Since we have traversed the Alpha to Omega, I again reminde Patrick that a few posts back he effectively repudiated his own method by saying that if it didn't work the first time, keep going, refining the measure until it does. I guess he wants to ignore that like poison.
I was amused.
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.
Ron,
Did everything you mixed with a scale during your career work as you expected and hoped the first time you tried it in practice?
Sandy
Since we have traversed the Alpha to Omega, I again reminde Patrick that a few posts back he effectively repudiated his own method by saying that if it didn't work the first time, keep going, refining the measure until it does. I guess he wants to ignore that like poison.
I was amused.
PE
Patrick;
Your post indicated that a certain amount of trial and error might be in order to get a published formula to work. Re-read your own post please. I don't argue over your article or the fact that some simple formulas might work. I am saying that for serious work you should use weights. Those children you cite could use caffeinol to get negatives for all that matters. The point is that serious work deserves serious effort.
So, reread what you posted yesterday or the day before and see what that implies.
Also, see my formula above in which 0.60 grams of NaCl is required along with 2.90 grams of NaBr. If these are off by a tiny fraction in this formula, the results are so far off that the user may give up in disgust! Too low and they are foggy with what appears to be solarization and too high and no or poor image. This is tenths of a gram or hundredths of a gram!
PE
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
I was not aiming at you. I have never had a problem with you or your opinions.
I was aiming at people to pontificate about how much one can screw up the chemistry and still get results, even though the results may not be consistent and then pass it off as The Gospel of Photography.
Steve
I apologize. I should have listened to my better instincts and not posted my rant. After I posted, I began to think that it was likely just a misunderstanding. Sigh... the biggest problems with email / thread posts is the lack of visual cues. This kind of misunderstanding happens a lot less in person -- especially among engineers. Oh, wait. Never mind.
Now here is a contradiction. I mentioned before that most formulas you see here or elsewhere, especially archaic ones, give you no indication of how to determine developing time other than a general approximation. I will not be able to tell from practical use whether or not I got the measurement exactly right. If I got it wrong this time by accident, but was able to determine a suitable development time for my requirements, It may not work the next time unless I make the same measurement error.I'm really on your side. If you don't absolutely know that a quantity is not critical (and you almost never do), measure it accurately. The teaspoon method may give you something that works, but it will probably not work the same the next time. The sulfite content of fixers is known to be pretty non-critical for routine uses, so I can get away with that. Weston had a lot of experience and good marketing to help him, even if the formulas he used could stand a lot of variation. (Note - I weigh my amidol developer ingredients.)
It amuses me to know that I could come up with a teaspoon formula that is quite good and reproducible to within acceptable accuracy, but you would ridicule me for publishing it that way.
Now here is a contradiction. I mentioned before that most formulas you see here or elsewhere, especially archaic ones, give you no indication of how to determine developing time other than a general approximation. I will not be able to tell from practical use whether or not I got the measurement exactly right. If I got it wrong this time by accident, but was able to determine a suitable development time for my requirements, It may not work the next time unless I make the same measurement error.
It amuses me to know that I could come up with a teaspoon formula that is quite good and reproducible to within acceptable accuracy, but you would ridicule me for publishing it that way. However, I could weigh the teaspoon amounts to the tenth of a gram, publish those numbers, and you would take them to be Gospel.
The comment that implied that I came from outside the world of photography is not valid. I have been developing and printing B&W photos since puberty. While at NACA, I was assigned to do photography required for a particular research project because it required equipment and expertise that our official Phot Lab did not have. After 1967 I was also first chair oboist of both the Norfolk Symphony and the Peninsula Symphony, and took the opportunity to take photos of noted guest artists during dress rehearsals. When management saw what I was doing, they tried to hire someone to do it in my place. He was a complete jerk. The next contract between orchestra and management included a proviso that noone could photograph the orchestra but Patrick Gainer.
The problem I have, and it may only apply to myself, is that I don't trust all spoons to be exactly the same. Then there is the problem with, is it heaping, level, almost? I am probably to stupid to feel confident that I am doing it right. Sorry.
Thank you
There is a simple dip test to determine the approximate development time in any developer. This can be used to refine your results down to the best practical value for any developer.
PE
I get sets of measuring spoons at the supermarket that have the volume in cc's on each handle. In my article, I showed how to use the handle of one spoon to level the contents of another. I would not specify any but level measures. The least accurate things to measure with spoons are liquids, due to the meniscus which varies with viscosity, which varies with temperature and the phase of the moon.For small amounts of liquid, those oral dosing syringes that look like hypodermic syringes are good.
Yes, April 1973. I think I said 1974 earlier, but I looked it up on my .jpg copy.Makes sense, why did I not think of that. I guess that even if different sets are slightly different, it won't matter because you are going to use the same set over and over again. The article is the missing magazine issue?
Yes, April 1973. I think I said 1974 earlier, but I looked it up on my .jpg copy.
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?