From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 07/27/01-12:41:36 PM Z
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 tonyascrizzi@juno.com wrote:
> Our Fahrenheit scale is more than twice as precise with 212 divisions vs.
> their 100, but measuring fluids in mL is easier. The nice thing about
> standards, is that there are so many to choose from.
You make an excellent point ... In the privacy of my studio I generally
use metric for small volumes (say up to 50 or 100 ml, which I have
graduates for) and weights to the limit of the O'Haus's ability (a
pound?), but US kitchen measuring cups are much handier where total
precision isn't an issue, as in half cups, or cups & pints of liquid --
until we get to litre, at which point I revert again.
For teaching a class or Post-Factory, however, I'm "correct" and
consistent, all in metric. Film or paper size I try to give both ways
(made possible by a two-way tape measure from Ikea) -- but somehow "a cup"
translated as 240 ml (or even 224 ml) just isn't the same thing.
And hey Europeans: our cups for American dummies in the kitchen have the
detents in bright red PERMANENT baked-on paint with clear strong
demarcations. Every metric measure I have is marked almost invisibly with
tiny raised clear numbers in the plastic that you can, when they are new,
before anything has rubbed or scratched them, just barely read in a good
light. The only way I can use them in the darkroom is by putting tape at
the level I need (say 6 cc for acetic) writing the number in black marker.
Attempts to refresh the raised numbers with marker have been futile.
(These were US bought, however, maybe a subliminal protest?)
cheers,
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 08/02/01-11:56:47 AM Z CST