Teaspoon measuring

[BradS]

Brad;

Now, tell me, what would you say in my place?

PE

PE, If I were you I might say and do as you have. I think your responses here have been entirely reasonable (if slightly biased) given your background and perspective.

I'll say this: I highly value your contributions here and I also value those of Mr. Gainer and several others. I actually seek out posts from several people in this community and filter out much of the rest.

The "buy a scale" comments aside, this has been a pretty good discussion.


The Potassium Bromide example you supplied makes a good point and again, I like your advice, "If you can accept that much variation, go for it". I probably would not in this specific case, given the that the effect would probably be quite significant. others have supplied counter examples; Sodium hydroxide (hygroscopic) , and sodium sulfite(does it really mater if I have 90grams or 110 grams instead of 100?) being two. I think in each case, one needs to ask: Does it really matter? is there a significant photographic effect?

It depends from case to case of course.

In general, I think people mis these two questions too often. People, especially in the LF community, tend to get, or are very pedantic. I think there tends to be way too much emphasis placed upon "the best", "the most accurate", "the sharpest", "the highest resolution", etc...as if nothing but the absolute very best could ever be acceptable.

I look back on all those photos my mom took in the 1950's and 1960's with a simple Kodak Brownie Hawkeye. One shutter speed, one aperture, and a simple bakelite box with a cheap, glass triplet. She processed in in the kitchen and somehow managed to make priceless prints in the bathroom...she measured out her chems with teaspoons and tablespoons and mixed them up in Minnesota tap water...and did all that with little more than a college degree in English (she was a news paper journalist). Makes me laugh (and cry) when people say I need a digital spot meter and aspherical, extra low dispersion glass to shoot a LF camera....and I think of how much future generations might miss because they (we?) focus obsessively on pedantic extremes that probably don't matter too much. Imagine giving up on large format because you couldn't do the zone system? Tragic - no? Same goes for not processing your own film for want of an electronic balance. What's wrong with two teaspoons of Metol and four tablespoons of sodium sulfite in a liter of water? It works - every time, and if you cannot get a printable negative from it...well, it's certainly not because you measured with teaspoons.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Brad;

Thanks for a very reasoned answer. I appreciate the thought that went into it. It taught me a lot as well.

PE

 

[BradS]

Brad;

Thanks for a very reasoned answer. I appreciate the thought that went into it. It taught me a lot as well.

PE

...and thank you sir, for all your contributions to this community.

 

[jim appleyard]

Nope, he moved to Photo Net.

However, Jim, having now chimed in...

What would you do if you were me?

I'm interested.

PE

Perhaps I should have put a "" after my post.

I would do as you have done, give the best information possible. I respect everyone here and their opinions. However, I do like to pull some legs from time to time.

Like you, I say use what works for you.

 

[sanking]

Well, Sandy, you make stock solutions of your Pyrocat series and from there on it is volumetric measurements to make the working solution. You see the virtues of both. There are some chemicals that are best made into stock solutions.

Sure, I have nothing against volumetric measurements when precision is not needed. That works fine for me with many solutions, like fixer and clearing agents, and it should work fine with many paper developers. That won't work with film developers that require small quantities of a certain chemical, like phenidone, potassium bromide, benzotriazole, etc. And if you make stock solutions of these chemicals, which I do for testing purposes, you still need a decent scale to measure.

I just don't see any point to this type of measuring given the small expense of a decent scale. But if someone else wants to work that way, who am I to criticize. I merely pointed a source to a decent electronic scale for about $30 that I would recommend over spoon measurement. I am not making an artistic or philosophical statement, just a practical comment.

Sandy King

 

[sun of sand]

Well, then we know why products sometimes are a real nightmare. I have a friend who is an engineer and sometimes I will make something out of wood per his design.

If I understand what you just said, for example, the engineer request from me a wood block, 12 inches by 12 inches by 12 inches, and I delivered a woodl block 11.5 inches by 12.5 inches by 11.90 inches, its OK?

As they say, size matters.

I could not build a house or a cabinet or a clock!

But you could build an airplane? There must be something being lost in the translation or I am never going to fly again.

I certainly am not trying to insult you but it just seems screwy to me.

Ha, but then again, I am not an engineer.

sandpaper and caulk.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Remember what John Heywood wrote way back in 1546:

"A man maie well bring a horse to the water, But he can not make him drinke without he will."

Keep showing us to the water PE. Some of us are thirsty.

I am an aerospace engineer; I am hardware/software systems engineer; I am a safety expert for NASA and the FAA; I have written books of nuclear safety for the NRC; I am not a photo/film engineer.

I have gone to the trouble to buy a scale to weight 200g with 0.1 gram of accuracy and a 1k scale to weight to 0.2 grams of accuracy. I am here to learn how to process film and prints correctly, accurately, and consistantly.

I am not here to read the vomiting of a self proclaimed expert from outside the photographic field pontificate on the advantages of mixing chemicals in a toilet bowl using questional and inconsistant methods on the cheap!

Am I being direct enough to get through?

Steve

 

[fotch]

I am an aerospace engineer; I am hardware/software systems engineer; I am a safety expert for NASA and the FAA; I have written books of nuclear safety for the NRC; I am not a photo/film engineer.

I have gone to the trouble to buy a scale to weight 200g with 0.1 gram of accuracy and a 1k scale to weight to 0.2 grams of accuracy. I am here to learn how to process film and prints correctly, accurately, and consistantly.

I am not here to read the vomiting of a self proclaimed expert from outside the photographic field pontificate on the advantages of mixing chemicals in a toilet bowl using questional and inconsistant methods on the cheap!

Am I being direct enough to get through?

Steve

Yes.

 

[gainer]

I am an aerospace engineer; I am hardware/software systems engineer; I am a safety expert for NASA and the FAA; I have written books of nuclear safety for the NRC; I am not a photo/film engineer.

-----
I am not here to read the vomiting of a self proclaimed expert from outside the photographic field pontificate on the advantages of mixing chemicals in a toilet bowl using questional and inconsistant methods on the cheap!

Am I being direct enough to get through?

Steve

And who among us did that? You're being direct enough to be obnoxious, but not direct enough to say whom you are railing about.

 

[Rick A]

Brad;

You are right.....

Of course, if we don't pass things on correctly to the following generations, they are doomed to doing it incorrectly and this level of accuracy will slowly degenerat. So, what would you do if you were me? Would you teach the wrong things? Give inaccurate formulas? I am trying to teach, and others seem to not care. This is a tough position to be in for me. Especially when Patrick says that "since 1973 the solution has given me the same activity" when in fact, he may be using the same batch of chemicals or he may not have made exact side-by-side comparisons. IDK.

If you use the same ingredients from the same bottle with the same crystal habit, this method will work, but if you change batches or crystal size or habit, then the volumetric measures can be off by 20%.

Now, tell me, what would you say in my place?

PE

thank you for trying to teach all of us to be correct, and passing it on correctly. Our society wants(demands) shortcuts--something some of us are NOT willing to do.
Rick

 

[gainer]

Sure, I have nothing against volumetric measurements when precision is not needed. That works fine for me with many solutions, like fixer and clearing agents, and it should work fine with many paper developers. That won't work with film developers that require small quantities of a certain chemical, like phenidone, potassium bromide, benzotriazole, etc. And if you make stock solutions of these chemicals, which I do for testing purposes, you still need a decent scale to measure.

I just don't see any point to this type of measuring given the small expense of a decent scale. But if someone else wants to work that way, who am I to criticize. I merely pointed a source to a decent electronic scale for about $30 that I would recommend over spoon measurement. I am not making an artistic or philosophical statement, just a practical comment.

Sandy King

I wasn't trying to convert you to using volume to measure everything. I do not do that myself. I was pointing out that there are times when volume is the best way for one reason or another. Take borax for example. It is difficult to find a container of borax that is entirely decahydrate. There is not much point in weighing 2 grams of borax to the 0.1 gram if you cannot specify with certainty its state of hydration. You can make a saturated solution of borax without weighing anything. If you store that solution at a temperature higher that that at which it was made, you will know the amount of borax per unit volume.

The stock solution of a Pyrocat series developer contains 50 to 200 times more of its ingredients than the working solution you want to use. If you wanted to weigh the ingredients to make a liter of working solution to the same consistent precision you need, your scale or balance would indeed have to be somethng special. We all should agree that volumetric measurement of a standard solution is a standard laboratory method. Most of the chemicals we use in developers are amenable to storage in standard solutions if we admit some of the organic solvents.

There are some children in some parts of the world who have been able to experience the joy of making photographic images by using measuring spoons and simple formulae. That is reason enough for me to feel happy with what I have done.

 

[ronlamarsh]

Thanks

classic....the scientist vs the engineers.

For whatever it is worth any engineer worth his salt will immediately point out that a product or process that is not robust against minor variations is worthless...or simply put, un-economic, not feasible.

and... sheesh! guys, the OP asked a simple question....and all but one jumped on him for measuring his chems with a teaspoon. Nice. What a nice bunch of helpful folks....:rolleyes:

For the OP, I looked up the density of Ammonium cloride and found it to be, 1.5274 g/ml . I figure a standard teaspoon is 5ml so, I get 7.6 grams per teaspoon. In a similar fashion, I get 8.5 grams per teaspoon for sodium citrate.

Thank you very much, I was going to unload in my own defense but decided it wouldn't do much good but again thanks for the non-judgemental information.

 

[ronlamarsh]

The OP

After reading all this, the OP has gone digital.

I niether went digital nor moved to photo net I was simply trying to find an answer to my question and availing myself of as many sources as possible. I am sorry I have seemed to have caused a great debate as that was not my intention. For what its worth I have used D-23 made with teaspoon measuring and have never experienced a problem. I have had sticky shutters and fogged film etc, etc, etc,.

 

[BradS]

I niether went digital nor moved to photo net I was simply trying to find an answer to my question and availing myself of as many sources as possible. I am sorry I have seemed to have caused a great debate as that was not my intention. For what its worth I have used D-23 made with teaspoon measuring and have never experienced a problem. I have had sticky shutters and fogged film etc, etc, etc,.

Hopefully, you found the info you're lookign for (see last sentence of post #9).

Brad.

 

[ronlamarsh]

Hopefully, you found the info you're lookign for (see last sentence of post #9).

Brad.

Actually I did find it in post 9 just didn't realize it would cause such a firestorm!

 

[fotch]

More than you wanted to know.

 

[nworth]

I agree with Bruce. Why measure with a teaspoon when the cost of accurate scales is so inexpensive.

Have a look here, for example. http://www.balances.com/

Sandy King

The reason is convenience. PE made the important point - how much inaccuracy can you stand? It takes some time and effort to accurately weigh each ingredient. Usually, it is absolutely necessary. But when the recipe can stand the inaccuracy, volumetric measurement is easier and faster. I use it for fixers, which are quite uncritical. I usually prepare a bunch of small bottles of a sulfite-bisulfite mix ahead of time and then dump one into a thiosulfate solution to make up a batch of fix. The teaspoon method works fine for this. Weston used it for amidol print developer. Since amidol has a very short working life, he might prepare several batches in a single printing session. Amidol pretty much just blasts away, and since he was working by inspection with prints, fairly gross inaccuracies could be tolerated. I wouldn't dare do that with most developers, especially film developers, where consistency is important.

Wow! This certainly has turned ito a fight!

 

[sanking]

The reason is convenience. PE made the important point - how much inaccuracy can you stand? It takes some time and effort to accurately weigh each ingredient. Usually, it is absolutely necessary. But when the recipe can stand the inaccuracy, volumetric measurement is easier and faster.

Wow! This certainly has turned ito a fight!

Well, if you want to work that way here is a neat little on-line converter.

http://www.gourmetsleuth.com/gram_calc.htm

Sandy King

 

[gainer]

This is the problem with those not knowing science or the scientific method.


PE

You bring up an interesting subject. What is the Scientific Method? I was taught that one starts with a hypothesis and a set of axioms and attempts by experiment and/or logic to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Either outcome adds to general knowledge. Thus far, the argument has been predominantly logical, which is not always perfect. Bear in mind that it has been shown that any system of axioms at least as rich as arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent or both. What would you fellow APUGers like to take as a beginning hypothesis in our searcg for universal truth?

 

[jim appleyard]

Actually I did find it in post 9 just didn't realize it would cause such a firestorm!

Not your fault. We just ramble on too much.

 

[Photo Engineer]

classic....the scientist vs the engineers.

For whatever it is worth any engineer worth his salt will immediately point out that a product or process that is not robust against minor variations is worthless...or simply put, un-economic, not feasible.

and... sheesh! guys, the OP asked a simple question....and all but one jumped on him for measuring his chems with a teaspoon. Nice. What a nice bunch of helpful folks....:rolleyes:

For the OP, I looked up the density of Ammonium cloride and found it to be, 1.5274 g/ml . I figure a standard teaspoon is 5ml so, I get 7.6 grams per teaspoon. In a similar fashion, I get 8.5 grams per teaspoon for sodium citrate.

I would have to ask "What crystal form are you using for these densities? Is it the pure crystal or the ground powder?".

And here we go again!

PE

 

[gainer]

I would have to ask "What crystal form are you using for these densities? Is it the pure crystal or the ground powder?".

And here we go again!

PE

If it is that critical, the OP will find out soon enough by experimental test of the hypothesis "This amount should work."

 

[eclarke]

After all this, what if the prints are poorly seen, lit flatly and are boring subject matter??..Evan Clarke

 

[Sirius Glass]

Actually I did find it in post 9 just didn't realize it would cause such a firestorm!

You did not cause the firestorm. There are those here that seem to have a "god given right" to spread the word that accuracy is not important and anything goes. Unless supplied with the appropriate caevats, people who come to this site will be mislead and then with bad results will leave photography.

Please feel free to ask all the questions you want.

Steve

 

[Photo Engineer]

If it is that critical, the OP will find out soon enough by experimental test of the hypothesis "This amount should work."

And by weight it would work the first time!

PE