It really comes down to this: When someone says "use it at 1:1", you cannot be sure if they mean 1 part developer and 1 part water, or just straight developer. If they say "use it at 1+1" then its unambiguous.
Consensus on the notation of dilutions
-
A
- Thread starter dnjl
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale SILVESTRI RING N 1
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF AERO TECHNIKA 45 LENS COVER
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500ELX kit with CT80 lens
- Started by EgawaShiro
Forum statistics
Well Tony, the mathematical and chemical definition of rations with dilution are as Wikipedia says. 1:1 is 1 part of A to 1 part of B. 1:2 is one part of A to 2 parts of B.
How hard is that to understand. Now I know why we are suffering at the hands of medical people!
(JK) I have a minor in Biochemistry and my prof would shoot me if I used your methodology.
PE
How hard is that to understand. Now I know why we are suffering at the hands of medical people!
(JK) I have a minor in Biochemistry and my prof would shoot me if I used your methodology.PE
Oh man... I can't believe I missed this thread. (while I was out making pictures) I love these!
While we're on the subject of cows, I agree that it's a "moo point" [video=youtube_share;fLwYpSCrlHU]http://youtu.be/fLwYpSCrlHU[/video]. (definition courtesy of Joey Tribbiani)
Don't mind me; I'll just watch from the sidelines. Carry on, boys. :munch:
While we're on the subject of cows, I agree that it's a "moo point" [video=youtube_share;fLwYpSCrlHU]http://youtu.be/fLwYpSCrlHU[/video]. (definition courtesy of Joey Tribbiani)
Don't mind me; I'll just watch from the sidelines. Carry on, boys. :munch:
It depends how they say the colon. If it's the normal method i.e. one to one then it's obviously one part developer and one part water.
Steve.
Do you guys put on a sock and a sock and a shoe and a shoe or a sock and a shoe and a sock and a shoe? 
I used to be firmly in the 1+1 camp. But then I learned that this being the same as 1:2 wasn't universal outside photography.
Bottom line is that everyone knows what we mean, so who really cares?
I used to be firmly in the 1+1 camp. But then I learned that this being the same as 1:2 wasn't universal outside photography.
Bottom line is that everyone knows what we mean, so who really cares?
1:10 is a conventional notation and as any conventional thing it has to be agreed among users to be of any meaning. In your instruction booklet there must be a wording somewhere stating "when we indicate a dilution of 1:10 we mean 1 part of undiluted solution and 9 part of water to give a total of 10 parts" or conversely "when we indicate a dilution of 1:10 we mean 1 part of undiluted solution and 10 part of water to give a total of 11 parts". If there is no such wording, call their call centre.
There cannot be a right convention and a wrong convention, because a convention is conventional in nature. If things were so easy we wouldn't be here struggling with theater/theatre, organization/organisation, etc.
There are plenty of those "ambiguities" in the academic world. When you give an exchange ratio between currencies, you always have to specify which is the dividend and which is the divisor (you can avoid it only when it's obvious). So if I say that the Dollar-Euro exchange in a certain year was 1.2, do I mean €1.2 = $1 or $1.2 = €1? Believe it or not, there is no uniform convention.
Even saying the €/$ exchange is 1.2 is ambiguous because, believe it or not, until before the advent of Forex (let's say 20 years ago) you had certain markets where that would mean €1.2 for $1 and other markets where it meant the opposite (in certain markets the second currency was, by convention, the dividend and not the divider). This might be wrong "mathematically" but it was the convention in that market and everybody understood that.
And by the way, is it 1.2 or 1,2? Isn't it obvious that the comma is the decimal separator? I have always been taught that. My teacher would have flunked me if I had wrote 1.2 instead of 1,2. And by the way, my University teacher of Mathematics lowered the mark if we wrote the infinite symbol without prefacing with "+" because, in his little brain, "infinite" was ambiguous in meaning.
This is like discussing on which side do we have to drive. It's a convention. Europeans drive on the right side, and the British drive on the wrong side. And they build locks so that their are opened by turning the key clockwise!
Fabrizio
There cannot be a right convention and a wrong convention, because a convention is conventional in nature. If things were so easy we wouldn't be here struggling with theater/theatre, organization/organisation, etc.
There are plenty of those "ambiguities" in the academic world. When you give an exchange ratio between currencies, you always have to specify which is the dividend and which is the divisor (you can avoid it only when it's obvious). So if I say that the Dollar-Euro exchange in a certain year was 1.2, do I mean €1.2 = $1 or $1.2 = €1? Believe it or not, there is no uniform convention.
Even saying the €/$ exchange is 1.2 is ambiguous because, believe it or not, until before the advent of Forex (let's say 20 years ago) you had certain markets where that would mean €1.2 for $1 and other markets where it meant the opposite (in certain markets the second currency was, by convention, the dividend and not the divider). This might be wrong "mathematically" but it was the convention in that market and everybody understood that.
And by the way, is it 1.2 or 1,2? Isn't it obvious that the comma is the decimal separator? I have always been taught that. My teacher would have flunked me if I had wrote 1.2 instead of 1,2. And by the way, my University teacher of Mathematics lowered the mark if we wrote the infinite symbol without prefacing with "+" because, in his little brain, "infinite" was ambiguous in meaning.
This is like discussing on which side do we have to drive. It's a convention. Europeans drive on the right side, and the British drive on the wrong side. And they build locks so that their are opened by turning the key clockwise!
Fabrizio
Last edited by a moderator:
When I was at school the decimal point was half way up the line like this: 1·2
A dot on the bottom line meant multiply.
With the arrival of the computer keyboard, the full stop became the decimal point as well.
No. The UK, Australia and Japan are right. The rest of the world is wrong!
Steve.
Last edited by a moderator:
And in school I learned that a dot half way up meant multiply. We used x until we got to algebra when it started referring to a variable then learned the dot notation.
Obviously our version is right.
No, a ratio is the relationship of two or more things to each other. Stock solution only contains one component; hence it cannot be described by a ratio.
Therefore 1:1 can never be used to describe stock solutions.
And it follows that
is wrong and 100% BS <== again only one component and therefore cannot be described as a ratio.
Sure it can!
No, it's not. I do these things every day in my lab. If it were wrong, then I wouldn't have a job.
I have to ask, but who is confused? I am serious, is there any manufacturer that says to mix anything in a manner that anyone is confused about?
For eg, I went to Freestyle and opened a few tech pubs (the Kodak one I got from Kodak.com and Liquidol I have in my darkroom as a tech pub), I am not confused, is anyone else, or is this just a debate of what is better to use? I think it is clear when the manufacturer writes a tech manual what to do; I am not confused with any manufacturer's manuals. Kudos to PE for providing a nice example on his and Troop’s Liquidol of how to mix just incase anyone was confused!!
Czech Republic:
Foma, FOMACITRO STOP BATH FOR BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOMATERIALS
"For use, the concentrate is diluted with water in the ratio of 1 + 19."
Germany:
Adox Adotech CMS II developer
"Dilution: 1 + 29"
England:
Ilford- "For all film fixing applications ILFORD RAPID FIXER is diluted 1+4 with water."
US:
Kodak, Dektol: "Dilute 1 part concentrate with 2 parts water"
US: Liquidol, "To make the working solution, mix the stock solution and water in the ratio of 1:9. For example, to make 1000ml of working solution at 1:9 dilution uses 100ml of stock and 900ml of distilled water (temp 20c/68F)....."
For eg, I went to Freestyle and opened a few tech pubs (the Kodak one I got from Kodak.com and Liquidol I have in my darkroom as a tech pub), I am not confused, is anyone else, or is this just a debate of what is better to use? I think it is clear when the manufacturer writes a tech manual what to do; I am not confused with any manufacturer's manuals. Kudos to PE for providing a nice example on his and Troop’s Liquidol of how to mix just incase anyone was confused!!
Czech Republic:
Foma, FOMACITRO STOP BATH FOR BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOMATERIALS
"For use, the concentrate is diluted with water in the ratio of 1 + 19."
Germany:
Adox Adotech CMS II developer
"Dilution: 1 + 29"
England:
Ilford- "For all film fixing applications ILFORD RAPID FIXER is diluted 1+4 with water."
US:
Kodak, Dektol: "Dilute 1 part concentrate with 2 parts water"
US: Liquidol, "To make the working solution, mix the stock solution and water in the ratio of 1:9. For example, to make 1000ml of working solution at 1:9 dilution uses 100ml of stock and 900ml of distilled water (temp 20c/68F)....."
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy,
You make, of course, an excellent point. Most commercial products are pretty clear with their instructions. The problem for me and for many APUG memebers is that we write about photography -- either on personal webpages or on forums, or books. I develop recipes and have been writing like this example: "This is the negative for the title print f/11, ¼ second, in Defender 55Dwr 1:1 with a splash of 2% BZT, for 5 minutes."
Now that I realize it's ambiguous, I'll have to change every notation on my website. It won't be enough to make a disclaimer/explanation in one place. No one reads a website that way. Ah well, it'll be a good excuse to also root out leftover Klingon notation from my move to Expression Web and to update expired hyperlinks. Sheesh!
I think I'd rather weed my garden (and since I live in a rainforest, that's saying a lot.)
d
You make, of course, an excellent point. Most commercial products are pretty clear with their instructions. The problem for me and for many APUG memebers is that we write about photography -- either on personal webpages or on forums, or books. I develop recipes and have been writing like this example: "This is the negative for the title print f/11, ¼ second, in Defender 55Dwr 1:1 with a splash of 2% BZT, for 5 minutes."
Now that I realize it's ambiguous, I'll have to change every notation on my website. It won't be enough to make a disclaimer/explanation in one place. No one reads a website that way. Ah well, it'll be a good excuse to also root out leftover Klingon notation from my move to Expression Web and to update expired hyperlinks. Sheesh!
I think I'd rather weed my garden (and since I live in a rainforest, that's saying a lot.)d
Since this is one of many dilution thread on APUG and almost all of them go exactly like this one, at this point, no one should be confused. Besides, as Andy said, most manufacturers use the notation of their choice and explain in English what they meant by it, it's very clear.
The only one that I am confused on is the Ilford Rapid fixer. Their tech pub and the label on the bottle conflicts with each other. (The bottle label says 1+3 with water and tech pub says 1+4 with water) I'm thinking this is a case of misprint.
Before I joined APUG, I always read x:y as ratios. I never knew the proper scientific notation mentioned in these threads. Of course this being the Internet, we have to argue until everyone agrees on one true universal fact.....
Mooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
The only one that I am confused on is the Ilford Rapid fixer. Their tech pub and the label on the bottle conflicts with each other. (The bottle label says 1+3 with water and tech pub says 1+4 with water) I'm thinking this is a case of misprint.
Before I joined APUG, I always read x:y as ratios. I never knew the proper scientific notation mentioned in these threads. Of course this being the Internet, we have to argue until everyone agrees on one true universal fact.....
Mooooooooooooooooooooooooo....
MattKing
Moderator
I have an older Ilford Rapid Fixer bottle which has a label added on top of the main label. The main label says 1 + 3, whereas the label on top (which appears to have been added by Ilford) says 1 + 4.
Matt;
We don't know what this means. They may have changed recommendation, notation or whatever.
PE
Matt, that is strange re Ilford fixes, I am seeing it too:
Exhibit 1 Hypam, brand new, outside label:
Exhibit 2.1 Rapid Fix, brand new, outside label:
Exhibit 2.2 Rapid Fix, brand new, inside label:
Exhibit 3.1 Rapid Fix, 12 years old, outside label:
Exhibit 3.2 Rapid Fix, 12 years old, inside label:
Exhibit 1 Hypam, brand new, outside label:
Exhibit 2.1 Rapid Fix, brand new, outside label:
Exhibit 2.2 Rapid Fix, brand new, inside label:
Exhibit 3.1 Rapid Fix, 12 years old, outside label:
Exhibit 3.2 Rapid Fix, 12 years old, inside label:
I am now totally convinced! Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, too!
It has been fun!
It has been fun!
The HYPAM and RAPID thing......its a mis-print and it seems to have been perpetuated for as long as I remember........
1+3 Works aok 1+4 Works aok ( and is cheaper ) guess which one you should use.
I was always taught as x to part x I think its clearer.
In my youth I used to mix up the AGFA Colour chemistry ( powders ) for the gravity tanks on a friday afternoon, in a big wheeled chemical mixer, when I was taught to do it the guy who taught me said make a mound in the middle to 'about' 6 inches high and then fill it to 'about' 6 inches from the top....seemed to work!
Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited:
1+3 Works aok 1+4 Works aok ( and is cheaper ) guess which one you should use.
I was always taught as x to part x I think its clearer.
In my youth I used to mix up the AGFA Colour chemistry ( powders ) for the gravity tanks on a friday afternoon, in a big wheeled chemical mixer, when I was taught to do it the guy who taught me said make a mound in the middle to 'about' 6 inches high and then fill it to 'about' 6 inches from the top....seemed to work!
Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited:
Thanks Simon! Mystery solved.
So OP, I think no one is confused, manufactures write clear, it seems that dwross hit the nail on the head in stating that we all write different and what convention we use is our prerogative but I think the onus is on us to be clear, just like what PE and Troop did on the Liquidol container I posted above. If someone wants to write a formula 1:3 but it really means 1+4, he/she should explain what he/she means and vice versa. Being part of a community means to live in their conventions, saying 1:2 or 1+2, means something to 99% of us DR mixing folks, in other communities, say a crime lab in Surinam, 1:1 might mean something different, but that community knows its convention.....
Moo......out
So OP, I think no one is confused, manufactures write clear, it seems that dwross hit the nail on the head in stating that we all write different and what convention we use is our prerogative but I think the onus is on us to be clear, just like what PE and Troop did on the Liquidol container I posted above. If someone wants to write a formula 1:3 but it really means 1+4, he/she should explain what he/she means and vice versa. Being part of a community means to live in their conventions, saying 1:2 or 1+2, means something to 99% of us DR mixing folks, in other communities, say a crime lab in Surinam, 1:1 might mean something different, but that community knows its convention.....
Moo......out
Yuckity yuck.
http://education.wichita.edu/saltymicro/ecology_interactives/serial_dilution.html
So, to conclude, the problem isn't the notation we each use in our own darkrooms, but instead the problem is when trying to communicate intent to other photographers. As has been said by several of us, the use of a '+' is unambiguous, while the use of the ':' is ambiguous since even companies don't use the same notation for their products. Kodak, in particular, is notorious for using the ':'.
http://education.wichita.edu/saltymicro/ecology_interactives/serial_dilution.html
So, to conclude, the problem isn't the notation we each use in our own darkrooms, but instead the problem is when trying to communicate intent to other photographers. As has been said by several of us, the use of a '+' is unambiguous, while the use of the ':' is ambiguous since even companies don't use the same notation for their products. Kodak, in particular, is notorious for using the ':'.
For how long this is gonna continue? I hope this kind of discussion/debates will not make to go back to di...l side, there are enough debates to handle, so i hope film debates will not make me even more regretting to come to this side as well.
Good i started to dilute with '+' notation and not with ':', people here confusing us by debating themselves to each other and we are newbie watching who can win or who is right, each one of you trying to make his statement as a fact or correct, so i am as a new film shooter and English is not language and i am not alchemist or don't know about chemistry, what i should expect to find in this thread?
Good i started to dilute with '+' notation and not with ':', people here confusing us by debating themselves to each other and we are newbie watching who can win or who is right, each one of you trying to make his statement as a fact or correct, so i am as a new film shooter and English is not language and i am not alchemist or don't know about chemistry, what i should expect to find in this thread?
You're probably better off just ignoring it as most manufacturers use the + notation anyway.
Steve.
Matt, that is strange re Ilford fixes, I am seeing it too:
Exhibit 2.2 Rapid Fix, brand new, inside label:
Simon did indicate this is a missprint, Note it says "ILFORD PAPER FIXER" on the inside label. I product that I have never seen offered for sale. I always use 1:4 as it is cheaper and as Simon says seems to work. (200ML concentrate to make a liter of fixer for those that have learned about ratios from other than the Kodak Booklets.)
It is common to use 1:3 or 1:4 (1+3 or 1+4) with film and 1:9 (or 1+9) for paper. But, with conflicting instructions it is hard to day. Either 1+3 or 1+4 will work with most all fixers if you adjust fix times to compensate.
PE
PE
Sure, i will use + notation, even if some will use : i will consider it as +.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |