili by using a English to Swahili translator, but that is generally not the communication convention used here, see my point? I think your convention is used, just not photographically, and therefore I think you are bringing your communities convention and trying to impress it upon another community, where it is generally not used.

    As I, PE, and many others reiterate, we always should be clear when we discuss chemistry, but I ask you seriously, does anyone really use : in the manner you describe in photographic circles? If the answer is yes, then I think your point is extremely valid, otherwise you are using some obscure methodology (to the photographic community) to make your point
    Andy

  5. #85
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,165
    And any of us who strted Photography using the Kodak Publications like "Basic Developing, printing and enlarging" learned the 1:1 is one part of developer and one part water, around the same time we were learning that "F" paper is glossy.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    142
    There's a reason that chemists use molarity - only the initiated understand the definition so we don't have to defend it.

  7. #87
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    747
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
    What surprised me is the Americans in the thread that think 1:50 means 1 + 49. They certainly weren't taught that in school, unless they had a foreign teacher who was unfamiliar with American usage.
    I learned it from Americans - high school, undergraduate and graduate teachers. I've never had it any other way and I was born and raised in Kansas. Maybe it's a Kansas thing?

    What confuses me is why anyone in either camp would think 1:1 = "stock solution", why would you label some thing as a mixture if it was not?????
    It's simply nomenclature. To me it means "undiluted" or "neat" or "straight".

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    So, what is unambiguous?
    The use of the plus.

    How about 1 part A and 1 part B to make 2 total parts. Or 1 part A and 9 parts B to make 10 total parts. You can substitute liters, ml, oz or quarts for the word parts! This is not ambiguous.
    That's perfectly clear. It also has no colons in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    Tony I bet that everyone agrees that : can be ambiguous but in the small-analog-darkroom-chemistry-mixing-community, does anyone ever (manufacturer or member here), ever list their recipes and use the : to mean the methodology you describe, used in this community? ...but I ask you seriously, does anyone really use : in the manner you describe in photographic circles? If the answer is yes, then I think your point is extremely valid, otherwise you are using some obscure methodology (to the photographic community) to make your point
    There are four people in the first 14 posts who hold this same view; that is, the colon can be confusing while the plus is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dismayed View Post
    There's a reason that chemists use molarity - only the initiated understand the definition so we don't have to defend it.
    I'm not sure why you're mentioning molarity. I've never seen it used with photographic chemicals. Have you purchased photochemistry that says to make a molar solution? If so, what was it?

  8. #88
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,099
    Images
    60
    I was going to post something here about a colonoscopy, but I thought better of it.

    And I continue to be entertained.
    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

  9. #89
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S View Post
    There are four people in the first 14 posts who hold this same view; that is, the colon can be confusing while the plus
    I agree that it can be confusing but only think it is confusing when folks who might use : in applications in non-photographic-chemistry-mixing-scenarios get involved. I bet Kodak went with the traditional way (ie 1 part stock to 1 part water is 1:1) because they were selling consumer and B2B chemistry kits, not chemistry to be mixed by biochem folks to create pharmaceuticals, etc. My point is that folks who might work in fields outside of photography are the only confused ones because they mix alternatively when using : notation, but really ask you seriously, does any manufacturer or person here post his/her photographic recipies using the mixing schematic you use in your laboratory at work?

    I have not seen it but I cd be wrong.

    Regardless I agree we all need to be clear what we mean when we write mixing schemas, so it is a win-win for all sides of the debate
    Andy

  10. #90
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,550
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    So have I but not everyone agrees with us!


    Steve.
    I use 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, etc. notation but readily understand 1+2, 1+3, 1+4, etc..
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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