what was the last camera you used, last film and how was it developed

abruzzi

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
2,997
Location
New Mexico, USA
Format
Large Format

I know this gets into the imponderables, but I've always taken 1:2 to mean 1 part xtol : 2 parts water. So 166ml xtol, and 333ml water.

I'll also add that I'm not a chemist, but a 20minutes and 75 degrees, the developer should have a lot of time and activity, so maybe the dilution is to pull back on the reins. Here is an example that was probably pretty close to 3200 (some of the shots were quite a bit darker) You can see it is somewhat high contrast (notice on the lower part of the status pedestal), but not horribly so:

 
Last edited:

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,246
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format

murdockhendrix

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
214
Location
Northeast Florida
Format
Multi Format
Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash model, Arista.EDU Ultra 200 (120), Photographers Formulary TD-16, dil 1:1, 9 mins, 20°C, developed @ home, inversion JOBO tank 1520.
 

FotoD

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
381
Location
EU
Format
Analog
abruzzi said:
I know this gets into the imponderables, but I've always taken 1:2 to mean 1 part xtol : 2 parts water
Click to expand...

That's wrong. But most poeple write it the wrong way, so I guess that makes it right.

Writing it 1+2 makes it harder to misinterpret.
 

GDI

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
230
Format
Med. Format RF
Chamonix 45N-2, Expired Tri-X, Rodinal 1+25, in a Jobo CPP2
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,458
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
abruzzi said:
I know this gets into the imponderables, but I've always taken 1:2 to mean 1 part xtol : 2 parts water. So 166ml xtol, and 333ml water.
Click to expand...

FotoD said:
That's wrong. But most poeple write it the wrong way, so I guess that makes it right.

Writing it 1+2 makes it harder to misinterpret.
Click to expand...
It isn't really wrong - it is just that writing it that way means one thing in one context and another thing in another context, so 1 + 2 is better.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,281
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
It isn't really wrong - it is just that writing it that way means one thing in one context and another thing in another context, so 1 + 2 is better.
Click to expand...

Not to someone who understood Algebra in middle school and chemistry in high school. Just ratio and proportions.
 

GregY

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
3,142
Location
Alberta
Format
Large Format
Perkeo ll,.....with the much maligned yellow filter..... Tri-X, Pyrocat HD. Print on Ilford Classic FB
 
Last edited:

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,458
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Sirius Glass said:
Not to someone who understood Algebra in middle school and chemistry in high school. Just ratio and proportions.
Click to expand...

But where was your high school? It is a convention that varies in use depending where you are, and what your field of operation is. It happens to be the case that Eastman Kodak chose one variation - I wouldn't be surprised if Kodak Ltd. (UK) would have chosen another.
 

FotoD

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
381
Location
EU
Format
Analog
abruzzi said:
1:2 is standard notation for a ratio of one part of A to two parts of B
Click to expand...

Yes, if you are making a solution of substance A and substance B. If you are making a *dilution* (as with Xtol) 1:2 can read 1 part of substace A and solvent to make 2 parts in total.

But as Matt points out it depends on context. My comment was made in jest and you should keep doing what works for you. I find that writing it 1+2 removes some ambiguity.
 
Last edited:

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,246
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
FotoD said:
writing it 1+2 removes some ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Removing ambiguity is a worthy goal, IMO. With some developers, this matters less -- HC-110 Dilution B won't be a lot different if you use 31 parts water to one part concentreate; Rodinal 1:50 less so for 49 parts water vs. 50. But D-76 or Xtol (or Dektol, which is where I'm more likely to use low dilution since I run replenished stock for Xtol-alikes and D-23) confusing whether 1:2 means 1+1 or 1+2 can cause issues...
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,281
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
abruzzi said:

Ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1:2 is standard notation for a ratio of one part of A to two parts of B
Click to expand...

And that is the way it was meant to be read and understood. There is no ambiguity in the notation, only in the minds of those without the proper background education. Poor education leads to the misinterpretation that some push.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,458
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Sirius Glass said:
And that is the way it was meant to be read and understood. There is no ambiguity in the notation, only in the minds of those without the proper background education. Poor education leads to the misinterpretation that some push.
Click to expand...

And of course, if you are working with proportions, rather than ratios, than it is meant to be read and understood in a different way. And sadly, the "A:B" type of notation is used, in different fields, and different geographic locations in different ways - sometimes in references to ratios, and sometimes in reference to proportions.
It is like music, where the frequency standard for a particular note varies with geography - a piano tuned by a piano tuner trained in Vienna may be tuned differently than a piano tuned by a tuner trained halfway across the world.
On an international website, never assume that the "standards" you have been trained on are the "standards" that the well educated participants are using half way across the world.
Heck, don't make that assumption about standards that apply just up the coast in North America.
 

fgorga

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
758
Location
New Hampshire
Format
Multi Format
Oh no... confusion over solutions and dilutions!!! Being a retired chemistry professor, I am quite familiar with this situation having taught beginning scientists for more than thirty years.

The bottom line is that there are no universal conventions with respect to notating dilutions. Different conventions are used in different fields. None are more or less "correct", but this does lead to confusion and ambiguity, as evidenced above.

Biologists generally write instructions for reducing the concentration of a stock solution as "1:9", for example. Meaning that one takes 1 part of stock and adds nine parts of solvent. The notation that some photographers use (e.g. "1+9" following the above example) is really just a variation of this convention. It may be a bit less ambiguous that writing the ratio, but one still needs to understand the convention.

Chemists generally write the same instructions as "1:10". Meaning that the final solution contains 1 part of stock in a final volume of 10 parts.

Both conventions yield the same final solution (at least for dilute solutions; for very concentrated solutions the chemist's convention is better if one cares about the precise concentration).

Chemists argue that their convention is 'better' because the final concentration is clearly indicated... i.e. in the above example the concentration of the final solution is 1/10 (one tenth) the concentration of the stock solution.

Biologists argue that their convention is 'better' because the 'recipe' is clearly indicated... i.e. one would take 1 volume of stock and add 9 times that volume of solvent.

Bottom line: Take your pick of either convention, stick with it and make it clear which one you use when communicating with others.
 

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,246
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
fgorga said:
make it clear which one you use when communicating with others.
Click to expand...

This is key.

"One part stock solution to one part water, develop prints two minutes consistently" for Dektol is a lot clearer (especially for those without either chemistry or biology background) than "Develop one minute for each dilution step" which I've seen seriously suggested in that form.
 

murdockhendrix

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
214
Location
Northeast Florida
Format
Multi Format
Bronica EC-TL, Ilford XP2 Super
Agfa Clack, Kodak Gold 200
Developed @ home, JOBO CPE+, Cinestill CS-41, 3:43 mins, 39°C, JOBO tank combo (1510 + 1530, 470ml)
 

Helios 1984

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,845
Location
Saint-Constant, Québec
Format
35mm
I found a 20+ years old of spent roll of Seattle Filmworks ECN-2 motion picture film at a thrifstore and developed it by curiosity.

- 3 minutes wash in baking soda solution to remove the remjet (most of it anyway)
- 3:30 minutes in my 41 months old batch of Unicolor C-41
- 10 minutes in Blix
- The mandatory wash
- Removal of the remaining remjet
- 2 minutes in Kodak Final Rinse

Success
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,281
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Accidentally a roll of Tri-X got into a UltraColor box and a roll of film shot in Kauai turned out to be black & white.
 

Mr Flibble

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
365
Location
The Lowlands
Format
35mm RF
Roll of Ilford HP5+, shot with a 1938 Balda Super Pontura, exposed as 400ASA


Developed in Kodak HC-110, dilution E for 7:30min at 20C
30 seconds initial agitation followed by 1 inversion every 30 seconds.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…