Sanity Check Please . . . regarding Developer Ratios

[CMoore]

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

.....then what is the maths for 1:1.

 

[Billy Axeman]

Even more difficult math is 1+0.

 

[voceumana]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

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.
Ian Grant's "normal" is a ratio between a component (stock solution) and the whole (total volume).
Kodak typically reports the ratio as being between a component (stock solution) and the other component - (the water used to dilute).

 

[Ian Grant]

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.

It's not an issue of International English or US use of English, a Ratio has no definition in any Dictionary as an additive term, it's two main definitions are as a "Comparative" term ie the ratio of Boys compared to girls in say a school is 2:1, or in our case the "Relative Magnitude" of volume of two quantities so 1:10 the final volume is 10x greater than the 1 we start with.

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

 

[removed account4]

Even more difficult math is 1+0.

that's not difficult at all, there are 2 answers .. one of them is 420
the other on3 is full strength.

 

[CMoore]

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

I will ask again.
If 1:10 means 1+9.......what does 1:1 mean.?

 

[voceumana]

...

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

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).

Kodak's usage for much of the last century has, I think, made it become a standard definition. That's one of the benefits of being the biggest. I suppose Kodak could have state it as "1:1:2 stock:water:total". We don't have to like what is happening as our language changes, but, in the end, we cannot stop it.

And, of course, scientific usage is not always the same as practical and engineering usage. For example, scientifically current flows from negative to positive, but in the engineering world, current flows from positive to negative.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...
I thought 1:3 was a ratio.?
For every
(1) of ABC
you need
(3) of XYZ
Is that not what 1:3 means.?

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.

See, I told you there was an incessant compulsion in photography to complicate simple things, overlooking and perverting the obvious. Perhaps this will help:

http://www.math.com/school/subject1/lessons/S1U2L1DP.html​

You're welcome, Chip. One of the most difficult things in life is figuring out who to believe / listen to.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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!

 

[Billy Axeman]

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!

+1
I wonder what his results are when he is developing films this way.

 

[Vaughn]

I think part of the issue is that we are often talking about two different things...the mixing ratio and the resulting ratio once mixed.

If I make HC-110 Dil.B, I mix it at 1:31...one part sryup to 31 parts water. I have created with a solution that is 1:32...one part syrup in a total of 32 parts.

All-in-all, it is about as important as how one spells aluminum.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I will ask again.
If 1:10 means 1+9.......what does 1:1 mean.?

1:1 takes three key strokes; stock takes five key strokes

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...1:1 takes three key strokes; stock takes five key strokes

Irrelevant, because they mean two entirely different things.

Aardvark takes eight key strokes; triskaidekaphobia takes 17 key strokes. So what?

It's a ratio, people, parts of stock to parts of water. If no developer dilution, photographers say "undiluted" or "stock." Deal with it.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...All-in-all, it is about as important as how one spells aluminum.

Not if someone misinterprets 1:1 as meaning undiluted stock and substantially overdevelops irreplaceable negatives as a result.

 

[CMoore]

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!

Thank You.

You want a glass of water.?
Sure, no problem. I will mix that 1:1 and hand it to you in a beaker.

 

[removed account4]

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 ?

 

[CMoore]

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 ?

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.

 

[darkroommike]

Not if someone misinterprets 1:1 as meaning undiluted stock and substantially overdevelops irreplaceable negatives as a result.

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

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 ..

 

[CMoore]

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.

 

[removed account4]

You are complaining to the wrong guy.......
I am on your side.

LOL thanks !
i just saw my requote and
thought you were commenting further
on my fuzzy logic

 

[Sirius Glass]

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, not too hard to grasp. However it is incorrect in this case. Just plain wrong. 1:200 is 1 to 200 and is a ratio, not a dilution. Therein lies the confusion.

 

[Vaughn]

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 ?

No, I was talking about what comes after applying a whole ton of electricity to bauxite in order to make beer cans. Important stuff!

Straight Dektol is mixed 1:0

But I agree. Kodak's use of mixing ratios allow people to make easy changes. HC-110 Dil.B is mixed 1:31. Need more or less total solution? Easy... 2:62, 10:310, etc.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

No, you're wrong. Big time!...

I guess English reading comprehension in the land of my ancestors isn't that great.

...Too difficult to grasp?...

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.

Chip seems to have figured out who wants to be correct for the sake of winning and who can provide useful information relevant to preparing dilute photographic developer solutions according to manufacturer documentation. That's the only thing that matters. Just to cite one relevant example, look at page six of this publication

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf​

and knock yourself out trying to explain how Kodak could intend anything other than one part of XTOL stock solution to one part water under the "Small Tank, 1:1 Developer" heading. Especially when the heading right next to it reads "Small Tank, Full Strength Developer."

If readers of this thread face reality and learn, the forum will have continued to be a valuable photographic reference source for them. For those who refuse to face reality, it will not be useful. Good luck to those blinded by stubbornness.