Teaspoon measuring

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[sanking]

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

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

 

[neelin]

This is a great thread...would that be taken with a teaspoon, or exactly a grain of salt (is that one crystal, or a weight grain)

At the cinema the Grumpy movie with Walter Matthau & Jack Lemmon costs about $9. to see. Are photographic results playing Ann-Margret?

robert

 

[2F/2F]

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.

Amen.

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

Not if I had a preexisting formula in front of me, which is what is implied in this post and referenced back to previous posts.

But, to answer specifically, variants of formulas generally did what I predicted based upon the previous results. If a new formula did not, I could quickly predict the next stage rather accurately but only based on weight measure of solids.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

An actual formula as written!

This is an obsolete formula that I had in my notes, but it is as it was actually written for use within Kodak at that time.

Water 800 ml
Antical #3 2.75g
Na2SO3 1.60g
NaBr 2.9g
NaCl 0.60g
Benzyl Alcohol 13.5 ml
Hydroxyl Amine Sulfate 3.40g
D2W (CD-3) 4.3g
H3BO3 20.4 g variant (K2CO3 - 30 g/L)
KOH 20 g
Water to 1L pH 10.1 at 75 deg F.

As you can see, there are zeros used after the values, and numbers are taken to 2 decimals in some cases. I have some to 3 decimals.

I hope this helps you understand that what we see may already be rounded off, so the teaspoons do more rounding. This also goes to the thread on which formula is right.

PE

 

[gainer]

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

It is plain to me that you have not the slightest idea what my "method" is. In your pretending to know it, you are doing me a great disservice. Unfortunately, I cannot direct you to the article I wrote on this subject. All I have left of it is a photocopy. If someone can find the April 1974 issue of Petersen's Photographic, I would appreciate knowing where. If I post the photocopy, it will be in the form of .jpg and the illustrations will look like excrement. I am tired of being misquoted and misunderstood in what seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to discredit me. As the crazy man said to my cousin the psychiatrist "I don't care if I am paranoid. They're still out to get me."

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[gainer]

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

I had nothing to say about your formula or its required precision. Where high precision is required, by all or any means available use it. But don't blindly use it on formulas that differ by measurable amounts from other formulas, each of which is touted to achieve the same result. Besides, I have rarely seen a published formula that was so specific about development times that you could mix it and use it on a roll or sheet of film with certain knowledge that the shadow density and CI will be exactly or even approximately what you want. The procedure that any reasoning photographer would use to learn how to do that would be the same whether the precise amounts or an approximation were used. It is called by some trial and error and by others "The Scientific Method."

 

[nworth]

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'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.)

 

[Bruce Watson]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Accepted. Unfortunately there is some times collateral damage.

Steve

 

[gainer]

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.)

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Not if that was the way it was originally published and the publication information was supplied with the formula.

Steve

 

[fotch]

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.

I can see that a person with knowledge and experience might not have the same problem and have obtained good results and are satisfied with spoons.

My lack of experience and knowledge may mean that I need a scale even for something simple like fixer. So, spoon away, more power to you.

I appreciate leaning the proper way even though that may take more effort, it gives me confidence.

I do see your point I think and I find it interesting to see that there are alternatives. Like using a simple camera, they can make pictures also, sometimes very good pictures.

Thank you

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[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

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.

 

[Clay2]

Hey Gainer,

I are also an oboist!

Small world,

Best regards,

/Clay

 

[gainer]

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

So for once we agree. A test should be done. And that test applies only to the batch you just made, whether it was measured without error or not. To be sure, you and I apply the same test every time we use a developer, even if it was bought ready-mixed like HC-110 and the only error would be in dilution of stock or aging of stock.

 

[fotch]

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.

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?

 

[gainer]

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.

 

[cmacd123]

FWIW, Years ago there was a (small) firm that was big on the spoon method to mix chemicals, but they sold their own set of plastic spoons to be sure that there was not a variation, and also made the chemicals available so that there would not be mix-ups from different granularities and the like. There was a fellow who picked up on this and selfpublished a looseleaf series under the name "superperfomance bulletin".

The content was mainly concerned with doing colour work, and saving money, including the trick to turn used C-41 Developer into one shot EP-2 developer by adding some B. Alcohol. and deluting a mixture of C-41 bleach and Fixer to make EP-2 Blix. or faking out ECN2 film is a C-41 variant. (PE's example formual looks like a colour developer from that era).

These days a "My-weigh" Chinese digital scale (see Dead Link Removed ) costs a couple of hundred dollars so their is less need for such methods, but OTOH I doubt if I would have taken darkroom work to the Next level if I had to make that investment before I could "try it you will like it" from those days.

I still get at least as much enjoyment from messing around as from the final prints. At the entrance to my home is a framed 8X10 on Agfa EP-2 paper, of a ECN-2 negative that I developed in that era, which probably would horrify any Photo Scientist from either company. BUT the slightly low contrast and otherworldlyness of the picture, a view of the Rideau Canal in winter on a snowy day, complements the subject.

BTW, That link to Canadian Weigh actually has the answer to this thread. for 32 bucks canadian they will sell you this:
Dead Link Removed so you can BOTH spoon and scale!

 

[neelin]

Hey! I love one of the descriptions of "my-weight"

"This is the perfect scale for anyone that needs to figure out the value of an item by weight. "

and on the info page:

"IMPORTANT NOTE: NONE OF THE SCALES SOLD ON THIS SITE ARE LEGAL FOR TRADE!! "


Seems to be mutually exclusive, but if you're into buying "corner chemistry" I guess there's no authority to complain to

robert

 

[Clay2]

Neelin,
my buddy who died in 1999 was an inspector for 'Weights and Measures,Canada'.
He checked scales in stores, and gas pumps to make sure that they were accurate. He
left me his personal triple-beam balance and his calibrated set of weights. These are
marked, 'Legal for Trade', ha! Can't do better than that!

Best regards,

/Clay

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Yes, April 1973. I think I said 1974 earlier, but I looked it up on my .jpg copy.

Pat- I spent an hour digging through the basement last night looking for my copy of your article, but I think I must have chucked all the Petersen's Photographics except one (review of the Minolta XD-11) back about 1985. I remember pondering whether to keep it or not, and I guess I decided to chuck it as I had a triple beam balance back then.

Don't you have a copy of the magazine yourself to make a good scan from?