OP
OP
Windisch Surface Developer _ what's correct
-
A
- Thread starter Ian Grant
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 9 Rolls FUJI Fujifilm SUPERIA PREMIUM 400 27 exp 3 pro packs
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 AI'd
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale DAHLE 552 (20-inch) Trimmer
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Leica M2 Camera ("Body Button", No Self-Timer Type) CLA'D
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Agfa Super Isolette CLA'd Medium Format 6x6
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
Ian;
From the earliest days I can remember buying packaged chemicals, they came optionally in English or Metric units and therefore I could buy 1 pound or 500 grams of a chemical.
In addition, each respective bottle was marked in both systems for the most part, and so a 1 pount bottle had on it (454.xx grams). Strange, as I went to type that my mind went blank and I cannot remember the decimals. Ahhh, old age!
Anyhow, Kodak chemistry for years has come in English units (1 quart and 1 gallon) but are marked with contents of the bottle or pack in ounces and grams both and the makeup volume in ounces, quarts, gallons, and liters. Therefore a D-76 packet will tell me how to mix it to 1 gallon or 3.8 Liters.
PE
OP
OP
Ron, you are making one huge mistake 
US and UK units differ, while some are the same others are quite different.
1 US gallon = 3.78541 litres
1 UK gallon = 4.54609 litres
Ian
Kodak's UK made chemistry was purely Metric for some time, but with lower volumes US stock is obviously being imported now.
US and UK units differ, while some are the same others are quite different.
1 US gallon = 3.78541 litres
1 UK gallon = 4.54609 litres
Ian
Kodak's UK made chemistry was purely Metric for some time, but with lower volumes US stock is obviously being imported now.
Ian;
I know what an imperial gallon is and a US gallon. I was making no mistake. I was merely sticking to what I know about, and that is how products were sold and identified in the US.
PE
I know what an imperial gallon is and a US gallon. I was making no mistake. I was merely sticking to what I know about, and that is how products were sold and identified in the US.
PE
OP
OP
Ian;
AAMOF, we use the phrase "English" and "Metric" to distinguish the two systems but not the relative values of the English units. If you had spent any time in the US and paid attention to weights and measures you would know that. In fact, even the US government gives values in "English" and "Metric" values but uses the US values for "English" measure.
For the most part, I would say that 99% of Americans do not know anything about the "Imperial" units used in England, except for the fact that if used, they say Imperial measure, or Imperial quart and etc. That is the way they are distinguished here but the very tiny fraction of people who even know that there is a difference.
At Kodak, we never used Imperial measurements at Rochester, nor did we use English units except as labels on prepackaged products.
In fact, our pumps were gravimetric (reading in grams / minute) and our strain guages were metric reading in grams or Kgs. So, in point of fact, this difference never came up unless I went to Canada on a trip. Even there I tried to get things in Metric to avoid confusion. I could never remember what "English" units were used in Canada.
PE
AAMOF, we use the phrase "English" and "Metric" to distinguish the two systems but not the relative values of the English units. If you had spent any time in the US and paid attention to weights and measures you would know that. In fact, even the US government gives values in "English" and "Metric" values but uses the US values for "English" measure.
For the most part, I would say that 99% of Americans do not know anything about the "Imperial" units used in England, except for the fact that if used, they say Imperial measure, or Imperial quart and etc. That is the way they are distinguished here but the very tiny fraction of people who even know that there is a difference.
At Kodak, we never used Imperial measurements at Rochester, nor did we use English units except as labels on prepackaged products.
In fact, our pumps were gravimetric (reading in grams / minute) and our strain guages were metric reading in grams or Kgs. So, in point of fact, this difference never came up unless I went to Canada on a trip. Even there I tried to get things in Metric to avoid confusion. I could never remember what "English" units were used in Canada.
PE
What we loosely call "English" units in the US are often do not have the same measure as "English" units as used in the United Kingdom.
The units used in the UK are collectively called "Imperial" System of units.
The "American" version of the Imperial System is referred to as "US Customary" units.
A gallon in the US should be labelled "US Gallon". That's how I see it on the Kodak products that I buy here. So there should be no confusion there!
By the way, isn't the problem between the US gallon and the Imperial gallon that the US gallon has 128 US fluid ounces and the Imperial gallon has 160 British fluid ounces? On top of that, the US fluid ounce is 1.04% larger than the British fluid ounce. But that's just for liquid measures. US dry measures are different from US liquid measure, while British dry measure has the same volume as British liquid measure.
No wonder I like the metric system so much!
The units used in the UK are collectively called "Imperial" System of units.
The "American" version of the Imperial System is referred to as "US Customary" units.
A gallon in the US should be labelled "US Gallon". That's how I see it on the Kodak products that I buy here. So there should be no confusion there!
By the way, isn't the problem between the US gallon and the Imperial gallon that the US gallon has 128 US fluid ounces and the Imperial gallon has 160 British fluid ounces? On top of that, the US fluid ounce is 1.04% larger than the British fluid ounce. But that's just for liquid measures. US dry measures are different from US liquid measure, while British dry measure has the same volume as British liquid measure.
No wonder I like the metric system so much!
Here's a nice, long, authoritative reference that does discuss the differences in US customary and Imperial, if you dig around a bit:
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
I did some digging in my "old stuff" bin and found Kodak Tri Chem Packs and P121, E3 and E4 chemistry ranging over the time period of the early 50s (TCP) to the mid 60s (P and E). They were all labled in liters and US Quarts for volume and US oz and grams for weight except for one packet which was Part A of the P121 First developer. No doubt an oversight of some sort.
I have evidence then of this dual US / Metric being in use for over 50 years. With enough work I could probably trace it back earlier.
I have carefully distinguished above between Imperial and English measurements. I am fully aware of the differences between those systems. I might mention that measuring in "parts" is system that does not depend on how you measure, and works well but can be a nuisance sometimes when the scale of ingredients differ widely.
So:
10 parts A = 10 oz = 10 g = 10 kg
20 parts B = 20 oz = 20 g = 20 kg
15 parts C = 15 oz = 15 g = 15 kg
This is not to imply that the weights are equal but rather that in proportion, if expressed as parts, you can then use any measuring system you wish.
PE
I have evidence then of this dual US / Metric being in use for over 50 years. With enough work I could probably trace it back earlier.
I have carefully distinguished above between Imperial and English measurements. I am fully aware of the differences between those systems. I might mention that measuring in "parts" is system that does not depend on how you measure, and works well but can be a nuisance sometimes when the scale of ingredients differ widely.
So:
10 parts A = 10 oz = 10 g = 10 kg
20 parts B = 20 oz = 20 g = 20 kg
15 parts C = 15 oz = 15 g = 15 kg
This is not to imply that the weights are equal but rather that in proportion, if expressed as parts, you can then use any measuring system you wish.
PE
You actually said:
Kodak Chemistry in the US uses American Units
Ian
Which are actually UK units, part of the problem in liquid measure is that what is now called an Imperial Gallon, was once known as a Beer Gallon used by Brewers in the UK. A US Gallon was once known as a Wine Gallon used by Wine merchants in the UK, when the decision was made to unify measure to reduce confusion the UK and US picked different standard units. At one time there were 7 different definitions of a mile, now there are two, one used by land and another by sea (nautical mile). It's still confusing though because sometimes packages and formulae are marked as simply Gallons, without indicating which one. Co-Marking with metric units will often provide a clue.
As for Kodak, which could have been developing different products in different countries, using a single measuring system company wide would have been a good idea. The local packager then converts into other units. For example if you have a formula that is in metric converting to Imperial or US units for packaging is dead easy. Having a formula that is in any one of 3 different measuring systems, two of which use the same terminology, would be very confusing. If you have a formula for 1L then multiply the amount of each ingredient by 3.785, to get US Gallons if you want a US quart, multiply by 0.946. If you want an Imperial Gallon you multiply your metric by 4.546, for an Imperial quart, multiply by 1.136. Now if you have a formula that is simply marked one gallon, which gallon is it?
The other point on all this, chemicals for a company like Kodak are bought in bulk, so whether you buy it in 25kg bags or 50lb bags, the key is the amount you need, not the amount you have. The machines that make up packages of developer powders, most likely have a large hopper for each ingrediant, they dump the bag in, the machine measures it out, for each package when the hopper is low, they dump another bag in. The size of the bag doesn't really matter, as long as the hopper is big enough to hold it.
You actually said:
Kodak Chemistry in the US uses American Units
Ian
Ian;
Since at least the 50s, based on pacakges in my posession, Kodak marked all packages as 1 US quart, 1 US Gallon and etc with the metric values right there along with these units. They are taught in school as English and Metric, and are referred to that way in textbooks that use the two side by side.
The Imperial units are not taught here, nor referenced in any packing material in the US and are, when thought of at all, considered a totally British (or English) measure confined to that area of the world.
As such, Kodak may well pack things for that market in either Metric or Imperial units. IDK as it is easier to get my materials locally with local measures.
I am fully aware of the two "English" methods of measure that were explained in the above post. I was not aware of their history.
PE
And don't forget railcar "packaging". I'm sure Kodak bought many items (liquids and solids) by the railcar and then dumped them onto conveyors or pumped them into storage tanks for use.
PE - please fill in the details!
Well, AAMOF, KP west is the HQ of Kodak Rail. Kodak uses all electrified engines as the coal fired engines of the past were a danger during the era of Nitro Cellulose, and so Kodak was among the first users of an all electric (or diesel electric) locomotive force.
Sidings come in to most buildings that handle chemicals and you see hopper cars with pellet plastics for extrusion into film support. At one time there were hoppers filled with the Poly Ethylene for RC support next to Paper Mfg, and there were many tank cars filled with Ammonium Thiosulfate parked in line.
Hopper cars were "chuffing" along pumping solids into buildings via big 4 - 8" flexible plastic tubing and the buildings had large bins that were isolated from the rest of the environment which were designed to hold chemicals in the bins and workers in the other part of the building.
The chemicals were shoveled in case small amounts were used, but were piped via auger feed in larger scales into large containers which had strain guages under them. The open/close and auger function were controlled by the strain guage. Chemicals that were toxic were handled apart from those that could be shoveled. For example, Sodium Chloride could be shoveled. It was not IIRC, but that was due to the huge quantity used in most cases.
I do remember one case where we needed every bit of a chemical and had to send in a safety suited person to shovel up the last bit of this expensive item at the end of a production run.
So, there you have it. Row on row of hopper and tank cars pumping stuff into buildings. Labels ran from Hooker (in Niagara Falls) to Tennesee Eastman at Kingsport TN, to Kodak Texas where they made all of our HQ. You had to play dodge the train if you walked through the park at the wrong time.
PE
Sidings come in to most buildings that handle chemicals and you see hopper cars with pellet plastics for extrusion into film support. At one time there were hoppers filled with the Poly Ethylene for RC support next to Paper Mfg, and there were many tank cars filled with Ammonium Thiosulfate parked in line.
Hopper cars were "chuffing" along pumping solids into buildings via big 4 - 8" flexible plastic tubing and the buildings had large bins that were isolated from the rest of the environment which were designed to hold chemicals in the bins and workers in the other part of the building.
The chemicals were shoveled in case small amounts were used, but were piped via auger feed in larger scales into large containers which had strain guages under them. The open/close and auger function were controlled by the strain guage. Chemicals that were toxic were handled apart from those that could be shoveled. For example, Sodium Chloride could be shoveled.
It was not IIRC, but that was due to the huge quantity used in most cases.I do remember one case where we needed every bit of a chemical and had to send in a safety suited person to shovel up the last bit of this expensive item at the end of a production run.
So, there you have it. Row on row of hopper and tank cars pumping stuff into buildings. Labels ran from Hooker (in Niagara Falls) to Tennesee Eastman at Kingsport TN, to Kodak Texas where they made all of our HQ. You had to play dodge the train if you walked through the park at the wrong time.
PE
PE,
Were or are these railway tracks connected directly to the national rail network?
Tom
Were or are these railway tracks connected directly to the national rail network?
Tom
Yes, they are connected and also cross public access such as Ridge Road and Dewey avenue in Rochester.
Well, I am not sure the ROW is Kodak or the local RR or a larger concern when it crosses the highways. I have not seen any Kodak engines on the larger ROWs but they are all interconnected. After all, how do these big car chains get to KP?
PE
Well, I am not sure the ROW is Kodak or the local RR or a larger concern when it crosses the highways. I have not seen any Kodak engines on the larger ROWs but they are all interconnected. After all, how do these big car chains get to KP?
PE
It is a long way back, but 'Windisch' hasn't appeared on this thread since about the second page. (now #14?) .
Many variables come to mind.
I used to order premed (I work with beans (human beans)) in grains (1/100 for atropine or 1/150gr for scopolamine). Now it's all metric and near enough (.6mg or .4mg) unless you work in the Continent where we used 0,5mg. Note the comma. The diffences are, to us professionals, tiny.
Seems to me the variability of the organic body can cope with inconsequential variation. I am prompted to raise this point since, probably, no-one knows the composition if the emulsions originally used to establish the 'sweet point' of formulae on certain films due to their organic composition.
Gelatine is still the basis of photographic emulsions and the exact organic nature of the substance is surely difficult to control? How much difference would more or less suphur in the gelatine make to all this argument, 60-70-80 years on? Gelatine is arguably one of the elements in the conversion of exposed siver nitrate to silver by the active developer?
Next, I am not sure there wasn't the occasional reference to Troy weight in some formulae.
The US converted officialy to metric in 1975. My GM Camaro is all metric, surprisingly. All large organisations switched then.
I must be one of Gadget's group who glaze over at the distinction between 3.0 and 3.1g/l of active agent. My estimation of exposure (even with a meter) is pretty approximate, and even less with the sunny 16 rule. Forget camera mechanical error.
I like Bill Troop's comments about the applicability of a developer with a certain kind of film. It may/may not suit my requirements but I need help here. Sandy's stuff is invaluable. Ian, keep asking questions.
After all the discussion I come away recalling the Rubaiat of Omar Kyam. (from memory)
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
doctor and saint and heard great argument
about it and about.
But evermore, came out by that
same door where in, I went.
I am still in ignorance of Windisch of either kind.
Oh - PE - I have Tom Lehrer's 2nd record as well. 'That was the year that was'. We'll all go together as we go. Every Hottentott and every Eskimo.
Murray
Many variables come to mind.
I used to order premed (I work with beans (human beans)) in grains (1/100 for atropine or 1/150gr for scopolamine). Now it's all metric and near enough (.6mg or .4mg) unless you work in the Continent where we used 0,5mg. Note the comma. The diffences are, to us professionals, tiny.
Seems to me the variability of the organic body can cope with inconsequential variation. I am prompted to raise this point since, probably, no-one knows the composition if the emulsions originally used to establish the 'sweet point' of formulae on certain films due to their organic composition.
Gelatine is still the basis of photographic emulsions and the exact organic nature of the substance is surely difficult to control? How much difference would more or less suphur in the gelatine make to all this argument, 60-70-80 years on? Gelatine is arguably one of the elements in the conversion of exposed siver nitrate to silver by the active developer?
Next, I am not sure there wasn't the occasional reference to Troy weight in some formulae.
The US converted officialy to metric in 1975. My GM Camaro is all metric, surprisingly. All large organisations switched then.
I must be one of Gadget's group who glaze over at the distinction between 3.0 and 3.1g/l of active agent. My estimation of exposure (even with a meter) is pretty approximate, and even less with the sunny 16 rule. Forget camera mechanical error.
I like Bill Troop's comments about the applicability of a developer with a certain kind of film. It may/may not suit my requirements but I need help here. Sandy's stuff is invaluable. Ian, keep asking questions.
After all the discussion I come away recalling the Rubaiat of Omar Kyam. (from memory)
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
doctor and saint and heard great argument
about it and about.
But evermore, came out by that
same door where in, I went.
I am still in ignorance of Windisch of either kind.
Oh - PE - I have Tom Lehrer's 2nd record as well. 'That was the year that was'. We'll all go together as we go. Every Hottentott and every Eskimo.
Murray
Last edited by a moderator:
Well of course, in which case it doesn't matter if the rail car weighs 20,000kg or 44,000lbs
Murray;
IDK how sensitive a film might be to 3.0 g /l vs 3.1 g/l as I have not done the experiment. I do know that the internal formulas that I have seen or still have (about 3 obsolete versions) carry values out to the exact milligram or 100 milligrams and this value, in my memory, was critical. Therefore it was not dismissed.
Yes, someone could round up or down and do it right or wrong, but it might mean an extra minute in the developer in this case. IDK. I have seen developers totally fail with a difference of 0.1 g/l of developing agent. I ran into this more than one time. Sometimes there is a critical reaction equillibrium that is overcome by just tipping the balance correctly, but then being a chemist I know this as I have done the experiments. Others just assume.
After a lifetime of this work, I make no assumptions. Photomaterials are less tolerant than the human body, I can assure you and tiny variations in things like sulfur or time in the presence of sulfur + heat can mean a good or bad emulsion. Too much sulfur will fog the emulsion and you cannot backtrack. In your example, perhaps 0.4 mg, 0.5 mg or 0.6 mg may not be a significant variation, but to me that is huge.
Some emulsion chemicals are measured at 6x10^-6 moles / mole of silver. That variation is +/- about 3 so that is 3 - 9 x10^-6 moles tolerance, to give a center speed that is accurate to about 0.1 log E or less (1/3 stop).
To put it another way 0.000006 moles / mole with a variation from 0.000003 - 0.00009 moles / mole of silver will keep me within 1/2 grade in contrast or less and 1/3 stop in speed or less.
PE
IDK how sensitive a film might be to 3.0 g /l vs 3.1 g/l as I have not done the experiment. I do know that the internal formulas that I have seen or still have (about 3 obsolete versions) carry values out to the exact milligram or 100 milligrams and this value, in my memory, was critical. Therefore it was not dismissed.
Yes, someone could round up or down and do it right or wrong, but it might mean an extra minute in the developer in this case. IDK. I have seen developers totally fail with a difference of 0.1 g/l of developing agent. I ran into this more than one time. Sometimes there is a critical reaction equillibrium that is overcome by just tipping the balance correctly, but then being a chemist I know this as I have done the experiments. Others just assume.
After a lifetime of this work, I make no assumptions. Photomaterials are less tolerant than the human body, I can assure you and tiny variations in things like sulfur or time in the presence of sulfur + heat can mean a good or bad emulsion. Too much sulfur will fog the emulsion and you cannot backtrack. In your example, perhaps 0.4 mg, 0.5 mg or 0.6 mg may not be a significant variation, but to me that is huge.
Some emulsion chemicals are measured at 6x10^-6 moles / mole of silver. That variation is +/- about 3 so that is 3 - 9 x10^-6 moles tolerance, to give a center speed that is accurate to about 0.1 log E or less (1/3 stop).
To put it another way 0.000006 moles / mole with a variation from 0.000003 - 0.00009 moles / mole of silver will keep me within 1/2 grade in contrast or less and 1/3 stop in speed or less.
PE
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Messages
- 134
- Format
- Multi Format
I cannot believe that so many posts have had to be devoted to explaining Ron's usage of 'English' to mean avoirdupois. That has long been the custom in the US. For one thing, it eliminates the huge problem of how an educated American is expected to pronounce 'avoirdupois' -- the French way or some other way? I was very curious about this and once put the question to Grant Haist. His answer is that the proper American way to pronounce the word is AV ER DO POY, which to my ear is weirdly elegant. Primary stress is on the last syllable, as it would be in French.
Regarding the historical usage of metric in Kodak's Rochester labs, I think I have made it clear that internal formulas were always designed in metric, at least from the time Harold Russell joined the firm in the 1920s. He never saw any avoirdupois formulas, so that would probably account for at least the prior decade. Maybe at some point in the 1890s they used avoirdupois? I kinda sorta doubt it. However, there's an easy way to tell: look at the older patent literature. Anyone who wants a reasonably decisive answer to this - - and to how other companies worked - - will find the answer there, online, with a little searching. So who's going to do the work?
Regarding the historical usage of metric in Kodak's Rochester labs, I think I have made it clear that internal formulas were always designed in metric, at least from the time Harold Russell joined the firm in the 1920s. He never saw any avoirdupois formulas, so that would probably account for at least the prior decade. Maybe at some point in the 1890s they used avoirdupois? I kinda sorta doubt it. However, there's an easy way to tell: look at the older patent literature. Anyone who wants a reasonably decisive answer to this - - and to how other companies worked - - will find the answer there, online, with a little searching. So who's going to do the work?
Golly! I'm glad you fellows are back. I thought I'd given the thread a kiss of death.
PE - I can tell the difference between .4-.5-.6mg of atropine - I have a very sensitive detector - the heart. (a little OT - the LD50 is around 50mg so the safety margin is enormous. The ethics committee won't let us get an exact figure for humans).
The difficulty of making emulsions I don't doubt for one second and there have been hundreds over the years. Some plodding along, still.
The difference between 3g and 3.1g is about 3% and there's a lot of guys hereabouts using spoon measures. To put it in perspective f1.4 is actually 1.5% larger than the full stop up from F2 but I doubt anyone out there worries. The difference in filling/emptying time between two tanks could be more.
You don't tell us what percentage variation 0.1mg/l of active agent you were using amounted to. That much KI would be disastrous. So I agree that for some chems a 0.1mg/l is important. I doubt, however, its importance in the developers mentioned above. I know the chemical engineer in you will disagree.
Bill, I tend to say avoir du pois as three words AVWAR DU PWA (to have of the weight?). It's probably pretty old French. Haven't Googled it
and I'm about as far from France as one can get.
Cheers
Murray
PE - I can tell the difference between .4-.5-.6mg of atropine - I have a very sensitive detector - the heart. (a little OT - the LD50 is around 50mg so the safety margin is enormous. The ethics committee won't let us get an exact figure for humans).
The difficulty of making emulsions I don't doubt for one second and there have been hundreds over the years. Some plodding along, still.
The difference between 3g and 3.1g is about 3% and there's a lot of guys hereabouts using spoon measures. To put it in perspective f1.4 is actually 1.5% larger than the full stop up from F2 but I doubt anyone out there worries. The difference in filling/emptying time between two tanks could be more.
You don't tell us what percentage variation 0.1mg/l of active agent you were using amounted to. That much KI would be disastrous. So I agree that for some chems a 0.1mg/l is important. I doubt, however, its importance in the developers mentioned above. I know the chemical engineer in you will disagree.
Bill, I tend to say avoir du pois as three words AVWAR DU PWA (to have of the weight?). It's probably pretty old French. Haven't Googled it
and I'm about as far from France as one can get.Cheers
Murray
OP
OP
Those of us who aren't American would assume when people in the US say English with regard to Avoirdupois would mean the system used once in England and the British Empire/Commonwealth. Hence the confusion which Ron has kindly explained.
All the Kodak Formulae I have from around 1890's to1900 are Metric as are most other companies. However many also have Avoirdupois as well becuase that's how non scientists once weighed & measured things. Some people still do.
But even today Kodak sells products in Avoirdupois packaging which seems odd.
Ian
Ian;
Here the boxes are labeled in both systems as I've stated before. They do not use Avoirdupois alone.
Murray;
Here is an example. We were trying to determine the optimum concentration of an additive to a developer and found that 1.5 g/l gave the effect we wanted and 1.4 did not. We ran 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 and found that 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 were pretty close giving just a hair more activity but at 1.9 there was some fog.
We used 1.6 g/l. Why? Well, 1.5 was the low threshold, and 1.7 and 1.8 were just going to waste money by adding a line width of activity in the characteristic curve while 1.9 was overkill. The rule of thumb became, "look for the onset of activity and go just one step beyond". That seems to work in general production to keep values centered around usable weights. Of course, in emulsion making things are even more precise most of the time.
And, I was taught to use the French pronunciation of avoirdupois (to have weight).
PE
Here the boxes are labeled in both systems as I've stated before. They do not use Avoirdupois alone.
Murray;
Here is an example. We were trying to determine the optimum concentration of an additive to a developer and found that 1.5 g/l gave the effect we wanted and 1.4 did not. We ran 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 and found that 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 were pretty close giving just a hair more activity but at 1.9 there was some fog.
We used 1.6 g/l. Why? Well, 1.5 was the low threshold, and 1.7 and 1.8 were just going to waste money by adding a line width of activity in the characteristic curve while 1.9 was overkill. The rule of thumb became, "look for the onset of activity and go just one step beyond". That seems to work in general production to keep values centered around usable weights. Of course, in emulsion making things are even more precise most of the time.
And, I was taught to use the French pronunciation of avoirdupois (to have weight).
PE
OP
OP
I was more referring to the awkward sizes like Selenium Toner in 1 US Quart, that's actually not too bad, but Kodak were going to sell Xtol etc in Europe in the US Gallon sizes rather than 5 litres which would have been awkward.
Kodak have always labelled their packaging clearly though as US gallons etc in the UK, with a smaller metric figure so we've had no excuse to get things wrong
Ian
Bill - do you have any other stories about inane questions that you asked Grant Haist that you wish to share?
Certainly on can use the French pronounciation, but I think you'll find many if not most Americans will pronounce the "s" at the end of that word as a "z" sound. To confirm this, I consulted a greater authority on the American version of the English language - Merriam-Webster. They list the pronounciation as "a-vər-də-ˈpoiz".
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the thing I was discussing a few posts back about if and how formulas are optimized. Of course I'm not surprised that Kodak took this approach, I often wonder about some of the more "modern" formulas that we see on the interweb these days.
There are formulas that "work", and there are formulas that work really well.
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |