Occasional developer

David, you mention 2" x 1" in wood. Years ago when the government told us to stop measuring in feet and inches and go metric, the building trade jumped to attention, and immediately made the change. A short while later I heard the following conversation in a D.I.Y. shop.
"How much is your 2x1?"

"We don't do 2x1 anymore."

"But you've got a rack full of it back there."

"Yes, but we've gone metric. It's called 25x50 now."

"Well how much is it?"

"Ten pence a foot."

Alan
 
The old Imperial et al measurement units used to fascinate me as a child with things like a yard being the 'distance between Henry VIII's nose and the tip of his middle finger on his outstretched arm, the weight of 'x' number of peppercorn's etc. I'm not sure how much of this was fact or fiction but it was far more interesting than the Standard Metre - the length of a platinum-iridium bar held at a constant temperature in a sealed environment in some Institute in Paris - 'zzz zzz' :oops::)
 
When devising standards, you have to start somewhere. A yard was used to measure cloth - fingertip to nose, and this was obviously unreliable. One of the functions of government has always been to establish standard measures for important or valuable commodities in the interests of better and fairer trade. They had to chose a standard human being and who better than God’s Elect, the King? The inch is the width of a carpenters thumb and I once knew a man who still marked out dovetails with his thumb …and so on.
Goliath was six cubits and a span; a cubit is elbow to fingertip and a span the width of a hand. We can see how these anthropometric measures developed from day-to-day craftsmanship.
There is a standard English yard in Trafalgar Square, put there to be accessible to all.

The metre is now defined differently, but it was originally one ten-millionth of the distance from the Pole to the Equator, measured though Paris. This must have been seen as a World-based measurement. It involved a great deal of field work to establish this and a great deal of skill to make the reference bar. The measures for volume and weight are derived from this, but not temperature, although that also used water as a basis.
As I understand it, the last bastion of independent standards is weight (or perhaps mass) and the Kilo is now defined differently.

You induced me look up the yard. Not Henry VIII, who had enough things to fill his days, but Henry I.
 
Last edited:
David M said:
We regard the pint as sacred
Click to expand...

On THAT, we friends across the Big Pond are in complete agreement. And a big tip of the hat to you Brits with your better definition of what a "pint" should hold ...
 
One thing to beware in using traditional units is that they are locally defined. I understand that children in the US are taught: “A pint’s a pound, the world around.” It may be so “…the US around“ but in the Imperial system, children used to be taught: “A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter.” Apart from local variations in the spelling of liter, meter and so on, metric units are indeed the same “the world around.”

Incidentally the 2”x1” size for wood is the sawn size, but it is most commonly sold as planed, which is smaller.

We used to have wonderfully picturesque names for paper sizes. My favourite was Double Elephant which was bigger than Elephant, but not actually double.
 
David M said:
.... “A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter.”
Click to expand...

In my school was added “A pint of pure water weighs a pound and a quarter 'and a gallon of water weighs ten' ” I'm sure there was many more lines to this but alas my memory no longer works as it should and if I invoke Google I'll probably be sat here all day. :rolleyes:
 
…and in the US a gallon weights 8.34lbs, or 8 lb 5.44 oz, or 3.78 Kg.
None of this scans or rhymes very well, I’m afraid.
 
Alan Clark said:
I use it at a dilution of 1:2. I use 500mls to develop 4 sheets of 5x4 film.
So, Mike, you say you use FP4. So blow the expense and give Perceptol a go. And also try ID11, and see which you like best. (Similar cost for 1 litre packs)

Alan
Click to expand...
I use a Paterson Orbital for sheet films, with 300ml of working strength developer.
Will the Orbital take 500ml and what would be a good starting time for FP4 Plus in Perceptol?
 
Keith tapscott. said:
I use a Paterson Orbital for sheet films, with 300ml of working strength developer.
Will the Orbital take 500ml and what would be a good starting time for FP4 Plus in Perceptol?
Click to expand...
My orbital is picky about the volume I use. Too much and it sloshes out everywhere.
Measure the optimal volume using water; Fill it up, put the lid on, twirl it around for a bit and then wipe up and dry the floor as needed. Now carefully tip the remaining water into a measuring jug. You need a bit less than that. You may want to write the correct volume (in your units of choice) on the lid with a paint marker.
 
Before I got my Paterson Orbital I was developing 5 x 4 sheet film in a divided tray. So I knew from experience that you needed a gentle rocking motion or you could end up with uneven development along the outer film edges. When I got the orbital I decided I needed enough developer to cover the film edges, so I put four sheets of film in and poured water in. 300 mls was enough. I had heard that the film could stick to the bottom of the orbital tray, so I scoured grooves in it with a knife point. This wasn't entirely successful so I eventually stuck some blobs of Uhu glue to the bottom. This raised the film up so I increased the amount of developer from 300 to 500mls so it would cover the outer edges of the film. I also removed the fins in case they touched the upper - emulsion - side of the film.
Keith, regarding FP4 and Perceptol. I like to use it at a dilution of 1+3 and develop for 12.5 minutes at 24 degrees C.
 
FWIW, I use the Orbital with the motor base and take the lid off during the washing cycle. I find that 200ml is just below the point where the liquid will escape over the side. I use 150ml of stock Xtol for developing and haven't had any problems with leaving fins on.
 
Interesting. When I used an Orbital on the motor base, I got over-development in each corner as the solution was swirled and accelerated by the angle. putting it an a flat surface and lifting the edges sequentially worked much better.
 
Stephen Batey said:
I don't use metric in cooking, and only gave up fluid ounces in photography when Unitol was discontinued. I also generally use 5"x4" and 10"x8" film, although I do use 13cm x 18cm metric film :). I also have no concept of distances in metric, or areas other than in acres etc. As to whether a metric tonne is anywhere near a real ton, I have no idea at all.

Chains, rods, perches, furlongs - those I can understand and relate to.
Click to expand...



Not to mention florins shillings half crowns and farthings! and the silver "joey" sixpence piece.
 
How often do you have to use tons (metric or otherwise) in your photography?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top