Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,966   Posts: 1,558,421   Online: 919
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    98
    Images
    2

    An unusual(?) question

    Just an odd thought I had today.

    Does the weight (ie. mass) of a photographic emulsion change post exposure?
    It is easier to gain enlightenment than to explain enlightenment.
    Supreme Master Ching Hai

  2. #2
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    yes
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  3. #3
    MikeSeb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Prospect (Louisville), KY, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,062
    You guys need to get out more.

    Interesting question, though--I take it because the energy of the photon is converted to mass in interacting with the emulsion?

    Photons themselves are massless, are they not?

    Man, I shoulda read Feynman's book more carefully.
    Michael Sebastian
    Website | Blog

  4. #4
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    739
    Here is part of an article I wrote some time ago:

    (Quote) It is one thing to say photography is a physical process but I emphasise
    that the assertion is meant completely literally without metaphoric content
    at all. I do not know why the following calculation has never turned
    anywhere up in my forty-odd years of photographic research. Maybe my doing
    it here is the first time ever.

    How much subject matter hits the film? An approximate calculation goes like
    this:

    From published characteristic curves for film a middling exposure in
    Lux.seconds is 10 times the reciprocal of the numerical ISO speed. This
    secret (?) formula is how light-meters are calibrated as exposure-meters.
    For an ISO 100 speed material this middling exposure is 0.1 Lux.seconds.

    How much energy is there in 0.1 Lux.seconds? Converting Lux, an illuminance
    unit that says "how bright looking" to an irradiance unit, Watts per square
    metre, that says "how much energy" relates to the photometric efficiency of
    the human eye. This varies with wavelength and is maximal at 555 nanometres
    for a photoptic (daylight) adapted eye. At this wavelength 0.1 Lux.seconds
    equals 0.00015 Watts per square metre.seconds. Of course Watts multiplied by
    seconds equals Joules so the previous quantity becomes 0.00015 Joules per
    square metre.

    An 8x10 inch sheet of film has an area of about 0.05 square metres so if it
    was ISO100 material getting middling exposure at 555nm wavelength it would
    absorb 0.0000075 Joules of energy. All this energy has come from the subject
    matter and it is important that the light-tightness of cameras and film
    holders ensures that the energy comes from nowhere else.

    So far so good; the next part is courtesy of Albert Einstein. E = M.C squared !
    Those 7.5 x 10 to the -6 Joules have a mass equivalent that is easily calculated by
    dividing them by the square of the speed of light (3x10 to the 8 metres.sec-1 )2 . A
    few deft pokes of the computer calculator keys yields:

    8.3x10 to the -23 kilograms.

    This is the minimum amount of subject matter that has to embed itself in the
    film. Because, in practice, wavelengths of lesser illuminance value than
    555nm are involved more kilograms of subject matter has to hit.

    Going even further in this argument one can calculate the mass of a latent
    image. Assuming a quantum efficiency for film of (say) 1% (with 99% of
    absorbed energy just leaking away as heat) then a 8x10 sheet of ISO 100 film
    receiving middling exposure gains and keeps, at minimum, a mass of:

    8.3x10 to the -25 kilograms.

    These kilograms are the mass equivalent of the up-changed chemical potential
    energy of exposed film compared to unexposed film.

    One may say the kilogram quantities are tiny but it is also true that they
    are incommeasurably greater than zero. Things are different in the digital
    world where pictures are made from information. Information is pretty
    certainly (short of absolute theoretical proof) massless. Research on this
    point continues and I suspect (don't quote me) that the final outcome will
    be that information has no energy (mass) but energy has to be expended to
    cancel a data point and write an alternative one in its place.(Unquote)

    The mathematical formatting in this extract is clumsy but those folks familiar with the concepts will know what the numbers mean. And, of course, the arithmetic is worth checking.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  5. #5
    Murray@uptowngallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,028
    How would one ever prove this? Exposing film, then weighing it in the dark...nah, I doubt a 'scale' can weigh the tiny amount you're talking about.

    Surely the physical/chemical changes from processing has a much larger effect.
    Murray

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    98
    Images
    2
    Thanks Maris,

    Now I can tell if my exposed film will need push, normal, or pull processing!

    Seriously though, Thanks for the answer.

    Doyle
    It is easier to gain enlightenment than to explain enlightenment.
    Supreme Master Ching Hai

  7. #7
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Don't forget you're losing mass after fixing...
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  8. #8
    Murray@uptowngallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Holland, MI
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1,028
    Did I not see an April 1 posting date?
    Murray



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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