Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,490   Posts: 1,644,824   Online: 959
      
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 101
  1. #81
    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

  2. #82
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,276
    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

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    145
    There's a reason that chemists use molarity - only the initiated understand the definition so we don't have to defend it.

  4. #84
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    757
    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?

  5. #85
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,673
    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

  6. #86
    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

  7. #87
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,551
    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

  8. #88
    Toffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Point Pelee, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,797
    Images
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    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?
    And for fun, we could all set our clocks to Swahili time.
    I'm surprised how contentious the question of dilution becomes every time it arises here. Whatever your position on the subject, I hope you are all taking the time to joyfully take and make photographs.

    Cheers,
    Tom
    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


  9. #89

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,499
    Quote Originally Posted by graywolf View Post
    As Winston Churchill said, "Two countries divided by a common language".
    The correct quotation is "England and America are two countries separated by a common language" and it is by George Bernard Shaw. Just as Ingrid Bergman never said "Play it again, Sam." Someone should compile a book titled "Quotes That No One Ever Said."
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 05-27-2012 at 07:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #90
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,844
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Someone should compile a book titled "Quotes That No One Ever Said."
    Not a book but..... http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations


    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.

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