Seems the only people having trouble are chemists. I suggest an instructional DVD, with a short demonstration vid, be included with all developer packets to help out the chemists.
D-76: full strength or 1:1?
-
A
- Thread starter paulfish4570
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Nikkor 5cm f2 ltm
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 LACON Condensor set
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L 184 Lamphouse and Bulb Adjustment Mechanism
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
For Sale Durst Laborator L184 accessories; VADAP tilting Baseplate
- Started by jbrianfoto
-
Free Mini Radio triggers: Light pix lab Flash Q
- Started by RoboRepublic
Forum statistics
Seems the only people having trouble are chemists. I suggest an instructional DVD, with a short demonstration vid, be included with all developer packets to help out the chemists.
You do realize that only Kodak is using 1:1?
Excellent! Only Kodak needs to include the DVD for the confused chemists
Seriously, no ordinary person is confused by the 1:1 notation until some confused chemistry student says to them, "Gee, 1:1 sure doesn't mean 1+1 in my college chemistry lab. All the conventions from my lab must surely apply in the real world too?! This is all terribly confusing. If you aren't confused, you really should be!"
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent! Only Kodak needs to include the DVD for the confused chemists
Seriously, no ordinary person is confused by the 1:1 notation until some confused chemistry student says to them, "Gee, 1:1 sure doesn't mean 1+1 in my college chemistry lab. All the conventions from my lab must surely apply in the real world too?! This is all terribly confusing. If you aren't confused, you really should be!"
Ian
Seriously, indeed, there is little confusion with 1:1 vs 1+1, but when it comes to 1:3 vs 1+3 it becomes a different matter.
No, there is no confusion with 1:1 and, therefore, there is no confusion with 1:3. If you get one (which everyone does, save the aforesaid confused chemistry students), you surely get the other, no?
Ian
Ian
It's confusing to some. You need to leave it to the people who are confused to decide if it is confusing or not. You cannot decide that for them!
Can we also please include (a) plastic vs. SS tanks, and (b) pre-soak vs. no-presoak in this discussion? I think people are running out of steam on the "1:1 vs. 1+1" question. 
OK, OK, Ralph, I'll make some concessions
1. Some people are confused;
2. Although the ordinary man/woman in the street understands that 1:1 = 1+1 (and 1:3 = 1+3), the "+" is probably preferable because it doesn't confuse that handful of people who expect their lab conventions to have universal application outside the lab;
3. Threads like this confuse people who were not confused before, because it gives the confused people in point 2 above an opportunity to air their delusions as though they were perfectly reasonable!
Ian
Fully agree, however, we all to often make the assumption that what we prefer, believe or do is 'normal' and therefore also preferred, believed and done by others. Being involved wit adult education has taught me differently over the last 30 years.
Ha, this is funny. Maybe instead of a DVD, it should be a little comic book with pictures of the mixing method. 
MattKing
Moderator
A somewhat related question:
When you are discussing these numbers, how do you verbally express them?
When I see 1:3, I say "one to three", meaning one part stock to three parts diluting water.
When you are discussing these numbers, how do you verbally express them?
When I see 1:3, I say "one to three", meaning one part stock to three parts diluting water.
I do think that there is a huge potential for confusion.
1:3 = 1/3, or "one in three", not 1+3 (=1/4) or "one to three".
1:1 by that same understanding is undiluted.
"+" (addition) and ":" (division) are completely different operations.
1:3 = 1/3, or "one in three", not 1+3 (=1/4) or "one to three".
1:1 by that same understanding is undiluted.
"+" (addition) and ":" (division) are completely different operations.
1:3 one to three means 1 part Developer made up to (diluted to) 3 times the volume, same as 1+2. Regardless of what anyone says Kodak have gone against years of convention. It's more common in medicine & science where 1:100 or 1:1000 is I part made up to a total of 100 or 1000.
Other manufacturers are far clearer and some would say 1:10, 1:20. 1:30 adding the 1+9, 1+19 & 1+29 in brackets.
Ian
Kodak may have gone against years of chemlab/medlab/etc convention, but that is because "1:3=1+2" is not how the rest of the world (outside labs) understands ratios. This deviation of the original thread is about what Kodak means by 1:3, not what your average chemist means by 1:3. What Kodak means is perfectly clear from the front of any packet of developer.
Ian
Well,,, lets just be happy it's usually volume/volume and not gram/moles weight/volume and all the other iterations that kill chem students. Besides,,, one to three or one in three, you'll likely get by just fine as long as you've done your own ASA/Time/Temp tests and don't change up in the middle of the race.
Yes, it is.
MattKing
Moderator
Could part of this potential confusion be geographic? European vs. North American?
Could be, yes.
If i'd ask people in the street, as Ian David suggested, i'm sure they'll all say that 1:3 means 1/3, i.e. in a mix, one third part of the total is made up of the stuff that should be mixed in "1:3". I.e. one in three, 1+2.
":" is divison, not addition.
If i'd ask people in the street, as Ian David suggested, i'm sure they'll all say that 1:3 means 1/3, i.e. in a mix, one third part of the total is made up of the stuff that should be mixed in "1:3". I.e. one in three, 1+2.
":" is divison, not addition.
My understanding of ratios comes from the subject of raw mathematics, which is why I consider 1:3 to mean 1/4 to 3/4, as opposed to 1/3 to 2/3.
Due to what I learned in my U.S.A. public grade school, I read that 1:3 does not equate to the fraction 1/3. Ratios express simply that there are parts of something compared to equally-sized parts of another. One can use a ratio to learn information that one then uses to perform mathematical operations, but the ratio itself does not state that an operation is to be performed, as do 1/3 (divide) or 1+3 (add). It means one part in relation to three parts, parts being amounts that are the same. Knowing this fixed relationship, you can use addition to determine that there are four parts in all, or division (i.e. fractions) to determine what percentage of the total each part is, or multiplication to scale the ratio up to actual working volumes.
However, this is an old debate...and in the debate, it comes down to the fact that scientists in certain fields use 1:3 to mean that there are three total parts, while most of the rest of the population - the non scientists - use ratios in the way they were learned in mathematics class, not science class.
So, Kodak does it because that it what most public-school-educated people in the United States understand. The instructions are written for the average photographer, not for professional scientists.
I must say, that none of the methods of naming dilutions on any manufacturer's instructions cause any confusion for me...so I fail to see where the practical application of this argument will come into play in our photo work.
Due to what I learned in my U.S.A. public grade school, I read that 1:3 does not equate to the fraction 1/3. Ratios express simply that there are parts of something compared to equally-sized parts of another. One can use a ratio to learn information that one then uses to perform mathematical operations, but the ratio itself does not state that an operation is to be performed, as do 1/3 (divide) or 1+3 (add). It means one part in relation to three parts, parts being amounts that are the same. Knowing this fixed relationship, you can use addition to determine that there are four parts in all, or division (i.e. fractions) to determine what percentage of the total each part is, or multiplication to scale the ratio up to actual working volumes.
However, this is an old debate...and in the debate, it comes down to the fact that scientists in certain fields use 1:3 to mean that there are three total parts, while most of the rest of the population - the non scientists - use ratios in the way they were learned in mathematics class, not science class.
So, Kodak does it because that it what most public-school-educated people in the United States understand. The instructions are written for the average photographer, not for professional scientists.
I must say, that none of the methods of naming dilutions on any manufacturer's instructions cause any confusion for me...so I fail to see where the practical application of this argument will come into play in our photo work.
Yes, I just spoke to a Dutch mathematician (seriously!), who said that a Dutchman would understand 1:3 as 1/3. I concede (grudgingly
) that this may well be an even wider European thing...Ian
Will this bickering never end????
Yes. The part, compared to the whole.
1:3 is one in three. 1/3.
Yes, I just spoke to a Dutch mathematician (seriously!), who said that a Dutchman would understand 1:3 as 1/3. I concede (grudgingly
Not just European. It's correct, everywhere.
How do you interpret scales on maps? If it says 1:10,000, do you take it to mean that 1 inch on the map equals 10,001 inches on the ground? Or 10,000 inches?
So why do you think it would be different here?
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope. I know that you like to be right, but here you are not.
The colon works in different ways in different contexts: sometimes it is even just a punctuation mark!
I would say that you are currently speaking out of yours
If someone says that substances A, B and C must be mixed 3:4:2, you need to appreciate that this is a ratio but not a fraction. On the other hand, the scale on a map is understood as a representational fraction (even outside of the Netherlands), and can properly be treated as such. Mental flexibility is key to survival in the world! And, if in doubt, read the instructions provided with your colon.
Ian
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 38
- Format
- 35mm RF
It's not different, it's the same thing. 1 cm on the map to every 10,000 cm on the ground. Likewise, 1 mL of developer to every 3mL of water.
| 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:  |