im tired of grams and would rather use a teaspoon

removed account4 · Sep 6, 2016

the title says it all.

i know it is unorthodox and will ruffle the chemists-feathers in the crowd
but i would rather use teaspoons than a gram scale.
i have a handful of formulas where they are
written out in teaspoons.
mainly i'll be making D72, classic cyanotype, old fashioned hypo formulas and photo emulsion ...

i know it is tricky because different chemicals weigh different amounts, is there a list somewhere ?
i'll probably spend most of my morning tomorrow with the scoop and a scale...
i like cheap plastic spoons but i'm thinking of getting a stainless collection of them all 1/8 - tablespoon ..

anybody have a list ?

john

pdeeh · Sep 6, 2016

John I'd imagine your best bet is just to spend an afternoon measuring out teaspoons of each chemical you use and then weighing them. A few of each and then average it out. Should be close enough for your personal work - I expect you'll stick to grams for client stuff.
The trouble with other people's lists would be you have no idea the size of their spoons (they might be using real spoons out of the cutlery drawer) or whether they are heaped or level etc etc.
So if you have a set of dedicated volume measure spoons, so much the better.

BrianShaw · Sep 6, 2016

Interesting concept. I've seen this discussed and dismissed before, either here or at the Large Format forum.

Baking (and other forms of cookery) go both ways and there are advocates for either method. This topic is hotly contested in those circles too.

I've never seen such a conversion table for photographic chemistry. Shouldn't be difficult to do if one uses reasonably scientific methods in generating the weight-volume data.

My suggestion would be to do multiple measures, say 7 - 10, and average that for each chemical or compound before settling in on a value.

BrianShaw · Sep 6, 2016

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00Bfbh

This isn't the discussion I was recalling, but similar in content.

Sim2 · Sep 6, 2016

I like this idea quite a lot, it is not something that I have considered despite using spoons to bake bread!
The spoons (at least in the uk) I use are a set of baking spoons, which if I am correct, are a consistent measure across brands of spoon, which where recipes are concerned gets away from 'fred' using coffee spoons and 'jim' using table spoons as their measuring devices.
One issue that initially pops to mind would be that although a spoon to weight might be reasonably accurate (within a tolerance) for fine powder ingredients it may be less consistent replicating a weight for ingredints that are either lumpy or could form lumps during storage - one might only be able to fit one sugar cube into a measuring spoon but it wouldn't equate to an equivalent of sugar granules that fill the spoon. This could be got around as a sugar cube is fairly consistent cube to cube but a chem that might go 'cubey' in storage could be unlikely to go into consistent 'cubes' or clumps - leading to variations in equivalent weight. (Might not have expressed this particularly well!).
Interesting concept and could be valid with the proviso of random formed clumps being able to be broken up into a powder or granular form perhaps?
Going to keep an eye on how this develops (excuse the groan inducing pun).

pdeeh · Sep 6, 2016

Sim2 said:
'fred' using coffee spoons and 'jim' using table spoons

yeah, Fred's photographs are awful. Jim's aren't too bad though

removed account4 · Sep 6, 2016

thanks for the suggestions and thoughts !

sim2, believe it or not a coffee scoop is 2 tablespoons

i'l have to start measuring tnis morning !
john

bsdunek · Sep 6, 2016

As Sim2 said, just make sure the materials are flowing so you get real volumes to weight ratios. That is common in reloading cartridges. I use both powder scoops (like measuring spoons) and a powder scale. Can go back and forth. One thing, the powder scoops are deep and small in diameter. This makes them more accurate than a shallow measuring spoon. Just have to be consistent either way.

David Lyga · Sep 6, 2016

Rather than use teaspoons (5mL) or tablespoons (15mL), use a calibrated cylinder (available, with medicine dropper, in the baby section of most pharmacies). - David Lyga

Jim Jones · Sep 6, 2016

Bruce and David have provided the best replies to the original question, once one has determined the conversion factor for each chemical.

Alan Johnson · Sep 6, 2016

See p333 here, its not clear if these are level or heaped teaspoons.IMO it is preferable to use a scale.
http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Focal-Press-The-Darkroom-Cookbook.pdf

darkroommike · Sep 6, 2016

The only problem with your approach is that chemicals can settle and that your next batch may be less "fluffy" than your current batch so you break out the scale and measure it all again. For things like fixers when the quantities are large, the measuring errors are probably proportionately smaller. For small amounts you could mix percentage solutions and use a graduated cylinder. Even Vestal (all hail Vestal!) used a volumetric formula for his paper fixer.

removed account4 · Sep 6, 2016

Alan Johnson said:
See p333 here, its not clear if these are level or heaped teaspoons.IMO it is preferable to use a scale.
http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Focal-Press-The-Darkroom-Cookbook.pdf

hi alan

thanks for that link !

darkroommike said:
The only problem with your approach is that chemicals can settle and that your next batch may be less "fluffy" than your current batch so you break out the scale and measure it all again. For things like fixers when the quantities are large, the measuring errors are probably proportionately smaller. For small amounts you could mix percentage solutions and use a graduated cylinder. Even Vestal (all hail Vestal!) used a volumetric formula for his paper fixer.

i know what you mean and to be honest, i am not exactly sure what i will end up doing.
i am thinking of converting a pickle jar for a storage container that i will keep 1gallon's worth of
D72 chemistry in and shake it up constantly to get it all mixed and figure out how many "scoops"
of whatever i am going to use / volume of water will work out. so i don't have to have it mixed all the time
and i can use it as i need it in other formulas that i use a shake or pinch of dektol/d72 in.
im not really a stickler, and for years i have mixed caffenol by eye ball measuring it ( much ot the disappointment
of the people who use exact/precise gram measurements ) and never had a problem. i have a teaspoon
/ cup formula for sodium thiosulfate and it seems to work whenever i use it, so at this point it might just be
my classic cyanotype formula which i thiink i can experiment with to see what might work and expose the best.
i don't use armloads of chemistry or developers or toners. i have settled into just a couple ..
and i am tired of my little scale. im related to chemists who measure flour by the gram, i use scoops
i figure its close enough...

dpurdy · Sep 6, 2016

I converted my weights to volumes for paper developer long ago but that isn't very critical as a variable. I still get the scales out for film developers. I just would rather not make myself a variable for film processing because I think I would be likely to pour the developer out any time I got a surprise.
Dennis

Gerald C Koch · Sep 6, 2016

Whether using volumes vs weighing woks consistently depends on the physical state of the substance. I have seen samples of one developing agent (pyrogallol) that consisted of fluffy crystals and another that was of irregular chunks. Obviously both samples are not going to have the same density. In order for a volumetric system to work you must first determine the density of each chemical. In other works a tsp of metol weighs X grams. This process MUST be repeated each time you get a new supply of a chemical. While this system is useful for most photographic solutions I would not use it for film developers.

frank · Sep 6, 2016

Weighing is more precise due to different densities of chemicals. In most cases the volume method is close enough though.

High end baking, as in a French cooking/baking schools, is by weight. Home baking typically is by volume.

juan · Sep 6, 2016

Come on, John, have courage. To make TF-2 fixer I use cups to measure the sodium thiosulfate, grams for the sodium metaborate and sodium sulfite, and gallons for water. Ole Tudjen said he did something similar. Ha.
But for developers, I seem to use grams and milliliters.
If you don't know, our late friend Patrick Gainer wrote a lot about this method.
Juan

Vaughn · Sep 6, 2016

frank said:
...Home baking typically is by volume.

All seriousness aside, raising triplet boys, my cooking was definitely in volume.

With some seriousness aside, I use tablespoons for some of my alt.chemicals (clearing baths for platinum, for example. Close enough!

Bill Burk · Sep 6, 2016

Haven't you got any scruples?

mdarnton · Sep 6, 2016

There was an article about this in Camera35 around 1972 or so. I took the formulas in the article, and checked them on a gram scale. They were close to good, and really all that matters is consistency, not accuracy, so for a few decades I used this method to mix my D76 and D72. Then last year I bought a cheap gram scale on Ebay, and checked my measures. They were WAY off. Some of my chemicals dated from the 80s at least, and what I think happened is that they had packed down through all my travels. Hydroquinone, the fluffiest, was the worst.

Anyway, that hadn't mattered much because over they years I'd changed my times to compensate.Now I use a scale--they only cost $15 or so.

Vaughn · Sep 6, 2016

Bill Burk said:
Haven't you got any scruples?

How many scruples per teaspoon? Perhaps a 1/8 teaspoon would be better for measuring ones scruples

Moopheus · Sep 6, 2016

frank said:
High end baking, as in a French cooking/baking schools, is by weight. Home baking typically is by volume.

This is beginning to change, albeit slowly, as decent cheap digital scales for the kitchen have become widely available, and cookbook authors are becoming more insistent about including weight measures in their books. I started using a scale c. 2005 and wouldn't go back to volume-only measure. But then, I buy vanilla bean by the pound and chocolate in 5-kilo lots, so I don't really want to mess around.

For my chemistry, though, I like the pre-measured kits from the Formulary.

removed account4 · Sep 6, 2016

Vaughn said:
How many scruples per teaspoon? Perhaps a 1/8 teaspoon would be better for measuring ones scruples

Helinophoto · Sep 6, 2016

....and this is how failed Caffenol started, earning it's bad rep for not working properly (or at all).

It's simple; You cannot, cannot measure out solids using amount, you have to weigh it, the density and your "topping" will differ from each "teaspoon".
Baking, sure, go ahead.

For making photo-chemicals? Nope.

The metric-scale is not only easy, it's simple.
1000 milligram is 1 gram
1000 grams is 1 kg
1000 kg is one ton.

100 milliliters is 1 deciliter
1000 milliliters is 1 liter
-> 10 deciliters is 1 liter

Stick with it, the rest of the world (minus Liberia and Myanmar) is waiting, for you to drop your cup of foot-pound per square inch silliness

removed account4 · Sep 6, 2016

Helinophoto said:
....and this is how failed Caffenol started, earning it's bad rep for not working properly (or at all).

hi Helinophoto:

i have NEVER measured any of my caffenol ingredients** , and i have been using it without
any failures for 10 years for film and paper. FWIR, the reason for caffenol not working is people use the WRONG ingredients.
( i can't speak about the recipes that have salt or potassium bromide or anything else in there, i am just talking about
basic caffenol c ( coffee, water, washing soda and vit c )... )

** unless i was selling them as a kit to someone then i them scale out
( whatever the basic one is called ... )

im tired of grams and would rather use a teaspoon

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency