Teaspoon measuring

[gainer]

Sure, I have nothing against volumetric measurements when precision is not needed. That works fine for me with many solutions, like fixer and clearing agents, and it should work fine with many paper developers. That won't work with film developers that require small quantities of a certain chemical, like phenidone, potassium bromide, benzotriazole, etc. And if you make stock solutions of these chemicals, which I do for testing purposes, you still need a decent scale to measure.

I just don't see any point to this type of measuring given the small expense of a decent scale. But if someone else wants to work that way, who am I to criticize. I merely pointed a source to a decent electronic scale for about $30 that I would recommend over spoon measurement. I am not making an artistic or philosophical statement, just a practical comment.

Sandy King

I wasn't trying to convert you to using volume to measure everything. I do not do that myself. I was pointing out that there are times when volume is the best way for one reason or another. Take borax for example. It is difficult to find a container of borax that is entirely decahydrate. There is not much point in weighing 2 grams of borax to the 0.1 gram if you cannot specify with certainty its state of hydration. You can make a saturated solution of borax without weighing anything. If you store that solution at a temperature higher that that at which it was made, you will know the amount of borax per unit volume.

The stock solution of a Pyrocat series developer contains 50 to 200 times more of its ingredients than the working solution you want to use. If you wanted to weigh the ingredients to make a liter of working solution to the same consistent precision you need, your scale or balance would indeed have to be somethng special. We all should agree that volumetric measurement of a standard solution is a standard laboratory method. Most of the chemicals we use in developers are amenable to storage in standard solutions if we admit some of the organic solvents.

There are some children in some parts of the world who have been able to experience the joy of making photographic images by using measuring spoons and simple formulae. That is reason enough for me to feel happy with what I have done.

[ronlamarsh]

classic....the scientist vs the engineers.

For whatever it is worth any engineer worth his salt will immediately point out that a product or process that is not robust against minor variations is worthless...or simply put, un-economic, not feasible.

and... sheesh! guys, the OP asked a simple question....and all but one jumped on him for measuring his chems with a teaspoon. Nice. What a nice bunch of helpful folks....:rolleyes:

For the OP, I looked up the density of Ammonium cloride and found it to be, 1.5274 g/ml . I figure a standard teaspoon is 5ml so, I get 7.6 grams per teaspoon. In a similar fashion, I get 8.5 grams per teaspoon for sodium citrate.

Thank you very much, I was going to unload in my own defense but decided it wouldn't do much good but again thanks for the non-judgemental information.

[ronlamarsh]

After reading all this, the OP has gone digital.

I niether went digital nor moved to photo net I was simply trying to find an answer to my question and availing myself of as many sources as possible. I am sorry I have seemed to have caused a great debate as that was not my intention. For what its worth I have used D-23 made with teaspoon measuring and have never experienced a problem. I have had sticky shutters and fogged film etc, etc, etc,.

[BradS]

I niether went digital nor moved to photo net I was simply trying to find an answer to my question and availing myself of as many sources as possible. I am sorry I have seemed to have caused a great debate as that was not my intention. For what its worth I have used D-23 made with teaspoon measuring and have never experienced a problem. I have had sticky shutters and fogged film etc, etc, etc,.

Hopefully, you found the info you're lookign for (see last sentence of post #9).

Brad.

[ronlamarsh]

Hopefully, you found the info you're lookign for (see last sentence of post #9).

Brad.

Actually I did find it in post 9 just didn't realize it would cause such a firestorm!

[fotch]

More than you wanted to know.:o

[nworth]

I agree with Bruce. Why measure with a teaspoon when the cost of accurate scales is so inexpensive.

Have a look here, for example. http://www.balances.com/

Sandy King

The reason is convenience. PE made the important point - how much inaccuracy can you stand? It takes some time and effort to accurately weigh each ingredient. Usually, it is absolutely necessary. But when the recipe can stand the inaccuracy, volumetric measurement is easier and faster. I use it for fixers, which are quite uncritical. I usually prepare a bunch of small bottles of a sulfite-bisulfite mix ahead of time and then dump one into a thiosulfate solution to make up a batch of fix. The teaspoon method works fine for this. Weston used it for amidol print developer. Since amidol has a very short working life, he might prepare several batches in a single printing session. Amidol pretty much just blasts away, and since he was working by inspection with prints, fairly gross inaccuracies could be tolerated. I wouldn't dare do that with most developers, especially film developers, where consistency is important.

Wow! This certainly has turned ito a fight!

[sanking]

The reason is convenience. PE made the important point - how much inaccuracy can you stand? It takes some time and effort to accurately weigh each ingredient. Usually, it is absolutely necessary. But when the recipe can stand the inaccuracy, volumetric measurement is easier and faster.

Wow! This certainly has turned ito a fight!

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

[gainer]

This is the problem with those not knowing science or the scientific method.


PE

You bring up an interesting subject. What is the Scientific Method? I was taught that one starts with a hypothesis and a set of axioms and attempts by experiment and/or logic to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Either outcome adds to general knowledge. Thus far, the argument has been predominantly logical, which is not always perfect. Bear in mind that it has been shown that any system of axioms at least as rich as arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent or both. What would you fellow APUGers like to take as a beginning hypothesis in our searcg for universal truth?

[jim appleyard]

Actually I did find it in post 9 just didn't realize it would cause such a firestorm!

Not your fault. We just ramble on too much.