• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

How many ML of D-76 powder do I mix with how many ML of water.

Thanasis said:
At the risk of sounding cynical, I can't believe it's taken 8 pages of posts to arrive at this. This thread is going on my ignore list and it's going on with extreme prejudice.
Click to expand...

You may be cynical, but that post does not really address the original post with a proper answer. it may be a good thing to do, but it completely skirts the question.
 
The question has been asked and answered here on APUG many many times.

Do not use part of the powder from a powder kit.

In fact, IIRC, there was a series of posts at about the same time in another thread on the same subject. The thread died off several days ago. There are so many similar threads on this subject, my head is beginning to swim.

PE
 
Ian Grant said:
US weights and measures are just as bad, the tea-spoon method is also US. Thanks to the French we have the far easier Metric system, which is now International.

Ian
Click to expand...

Well guess what. The standard teaspoon is 5 ml. The tablespoon is 15. Probably because there are so many French chefs.
 
Well, guess what again? Appearantly the Tablespoon in Australia is 4 teaspoons. And the US teaspoon and the British and Australian teaspoon are not the same as well. Unless you have an FDA teaspoon, and then they are the same!

That's why I like milliliters and grams. cgs, baby!

Well, I guess that's been replace with MKS. But at least I can convert back and forth using only factors of 10.
 
The only ones I can buy are sets of 1/4, 1/2, 1 tsp and 1/2, 1 tbs labelled as well in ml. There are several brands available with different shapes but the same markings. If a doctor prescribes 1 tsp of a medicine for my great grand daughter, it is also specified as 1 tsp. I have lived in Webster Groves, MO, NYC, Morgantown, WV and Glenville WV. Never had to contend with any other country's customs or regulations. Sorry about that.
 
gainer said:
I have lived in Webster Groves, MO, NYC, Morgantown, WV and Glenville WV. Never had to contend with any other country's customs or regulations. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...


Patrick;

That deficit is part of the problem in presenting and promoting your methodology on a world-wide forum. Kirk has shown the inherent problem in using the English volumetric system of measurement (a la USA style for good measure (pun alert) ) rather than metric weight.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
The question has been asked and answered here on APUG many many times.

Do not use part of the powder from a powder kit.
Click to expand...

Precisely the point of my post. The OP is trying to do something that should not be done; whilst HC110 is an ideal developer for "one-shot" developing of one or two rolls. Simple answer.
 
eddym said:
Precisely the point of my post. The OP is trying to do something that should not be done; whilst HC110 is an ideal developer for "one-shot" developing of one or two rolls. Simple answer.
Click to expand...

Which is fair, but I don't wish to direct anyone to a specific product or method, just away from bad practice.

I agree with your suggestion.

PE
 

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed
 
Patrick;

Very nice, but as Kirk has pointed out, this only works with US measures, and is not understood in many other countries.

It can be further illustrated by the question "how many miles in a "Ri"" ?

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
It can be further illustrated by the question "how many miles in a "Ri"" ?
Click to expand...

Hey - let's be practical. The "li" is an ancient Chinese unit (3.704 li in 1 nautical mile). Who's going to be using that in their darkroom? ;^)

Anyway, ones that we may see in old photo books are the other funky units of liquid measure like the dram - there's a fluid one and a avoirdupois (weight) one and even a apothecaries one. it's funny, as you can still buy small bottle/vials that are labelled in drams. (For liquid, it's about 3.7 ml.)
 
Kirk;

I have a complete set of Apothecary graduates, the old cone shaped style. These used to be used years ago for photography as well. Kodak sold several types themselves. I have some of the old Kodak graduates too.

I agree that the disparity in all of this is the case in point.

BTW. The Ri is a Japanese measure and is not equal to the Chinese Li. You got ahead of the game. And this illustrates another point that the US gallon and the Imperial gallon are not the same. My dad used to say "A pint is a pound, the world around" but this is apparently not true.

PE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kirk Keyes said:
Hey - let's be practical.
Click to expand...

...
I think Mr Gainer seems to have a pretty practical approach to this.


Some or even many years ago, when i was in the same situation as the original poster,
i did exactly what he asks about. I used d-76 but not enough to mix up a full 5 liter can.
What i did was, measure the total amount of powder in pack and put it all back in a glass
jar with lid. Then for every film i developed i mixed up just the amount of developer to be
used that time.

Lots of concerns are raised about the chems in the can not being evenly distributed and
so on. That is easy to help out, mix the powder by yourself first of all.
As for the results, i say, good enough. Probably better results obtainable. For someone
with a perfectly tuned in process it might make a difference. For a poor student it worked
fine fine.

This was about 10 to 15 years ago. If the developer changed, such that it would not work
now i dont know.

I would not hesitate to try it again if the need arose.

Best regards,

-jan j
 

Doesn't a "wee dram" eventually equal a fifth. That was always my impression.

A friend and I were drilling holes in oil reservoir tanks for a hydraulic elevator factory. We had templates for common ones, but had to measure out the special orders, spec'd in inches and fractions from the side of the tanks. We were complaining (in 1977) about the slow US conversion to metric, which would have made this process less error prone. My foreman overheard us and told us we were way off base, so I challenged him to solving a simple addition problem, he in "english" units and we in metric. I gave him fractions of inches, inches, feet, yards, rods, and miles while we did mm, cm, decimeters, meters, and kilometers. The quantities were simple for both sets. You get 10 guesses which of us even finished the problem, 12 if you're guessing in "english" units. (...or was that 16?)

Lee
 
Last edited by a moderator:
janjohansson said:
This was about 10 to 15 years ago. If the developer changed, such that it would not work
now i dont know.

I would not hesitate to try it again if the need arose.
Click to expand...

That's a great anecdotal story. I'm glad you were satisfied with the results. When I was a poor student, I too thought about trying it myself.

But it still does not make it a desireable or recommended practice for several reasons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[QUOTES=Photo Engineer;697684]
"I have a complete set of Apothecary graduates, the
old cone shaped style. These used to be used years
ago for photography as well."

Likely still around. I've a Yankee cone 16oz/500ml.
From maybe Freestyle a few years ago. The cone
shape I believe is for greater accuracy with
small volumes.

"My dad used to say "A pint is a pound, the world
around" but this is apparently not true."

From the kitchen. A pint, the volume of
16 ounces of water. Dan
 
Dan;

Imperial measure is different and the use of Tsp and Tbsp as well as other measures obviate this statement to some extent. That was my point. But, otherwise, in the US, you are right!

Pe
 

The change from English or US standard units to MKG was easier in some fields than in others. It's easy enough to change from one to the other in our formulas, but not so easy in manufacture or repair of mechanical things. A hardware dealer must maintain a supply of both metric and US nuts and bolts even if US manufacturers instantly began using metric measurements because old, sometimes ancient, things must be repaired.

Here is the developer listed in the Air Corps manual of 1941 that is obviously D-76:

Water (about 125 F)----------------------96 ounces.
Metol------------------------------------106 grains.
Sodium Sulfite (des.)----------13 ounces, 110 grains.
Hydroquinone---------------------------- 290 grains.
Borax, granular---------------------------116 grains.
Water to make----------------------------- 1 gallon.

That would be a pain in the rectal region to convert to MKG, and who now measures things in ounced and grains nowadays?

Measuring spoons now would be hard to find in anything but MKG units in the US. Check it the next time you're in a store that sells kitchen utensils.

It's pretty much beside the point. If you have a sufficiently precise and accurate means of weighing, use it for your own peace of mind. I won't tell you to use the spoons unless I have pretty good evidence that particular formula will tolerate the probable error.

The dram is to be multiplied by however many minutes it means when you tell your significant other "I'll only be gone a little while."
 
Yes, grains, another archaic one.

I know, all you gun reloader people will say it's still alive and kicking, but for the rest of the world, it's dead.
 
gainer said:
If you have a sufficiently precise and accurate means of weighing, use it for your own peace of mind.
Click to expand...

But Pat, didn't say one needed to calibrate one's powders when starting out doing this? (Well, PE has stated that and demonstrated it as well.) And to do that, you need a "sufficiently precise and accurate means of weighing".

So why not just use your "sufficiently precise and accurate means of weighing" system and use that in the first place.
 
Yes, exactly Kirk. This has been my contention all along.

You need a good means of weighing to calibrate your voumetric measure, and ongoing work to keep it on track, so with all of this work, why not just weigh things in the first place rather than take a continuing detour that takes longer?

You said it very well, thanks.

PE
 

For some that is a big "if". As I said, for years I did NOT have anything better than a kitchen spring scale. The cheap kind. I could weigh no more than a pound. I could check the scale by weighing a volume of water, but when it came down to weighing less than an ounce of anything, spoonfulls were just as consistent. My favorite formula, which I did not copy from anyone, was 1/4 tsp Phenidone, 4 tsp hydroquinone and 4 tbs sodium sulfite in water to make a liter. It could be reused for at least 8 rolls of film without change of development time.

Has anyone on this forum actually done an analysis of sensitivity of CI to changes in the amounts of developing agents? Use the "Magic Square" type of experimental plan to get a "ring around" with minimum number of tests. Use simultaneous contact prints of all results and the effects of changes will be apparent. Until you have done such an analysis, you cannot judge whether or not the probable error in measuring by volume will cause a noticable difference in contrast index. Surely, the probable error of volumetric measurements is higher than that of a laboratory balance. That is not the proper question. The proper question is will the difference make a difference?
 
Patrick;

CI is just one factor. Grain and sharpness are two others that can change.

You simply don't understand that you are missing critical components of the image here.

PE
 
gainer said:
The change from English or US standard units to MKG was easier in some fields than in others. It's easy enough to change from one to the other in our formulas, but not so easy in manufacture or repair of mechanical things.
Click to expand...

I recall seeing a documentary on aircraft, in which the story of the WWII-era US B-29 and the similar Soviet Tupolev Tu-4 was told. The Tu-4 was a near-identical clone of the B-29, made by reverse-engineering three planes that crashed or made emergency landings in Soviet territory during WWII. The English/metric differences caused the Soviets problems in this process. According to the documentary I saw, they ended up alternating thicknesses of metal in plane, for instance; but Wikipedia claims they went with a slightly thicker metal, which gave the Tu-4 slightly reduced range compared to the B-29.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register