Quote Originally Posted by gainer
I don't worry about accuracy when I know how
much error I can tolerate.
On the other hand, if I don't know how much error I
can tolerate because my measurements are so accurate,
I also don't know if a small amount more or less of a particular
component will improve my developer.
I don't consider these experiments wasted. In fact I have
learned through doing them that no balance or scale is
even required for most of the formulas I use.
One sentence at a time:

For yourself it is "... error I can tolerate." For myself it is
"... error I WILL tolerate." I will tolerate a 1% error on weight
and volume. I weigh out no less than 1 gram amounts and
use the to-the-line method for volumes.

When small changes in amounts are to be made I make
them when compounding and/or after when splitting the
stock or concentrate. By that method I've been able
to determine the least amount of chemistry needed
to fully develop or fix a print or a roll of film.

No balance or scale is required for compounding most of
the formulas you use. I think that may be taken even
farther; none is needed for any formula. Be prepared
though for some trial and error.

Personally I've no use for volumetric measurement of
materials known for their gram atomic, gram molecular,
and gram formula weights and sold in gram quantities.

I'd likely be more tempted to use volumetric methods
with dry materials if I were still using a two pan single,
or a two or three beam balance.

The digital scale is much more convenient. For most,
I suggest a good brand, small two digit capacity scale,
with .01 gram resolution and accuracy. Dan