Teaspoon measuring

[Photo Engineer]

Since we have traversed the Alpha to Omega, I again reminde Patrick that a few posts back he effectively repudiated his own method by saying that if it didn't work the first time, keep going, refining the measure until it does. I guess he wants to ignore that like poison.

I was amused.

PE

[sanking]

Since we have traversed the Alpha to Omega, I again reminde Patrick that a few posts back he effectively repudiated his own method by saying that if it didn't work the first time, keep going, refining the measure until it does. I guess he wants to ignore that like poison.

I was amused.

PE

Ron,

Did everything you mixed with a scale during your career work as you expected and hoped the first time you tried it in practice?

Sandy

[neelin]

This is a great thread...would that be taken with a teaspoon, or exactly a grain of salt (is that one crystal, or a weight grain)

At the cinema the Grumpy movie with Walter Matthau & Jack Lemmon costs about $9. to see. Are photographic results playing Ann-Margret?

robert

[2F/2F]

PE, If I were you I might say and do as you have. I think your responses here have been entirely reasonable (if slightly biased) given your background and perspective.

I'll say this: I highly value your contributions here and I also value those of Mr. Gainer and several others. I actually seek out posts from several people in this community and filter out much of the rest.

The "buy a scale" comments aside, this has been a pretty good discussion.


The Potassium Bromide example you supplied makes a good point and again, I like your advice, "If you can accept that much variation, go for it". I probably would not in this specific case, given the that the effect would probably be quite significant. others have supplied counter examples; Sodium hydroxide (hygroscopic) , and sodium sulfite(does it really mater if I have 90grams or 110 grams instead of 100?) being two. I think in each case, one needs to ask: Does it really matter? is there a significant photographic effect?

It depends from case to case of course.

In general, I think people mis these two questions too often. People, especially in the LF community, tend to get, or are very pedantic. I think there tends to be way too much emphasis placed upon "the best", "the most accurate", "the sharpest", "the highest resolution", etc...as if nothing but the absolute very best could ever be acceptable.

I look back on all those photos my mom took in the 1950's and 1960's with a simple Kodak Brownie Hawkeye. One shutter speed, one aperture, and a simple bakelite box with a cheap, glass triplet. She processed in in the kitchen and somehow managed to make priceless prints in the bathroom...she measured out her chems with teaspoons and tablespoons and mixed them up in Minnesota tap water...and did all that with little more than a college degree in English (she was a news paper journalist). Makes me laugh (and cry) when people say I need a digital spot meter and aspherical, extra low dispersion glass to shoot a LF camera....and I think of how much future generations might miss because they (we?) focus obsessively on pedantic extremes that probably don't matter too much. Imagine giving up on large format because you couldn't do the zone system? Tragic - no? Same goes for not processing your own film for want of an electronic balance. What's wrong with two teaspoons of Metol and four tablespoons of sodium sulfite in a liter of water? It works - every time, and if you cannot get a printable negative from it...well, it's certainly not because you measured with teaspoons.

Amen.

[Photo Engineer]

Ron,

Did everything you mixed with a scale during your career work as you expected and hoped the first time you tried it in practice?

Sandy

Not if I had a preexisting formula in front of me, which is what is implied in this post and referenced back to previous posts.

But, to answer specifically, variants of formulas generally did what I predicted based upon the previous results. If a new formula did not, I could quickly predict the next stage rather accurately but only based on weight measure of solids.

PE

[Photo Engineer]

This is an obsolete formula that I had in my notes, but it is as it was actually written for use within Kodak at that time.

Water 800 ml
Antical #3 2.75g
Na2SO3 1.60g
NaBr 2.9g
NaCl 0.60g
Benzyl Alcohol 13.5 ml
Hydroxyl Amine Sulfate 3.40g
D2W (CD-3) 4.3g
H3BO3 20.4 g variant (K2CO3 - 30 g/L)
KOH 20 g
Water to 1L pH 10.1 at 75 deg F.

As you can see, there are zeros used after the values, and numbers are taken to 2 decimals in some cases. I have some to 3 decimals.

I hope this helps you understand that what we see may already be rounded off, so the teaspoons do more rounding. This also goes to the thread on which formula is right.

PE

[gainer]

Since we have traversed the Alpha to Omega, I again reminde Patrick that a few posts back he effectively repudiated his own method by saying that if it didn't work the first time, keep going, refining the measure until it does. I guess he wants to ignore that like poison.

I was amused.

PE

It is plain to me that you have not the slightest idea what my "method" is. In your pretending to know it, you are doing me a great disservice. Unfortunately, I cannot direct you to the article I wrote on this subject. All I have left of it is a photocopy. If someone can find the April 1974 issue of Petersen's Photographic, I would appreciate knowing where. If I post the photocopy, it will be in the form of .jpg and the illustrations will look like excrement. I am tired of being misquoted and misunderstood in what seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to discredit me. As the crazy man said to my cousin the psychiatrist "I don't care if I am paranoid. They're still out to get me."

[Photo Engineer]

Patrick;

Your post indicated that a certain amount of trial and error might be in order to get a published formula to work. Re-read your own post please. I don't argue over your article or the fact that some simple formulas might work. I am saying that for serious work you should use weights. Those children you cite could use caffeinol to get negatives for all that matters. The point is that serious work deserves serious effort.

So, reread what you posted yesterday or the day before and see what that implies.

Also, see my formula above in which 0.60 grams of NaCl is required along with 2.90 grams of NaBr. If these are off by a tiny fraction in this formula, the results are so far off that the user may give up in disgust! Too low and they are foggy with what appears to be solarization and too high and no or poor image. This is tenths of a gram or hundredths of a gram!

PE

[gainer]

Patrick;

Your post indicated that a certain amount of trial and error might be in order to get a published formula to work. Re-read your own post please. I don't argue over your article or the fact that some simple formulas might work. I am saying that for serious work you should use weights. Those children you cite could use caffeinol to get negatives for all that matters. The point is that serious work deserves serious effort.

So, reread what you posted yesterday or the day before and see what that implies.

Also, see my formula above in which 0.60 grams of NaCl is required along with 2.90 grams of NaBr. If these are off by a tiny fraction in this formula, the results are so far off that the user may give up in disgust! Too low and they are foggy with what appears to be solarization and too high and no or poor image. This is tenths of a gram or hundredths of a gram!

PE

I had nothing to say about your formula or its required precision. Where high precision is required, by all or any means available use it. But don't blindly use it on formulas that differ by measurable amounts from other formulas, each of which is touted to achieve the same result. Besides, I have rarely seen a published formula that was so specific about development times that you could mix it and use it on a roll or sheet of film with certain knowledge that the shadow density and CI will be exactly or even approximately what you want. The procedure that any reasoning photographer would use to learn how to do that would be the same whether the precise amounts or an approximation were used. It is called by some trial and error and by others "The Scientific Method."

[nworth]

Well, if you want to work that way here is a neat little on-line converter.

http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/gram_calc.htm

Sandy King

I'm really on your side. If you don't absolutely know that a quantity is not critical (and you almost never do), measure it accurately. The teaspoon method may give you something that works, but it will probably not work the same the next time. The sulfite content of fixers is known to be pretty non-critical for routine uses, so I can get away with that. Weston had a lot of experience and good marketing to help him, even if the formulas he used could stand a lot of variation. (Note - I weigh my amidol developer ingredients.)