Why do we dilute? Full strength vs Dilution 1:1

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
19,604
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
I always understood 1:1 IS full strength. .

If 1:1 is full strength i.e. stock then what does the second 1 represent? We are back to the 20 year sticky on the big question: Is 1+1, meaning 1 part stock to 1 part water, the same as 1:1 meaning a ratio of 1 part stock to 1 part water?

" Marshall Kane", says the railway clerk, " Pierce, Colby and Ben Miller have been down at the depot for the last two hours waiting for the noon train".

Leaving town is not an option. The matter has to be settled and unfortunately without the help of Tex

pentaxuser
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,140
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

By the way, no one uses 1:0. The proper term for that is Stock Solution or Stock.
 

Dali

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,830
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Multi Format
1+0 = 1:1 = no dilution.
 

eddie

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
3,258
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Multi Format
1:1 (or 1+1) means one part stock to one part water.
1:2 (or 1+2) means one part stock to two parts water.
Etc., etc.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,140
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
1+0 = 1:1 = no dilution.

No
1+0 is NOT equal to 1:1
1:1 is NOT equal to no dilution

But 1+0 is equal to no dilution

You can disagree all you want but you will STILL BE WRONG!
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,140
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
1:1 (or 1+1) means one part stock to one part water.
1:2 (or 1+2) means one part stock to two parts water.
Etc., etc.

eddie understands it.
 

RobC

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
3,880
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
1:1 (or 1+1) means one part stock to one part water.
1:2 (or 1+2) means one part stock to two parts water.
Etc., etc.

+1 ( although in this instance that might confuse some people )
 

RobC

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
3,880
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
1:1 is NO CHANGE, or stock, one to one. It is not one plus one.

1:2 is one plus one, or 1 to 2. It is not 1+2, never was.

The : is not a plus sign. It is a ratio sign.

The second number is the product of thr ratio.

what is : a ratio of when its 1:1 then? If 1:2 means 1+1 then its talking about stock ratio to water. So it follows that 1:1 means stock ratio to water unless you're really trying to tell us that when we use 1:1 we change the meaning of whats on the right hand side from water to stock. But that would be nonsense. A ratio is a comparison of two different things so 1:1 and 1+1 mean exactly the same thing.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,140
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
1:1 is NO CHANGE, or stock, one to one. It is not one plus one.

1:2 is one plus one, or 1 to 2. It is not 1+2, never was.

The : is not a plus sign. It is a ratio sign.

The second number is the product of thr ratio.

Evidently you do not understand ratios. A:B is defined at the ratio of A to B, not A is the product of A to B. Therefore 1:1 is one stock to one water. It is not NO CHANGE. Like it or not a basic chemistry book will tell you that. Also this was covered in Algebra I. The world of mathematics also agrees with that definition.

You state that "The : is not a plus sign. It is a ratio sign." and as such it is the ratio of reagent to water. Therefore one reagent [or stock solution] to one water and that by definition can be neither NO CHANGE [because it does change the reagent or solution] nor can it be stock.

Again you can disagree but you will be STILL be wrong and every science and math will prove you wrong. Still not believe it? Look it up on the internet rather than shooting from the hip.
 

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council
Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
2,642
Location
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Format
Multi Format
If I understand your questions correctly, then the first number is an amount of developer to be diluted. The second number is total of both A & B. In the case of 1 to 2 it would be 1+1=2 and expressed as 1:2. Again, 1:1 is unchanged or stock or even neat.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,140
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format

If you want to believe that OK, but that is not the definition that mathematics, chemistry and photography uses.
 

RobC

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
3,880
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format

No, 1:1 is a ratio which says 1 of stock to 1 of water. Its relative expression. Thats how ratios of anything are expressed. The size of one side of the : compared to the other side. If you are using stock only it would be 1:0 but when there is nothing on one side there is no ratio to express so you would just say stock.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,140
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
From:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio

 

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council
Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
2,642
Location
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Format
Multi Format
I believe what you say is Kodak's understanding as well. I do not think Ilford agrees.

It's not relative in that it is conditional. 1:1 is always 1:1. 1 to 1 is not a change. It is static. Stock. A one to one ratio is not one to zero. The right side number is the same or greater than the left side number, not smaller.
 

mklw1954

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
396
Location
Monroe, NY
Format
Medium Format
As single 120 stainless reel requires 14 oz. to be covered, which is equal to 0.41 liters, or 410 ml. For a plastic tank and reel, the volume required is usually printed on the tank or lid.

Kodak's D76 data sheet explains the effect of using the stock solution vs. using 1:1 (one part stock solution and one part water).
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
Geez, I got confused by all the opinions offered! Diluted or not, 250 ml of stock D-76 is required for each 80 sq. in. of film. Period, per Kodak's spec.

Per Kodak j-78


16oz = 473.176475ml

So 2 rolls per 473.176475ml per Kodak
 

Attachments

  • j78.pdf
    71.8 KB · Views: 96

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,233
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
I agree with Bruce and Karl, Kodak;s terms 1:1 & 1:3 are confused, they used to be more accurate and say I part developer and 1 part water etc for dilutions.

Older Kodak reference books say D76 should be used at Full strength and not dilute and recommend replenishment. I used ID-1/D76 for many years replenished it's very consistent much more economic and you get higher quality results.

When we made up a fresh tank full no-one wanted to be the first to use it, there's a very apparent improvement once the developer is seasoned, acutance (sharpness) improves, grain is finer and tonal range improves - better shadow details.

It's easy to replenish on a smaller scale but these days you're better using Xtol which is self replenishing with fresh stock developer rather than a separate replenisher.

Ian
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,833
Format
Hybrid
hi OP

if you have a few rolls of film, why not do a little experiment ?
... expose the film and process each one with a different dilution / time.

i'd take advice, even from the brightest of chemist/photographers as a starting point
because it is through their way of developing ( water, controls, agitation ) not the way *I* process my film.
all the times listed for development, from what i understand, are the same thing, a set of starting points.

good luck !
john
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,560
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format

+1
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
693
Location
Memphis, TN
Format
35mm
Bruce Osgood is correct. The ratio is the proportion of parts to the whole. Fractions are also ratios: 1/4 means one part out of four parts.
Thus, 1:1 means that one part out of a total of one is stock (1+0). 1:2 means one part of a total of two parts is stock (1+1).
 

RobC

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
3,880
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
The dilution ratio page is more appropriate to this thread.

So it seems its like art. People to take it to mean whatever they like. And there was me thinking maths wasn't like that and was totally objective. Mind you, there are no references or citations in that dilution ratio page so it could have been written by a misguided photograper for all we know.

When is a ratio not a ratio? Answers on a postcard to Santa Claus, The North Pole.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…