[alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions

[Terry King]

Eric


I am sorry but  I'm not convinced.


The so called  'percentage solution' is simple; experience shows that it is a good tool for the the job.


Try explaining to us what advantages ' .7 m '  offers over the equivalent percentage solution figure, then imagine explaining the same thing, and how you would measure it, to a workshop containing music publishers and theology PhDs who have come to make pictures.


Terry















-----Original Message-----
From: EJ Photo <ejnphoto at sbcglobal.net>
To: 'The alternative photographic processes mailing list' <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:51
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions


Terry, percent solutions are not what is called for all the time. To work
toward % may NOT be the best solution. I'd suggest that making equivalence
more friendly might be appropriate too. This is not very complex.  

We can all agree that tests and good notes go a long way to making things
right. Even if you make a mistake and think you've made a .7 M solution and
it's only .65 M, it won't really matter much until you try and match your
process to someone else.   

It doesn't hurt for people to learn these things does it? I don't think so. 


Eric Neilsen
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
 
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
skype me with ejprinter
www.ericneilsenphotography.com/forum1
Let's Talk Photography
 
-----Original Message-----
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
[mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of
Terry King
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:05 PM
To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions

Loris


There is a definitive answer. Use percentage solutions.


When the manuals confuse by not using the right terms, I agree that all one
can do is test for yourself.


Incidentally, all this stuff about 'stochiometric balance' and 'molecular
equivalence' in discussions at this level is inappropriate. It really is the
worst kind of 'pointy hat 'stuff.  This kind of jargon does not impress.  It
reminds me of the prospective platinum printer who told me that he had
decided, after reading a well known manual on the subject, that he had
decided not to take up platinum printing as he did not understand the maths!
Of course all the maths in the manual were quite unnecessary in the making
of good platinum prints.


Terry 












-----Original Message-----
From: Loris Medici <mail at loris.medici.name>
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
<alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:11
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Zia standard solutions


I don't think there's a definitive answer to that. For instance, I remember
Sam 
Wang suggesting dilution of argyrotype soln. 1+1 with water (for some
specific 
reason which I can't remember right now) and someone tried it (was it Paul 
Viapiano?) and got better results, "for his set of parameters". I guess one
has 
to test and see if dilution (w/o affecting stoichiometric balance!!! That
is, 
w/o affecting the molar equivalence between the compounds involved) works
for 
them.

Regards,
Loris.

On 20.Tem.2010, at 18:55, Christina Anderson wrote:

> Jalo and others,
> (Oh my, I'm approaching my ten-post limit for the day)
> Jalo's point brought up a topic I have been meaning to ask.  If Jalo just
uses 
the 25ml and adds the chemicals, he essentially has just diluted the
solution by 
a very teeny amount.  Years ago I read about diluting the combined pt/pd 
solution 50% with water and double coating. This was to get around the very 
absorbent Rives BFK situation.
> 
> My question is this:  has anyone diluted the more expensive precious metal

solutions with water as a general practice, either to save $$, or to deal
with 
absorbent papers, or whatnot? I know that if the ratio of ferric to pt/pd
goes 
awry, you get a weak print (seen that in workshops), but given the ratios 
staying the same, maybe even a 10% or 20% addition of water to the total mix

might be possible as general practice? Just wondering if anyone does this,
and 
if so, at what point does it not work.  The person in question was double 
coating so it wasn't going to affect the total amount of pt/pd on the paper,
so 
I am asking about lessening that total amount.
_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo

 
_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo

_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo