.....then what is the maths for 1:1.
Last edited:
.....then what is the maths for 1:1.Look up what a Ratio means: A 1:10 ratio is a 10% dilution, 1:1000 a 0.1% dilution. 1 to 10 means take one part and water to dilute to 10 that's the ratio, the term "to" doesn't mean plus "+" it means the ratio also denoted as ":".
Kodak Ltd were always very clear, for instance: Take 1 part A, I part B, 1part C, and 7 parts water Kodak D1, that's 1+1+1+7 = 10 parts in total.
The problem is mathematics is plural, so it's maths, there's more than one number
Only Eastman Kodak incorrectly use the term 1:1 others use F.S. for full strength. Kodak incorrectly us the colon : instead of the plus + sign. Their inherent mistake in Chemical instructions wasn't there in their Research papers etc. This is what causes the confusion.
Ian
Or even if "ratio" has a common meaning, it may have different "typical" applications. For example, whether it refers to the ratio between a component and the whole, or the ratio of one component to another.I think, perhaps, we are getting into semantics, and different geographic usage--i.e., differences between US English and British English. I just looked up the definition, and it is clear that the term "ratio" has multiple definitions.
I think, perhaps, we are getting into semantics, and different geographic usage--i.e., differences between US English and British English. I just looked up the definition, and it is clear that the term "ratio" has multiple definitions.
Even more difficult math is 1+0.
I will ask again.Totally incorrect 1:10 is a ratio and made up by adding 1 part to 9 parts so 1+9, the fact that Eastman Kodak use the wrong term is irrelevant except for their products. Percetol the Ilford equivalent of Microdol-X uses the term 1+3, and Kodak Ltd (UK/Europe) always said 1 part plus 3 parts so 1+3, they never used the ratio.
Ian
Misuse over time can become standard usage, as we now have "proactive" now meaning, in common usage, to act before a reaction: thus, for every proaction there is an equal an opposite reaction (sic), whereas the original meaning of the prefix "pro" was "to act in place of" (i.e., pronoun)....
It's purely a misuse by Eastman Kodak Sales and Marketing using the Ratio symbol to mean addition that crept in a few years ago. Kodak research papers and Patents etc don't make this mistake.
Ian
...
I thought 1:3 was a ratio.?
For every
(1) of ABC
you need
(3) of XYZ
Is that not what 1:3 means.?
See, I told you there was an incessant compulsion in photography to complicate simple things, overlooking and perverting the obvious.Yes, it is a ratio. Yes, that's what it means. There should be no confusion. However, since this is photography, an incessant compulsion to complicate simple things results in continuous overlooking of and perversion of the obvious.
"One part stock to three parts water."
"One part stock plus three parts water."
Two unambiguous ways of saying the same thing. Pretty simple.
And you're wrong again. The question wasn't about 'science' or biology. It was about photographic developer dilution. Using conventions from other fields contributes nothing to an understanding of photographic nomenclature convention. It does, however, very effectively serve to confuse newcomers. Great work!And I'll say it again...
And you're wrong again. The question wasn't about 'science' or biology. It was about photographic developer dilution. Using conventions from other fields contributes nothing to an understanding of photographic nomenclature convention. It does, however, very effectively serve to confuse newcomers. Great work!
I will ask again.
If 1:10 means 1+9.......what does 1:1 mean.?
Irrelevant, because they mean two entirely different things....1:1 takes three key strokes; stock takes five key strokes
Not if someone misinterprets 1:1 as meaning undiluted stock and substantially overdevelops irreplaceable negatives as a result....All-in-all, it is about as important as how one spells aluminum.
Thank You.And you're wrong again. The question wasn't about 'science' or biology. It was about photographic developer dilution. Using conventions from other fields contributes nothing to an understanding of photographic nomenclature convention. It does, however, very effectively serve to confuse newcomers. Great work!
Exactly.isn't the assumption that one is mixing something with another thing?
how could 1:1 (1 part mixed with 1 part ) be confused for undiluted stock ?
wouldn't there be no dilutiion ratio for undiluted stock ? as in
" use straight stock solution, undiluted " ?
vaughn
i thought that was spelled boxite ?
Why would we when everyone but you understands what is meant. 1:1 is read one to one is is a proportion not a ratio. And BTW the negatives would print nicely on one lower grade of paper.Not if someone misinterprets 1:1 as meaning undiluted stock and substantially overdevelops irreplaceable negatives as a result.
Exactly.
With that logic... if you mix one ounce ABC with one ounce XYZ, it would say 1:2.
But if you use one ounce of ABC...All By Itself...with No Other Chemicals, the directions would say ....."Use ABC 1:1"
Need to fill up your car with gasoline.?......that will be a 1:1 ratio.
You are complaining to the wrong guy.......nope
if you mix one ounce of abc with one ounce of pyx it is 1:1 not 1:2
it would only be 1:2 if there were 2 oz of pyx ...
can you please post a link to something, or a bibliographic citation
( not a link to what someone writes in a web forum )
that suggests 1:1 means pure stock solution that is undilute ?
and 1:2 is one part mixed with 1 part ?
if you go to the sprint chemistry website
all their chemistry is mixed 1:9 ...
100cc mixed with 900 cc to give a total amount of 1L ( 1000cc )
according to whatyou have posted it goes against their instructions
and instructions listed on other photo chemsitry packaging that explicitly states
what the diltions are ..
You are complaining to the wrong guy.......
I am on your side.
No, you're wrong. Big time!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilution_ratio
or
http://www.ausetute.com.au/dfactor.html
or
https://www.hemocytometer.org/dilution-factor/
Too difficult to grasp?
P.S.: by the way my negatives turn out fine everytime. The key is consistency.
The quality of this forums has gone down the drain recently...
No, I was talking about what comes after applying a whole ton of electricity to bauxite in order to make beer cans. Important stuff!isn't the assumption that one is mixing something with another thing?
how could 1:1 (1 part mixed with 1 part ) be confused for undiluted stock ?
wouldn't there be no dilutiion ratio for undiluted stock ? as in
" use straight stock solution, undiluted " ?
vaughn
i thought that was spelled boxite ?
I guess English reading comprehension in the land of my ancestors isn't that great.No, you're wrong. Big time!...
Apparently for you, the fact that this thread is about conventional photographic developer dilution terminology, not Australian academic chemical practice or British biological chemistry practice, is too difficult to grasp....Too difficult to grasp?...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?