Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
How many volumn of solution do I need to smoothly process print paper in a 12x16 tray?
How many volumn of solution do I need at least to smoothly process
print paper in a 12x16 tray? I am afraid my 2 liter bottle is not
enough to do this. Thanks.
-
woody
print paper in a 12x16 tray? I am afraid my 2 liter bottle is not
enough to do this. Thanks.
-
woody
On Apr 30, 4:43 am, Steven Woody <narkewo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How many volumn of solution do I need at least to smoothly process
> print paper in a 12x16 tray? I am afraid my 2 liter bottle is not
> enough to do this. Thanks.
>
> -
> woody
How much you really need is somewhat dependent on the tray and your
technique. I have a very smooth and flat 8x10 tray and can actually
do fine with 100 ml., although I often use a bit more. Your tray is
about 2.5 times the area. If it is smooth and flat and you are not
much more clumsy than me, you should be able to do it with 300 ml.
Even so, 500 ml should be generous. If your tray has, for example,
deep grooves as some of my larger trays do, you will need a bit more.
Why not take a sheet of plain white paper the size you will use and
try a test? Put your best estimate of the amount you will need of
water in the tray and try to keep the paper wet (in daylight so you
can see what is going on). What you need to do is keep the paper wet
and the upper side fully in contact with fresh developer by agitation.
Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
development.
A problem that occurs when trying to use the minimum developer is
initially wetting the paper evenly. There is a bit of surface tension
in liquids and some curling in older paper. Consequently, I deal with
this (usually) by tipping the tray and putting an edge of the paper
first in the deep end while lowering the tray so the developer flows
over the paper. Sometimes (particularly if there is a lot of curl) I
simply put it in emulsion side down for a few seconds and then turn it
over with a few seconds of continuous agitation. Either can work.
> How many volumn of solution do I need at least to smoothly process
> print paper in a 12x16 tray? I am afraid my 2 liter bottle is not
> enough to do this. Thanks.
>
> -
> woody
How much you really need is somewhat dependent on the tray and your
technique. I have a very smooth and flat 8x10 tray and can actually
do fine with 100 ml., although I often use a bit more. Your tray is
about 2.5 times the area. If it is smooth and flat and you are not
much more clumsy than me, you should be able to do it with 300 ml.
Even so, 500 ml should be generous. If your tray has, for example,
deep grooves as some of my larger trays do, you will need a bit more.
Why not take a sheet of plain white paper the size you will use and
try a test? Put your best estimate of the amount you will need of
water in the tray and try to keep the paper wet (in daylight so you
can see what is going on). What you need to do is keep the paper wet
and the upper side fully in contact with fresh developer by agitation.
Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
development.
A problem that occurs when trying to use the minimum developer is
initially wetting the paper evenly. There is a bit of surface tension
in liquids and some curling in older paper. Consequently, I deal with
this (usually) by tipping the tray and putting an edge of the paper
first in the deep end while lowering the tray so the developer flows
over the paper. Sometimes (particularly if there is a lot of curl) I
simply put it in emulsion side down for a few seconds and then turn it
over with a few seconds of continuous agitation. Either can work.
On Apr 30, 4:04 pm, Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:43 am, Steven Woody <narkewo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How many volumn of solution do I need at least to smoothly process
> > print paper in a 12x16 tray? I am afraid my 2 liter bottle is not
> > enough to do this. Thanks.
>
> > -
> > woody
>
> How much you really need is somewhat dependent on the tray and your
> technique. I have a very smooth and flat 8x10 tray and can actually
> do fine with 100 ml., although I often use a bit more.
only 2mm deep, amazing!
> Your tray is
> about 2.5 times the area. If it is smooth and flat and you are not
> much more clumsy than me, you should be able to do it with 300 ml.
> Even so, 500 ml should be generous. If your tray has, for example,
> deep grooves as some of my larger trays do, you will need a bit more.
>
> Why not take a sheet of plain white paper the size you will use and
> try a test? Put your best estimate of the amount you will need of
> water in the tray and try to keep the paper wet (in daylight so you
> can see what is going on). What you need to do is keep the paper wet
> and the upper side fully in contact with fresh developer by agitation.
>
> Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
> airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
> not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
> circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
> development.
>
> A problem that occurs when trying to use the minimum developer is
> initially wetting the paper evenly. There is a bit of surface tension
> in liquids and some curling in older paper. Consequently, I deal with
> this (usually) by tipping the tray and putting an edge of the paper
> first in the deep end while lowering the tray so the developer flows
> over the paper. Sometimes (particularly if there is a lot of curl) I
> simply put it in emulsion side down for a few seconds and then turn it
> over with a few seconds of continuous agitation. Either can work.
Thanks a lot with your information. Now I come with confidence ready
to buy and use some 12x16 papers.
-
woody
> On Apr 30, 4:43 am, Steven Woody <narkewo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How many volumn of solution do I need at least to smoothly process
> > print paper in a 12x16 tray? I am afraid my 2 liter bottle is not
> > enough to do this. Thanks.
>
> > -
> > woody
>
> How much you really need is somewhat dependent on the tray and your
> technique. I have a very smooth and flat 8x10 tray and can actually
> do fine with 100 ml., although I often use a bit more.
only 2mm deep, amazing!
> Your tray is
> about 2.5 times the area. If it is smooth and flat and you are not
> much more clumsy than me, you should be able to do it with 300 ml.
> Even so, 500 ml should be generous. If your tray has, for example,
> deep grooves as some of my larger trays do, you will need a bit more.
>
> Why not take a sheet of plain white paper the size you will use and
> try a test? Put your best estimate of the amount you will need of
> water in the tray and try to keep the paper wet (in daylight so you
> can see what is going on). What you need to do is keep the paper wet
> and the upper side fully in contact with fresh developer by agitation.
>
> Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
> airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
> not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
> circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
> development.
>
> A problem that occurs when trying to use the minimum developer is
> initially wetting the paper evenly. There is a bit of surface tension
> in liquids and some curling in older paper. Consequently, I deal with
> this (usually) by tipping the tray and putting an edge of the paper
> first in the deep end while lowering the tray so the developer flows
> over the paper. Sometimes (particularly if there is a lot of curl) I
> simply put it in emulsion side down for a few seconds and then turn it
> over with a few seconds of continuous agitation. Either can work.
Thanks a lot with your information. Now I come with confidence ready
to buy and use some 12x16 papers.
-
woody
In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2af8d@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Peter <w2tga@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
>airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
>not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
>circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
>development.
Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic
curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadows,
midtones, and highlights.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
Peter <w2tga@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
>airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
>not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
>circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
>development.
Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic
curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadows,
midtones, and highlights.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
On Apr 30, 4:54 pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
> In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.=
com>,
>
> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
> >development.
>
> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic=
> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadow=
s,
> midtones, and highlights.
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon =
t...@rek.tjls.com
>
> "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is =
to
> be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." =
- Noam Chomsky
Perhaps I should have mentioned that point, as well. I understood he
was asking what the minimum was. I often make only a few prints and
then might only use 100 or 150 ml for an 8x10. If I will print all
day, I would use more and might add developer. Even so, 2 liters is
way more than needed for quite a few 12x16's (each eq. to 2.5 sheets
of 8x10). Kodak gives a fair summary of the capacity of their
solutions.
> In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.=
com>,
>
> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
> >development.
>
> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic=
> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadow=
s,
> midtones, and highlights.
>
> --
> Thor Lancelot Simon =
t...@rek.tjls.com
>
> "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is =
to
> be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." =
- Noam Chomsky
Perhaps I should have mentioned that point, as well. I understood he
was asking what the minimum was. I often make only a few prints and
then might only use 100 or 150 ml for an 8x10. If I will print all
day, I would use more and might add developer. Even so, 2 liters is
way more than needed for quite a few 12x16's (each eq. to 2.5 sheets
of 8x10). Kodak gives a fair summary of the capacity of their
solutions.
On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
> In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
> >development.
>
> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic
> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadows,
> midtones, and highlights.
>
oh.. i thnk i lost the answer. i think i should ask this way:
what's the usual height of solution required for smoothly develop
16x20 papers in tray? i hope this way you experts can understand me
better.
> In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
> >development.
>
> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic
> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadows,
> midtones, and highlights.
>
oh.. i thnk i lost the answer. i think i should ask this way:
what's the usual height of solution required for smoothly develop
16x20 papers in tray? i hope this way you experts can understand me
better.
"Steven Woody" <narkewoody@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:268a578f-fa92-4ac1-b67d-55eb181cefc9@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>> In article
>> <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
>> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
>> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
>> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
>> >development.
>>
>> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
>> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's
>> characteristic
>> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
>> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in
>> shadows,
>> midtones, and highlights.
>>
>
> oh.. i thnk i lost the answer. i think i should ask this way:
> what's the usual height of solution required for smoothly develop
> 16x20 papers in tray? i hope this way you experts can understand me
> better.
>
>
There are two answers:
1. You have to use enough chemistry to make the chemical reaction work. With
most developers, this isn't an issue, but with very small quantity of
developer it is possible to exhaust the chemical after a lot of prints. The
manufacturer's specifications will tell you how many prints can be made with
a certain amount of chemical.
2. You have to use enough chemical to quickly wet the paper. If you use a
very small amount, it will be difficult to get the developer to flow over
the entire surface evenly.
My trays have very tiny ridges on the bottom. I like to have at keast about
1/2" of developer in the tray. (I use developer one-shot and throw it away
after a session). I like to have the stop bath and fixer trays nearly half
full. I re-use those chemicals.
>
On 5/1/2008 3:06 AM Steven Woody spake thus:
> On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
>> In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
>> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
>> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
>> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
>> >development.
>>
>> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
>> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic
>> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
>> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadows,
>> midtones, and highlights.
>
> oh.. i thnk i lost the answer. i think i should ask this way:
> what's the usual height of solution required for smoothly develop
> 16x20 papers in tray? i hope this way you experts can understand me
> better.
Since nobody else here can seem to understand, let alone answer, what's
basically a simple question, might I suggest that you answer it
yourself? Assuming you have the trays you want to use, just fill them
with water to the minimum height you think you'll need, then pour out
the water and measure it. (If you don't actually have those trays, then
you'll have to do a volume calculation, based on the area of the tray
multiplied by the height of the developer solution, which you can again
determine empirically.)
This is what you wanted to know, right?
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
> On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
>> In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
>> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
>> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
>> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
>> >development.
>>
>> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
>> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic
>> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
>> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadows,
>> midtones, and highlights.
>
> oh.. i thnk i lost the answer. i think i should ask this way:
> what's the usual height of solution required for smoothly develop
> 16x20 papers in tray? i hope this way you experts can understand me
> better.
Since nobody else here can seem to understand, let alone answer, what's
basically a simple question, might I suggest that you answer it
yourself? Assuming you have the trays you want to use, just fill them
with water to the minimum height you think you'll need, then pour out
the water and measure it. (If you don't actually have those trays, then
you'll have to do a volume calculation, based on the area of the tray
multiplied by the height of the developer solution, which you can again
determine empirically.)
This is what you wanted to know, right?
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
On May 2, 1:57 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> On 5/1/2008 3:06 AM Steven Woody spake thus:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
> >> In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
> >> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
> >> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
> >> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
> >> >development.
>
> >> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
> >> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic
> >> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
> >> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadows,
> >> midtones, and highlights.
>
> > oh.. i thnk i lost the answer. i think i should ask this way:
> > what's the usual height of solution required for smoothly develop
> > 16x20 papers in tray? i hope this way you experts can understand me
> > better.
>
> Since nobody else here can seem to understand, let alone answer, what's
> basically a simple question, might I suggest that you answer it
> yourself? Assuming you have the trays you want to use, just fill them
> with water to the minimum height you think you'll need, then pour out
> the water and measure it. (If you don't actually have those trays, then
> you'll have to do a volume calculation, based on the area of the tray
> multiplied by the height of the developer solution, which you can again
> determine empirically.)
>
> This is what you wanted to know, right?
>
Dear David, I think you don't understand. My problem is actually that
I am not sure what the solution height is safe to smoothly processing
paper. I want to use 1mm to get minimal soution volumn, but everyone
knows that 1mm is not safe, I can use 30mm to ensure it's safe, but
you know 30mm means almost 4 liter for a 12x16 tray. So, my question
is just the solution height, without the heigth, I can not do any
experiment or calulation. By reading replies in this thread, I now
think 12mm is a safe solution heigth. So, I need 1.5 liter for 12x16
or 1.2 liter for 11x14.
> On 5/1/2008 3:06 AM Steven Woody spake thus:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 10:54 pm, t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
> >> In article <3af4c15b-53eb-4aaa-b2d3-a0fe88e2a...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> Peter <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Generally speaking the runway behind you is of no practical use in an
> >> >airplane and the liquid (more than a few molecules) above the paper is
> >> >not of much use, either. Still, you have to keep it evenly wet and
> >> >circulating (normally with intermittent agitation) for even
> >> >development.
>
> >> Are you using your developer one-shot, or reusing it? With such small
> >> solution volumes you run the risk of changes to the paper's characteristic
> >> curve because the developer itself can become exhausted over the course
> >> of developing a single sheet of paper, giving different contrast in shadows,
> >> midtones, and highlights.
>
> > oh.. i thnk i lost the answer. i think i should ask this way:
> > what's the usual height of solution required for smoothly develop
> > 16x20 papers in tray? i hope this way you experts can understand me
> > better.
>
> Since nobody else here can seem to understand, let alone answer, what's
> basically a simple question, might I suggest that you answer it
> yourself? Assuming you have the trays you want to use, just fill them
> with water to the minimum height you think you'll need, then pour out
> the water and measure it. (If you don't actually have those trays, then
> you'll have to do a volume calculation, based on the area of the tray
> multiplied by the height of the developer solution, which you can again
> determine empirically.)
>
> This is what you wanted to know, right?
>
Dear David, I think you don't understand. My problem is actually that
I am not sure what the solution height is safe to smoothly processing
paper. I want to use 1mm to get minimal soution volumn, but everyone
knows that 1mm is not safe, I can use 30mm to ensure it's safe, but
you know 30mm means almost 4 liter for a 12x16 tray. So, my question
is just the solution height, without the heigth, I can not do any
experiment or calulation. By reading replies in this thread, I now
think 12mm is a safe solution heigth. So, I need 1.5 liter for 12x16
or 1.2 liter for 11x14.
On 5/3/2008 6:38 PM Steven Woody spake thus:
> On May 2, 1:57 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>> Since nobody else here can seem to understand, let alone answer, what's
>> basically a simple question, might I suggest that you answer it
>> yourself? Assuming you have the trays you want to use, just fill them
>> with water to the minimum height you think you'll need, then pour out
>> the water and measure it. (If you don't actually have those trays, then
>> you'll have to do a volume calculation, based on the area of the tray
>> multiplied by the height of the developer solution, which you can again
>> determine empirically.)
>>
>> This is what you wanted to know, right?
>
> Dear David, I think you don't understand. My problem is actually that
> I am not sure what the solution height is safe to smoothly processing
> paper. I want to use 1mm to get minimal soution volumn, but everyone
> knows that 1mm is not safe, I can use 30mm to ensure it's safe, but
> you know 30mm means almost 4 liter for a 12x16 tray. So, my question
> is just the solution height, without the heigth, I can not do any
> experiment or calulation. By reading replies in this thread, I now
> think 12mm is a safe solution heigth. So, I need 1.5 liter for 12x16
> or 1.2 liter for 11x14.
I still don't see why you can't determine the volume you need by simple
experimentation; you only need enough solution to cover the paper
completely, which should be very easy to determine visually. Forget
"solution height" in mm; just figure out how much liquid it takes to
completely submerge a piece of paper. We're not talking about
high-precision processing here.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
> On May 2, 1:57 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>> Since nobody else here can seem to understand, let alone answer, what's
>> basically a simple question, might I suggest that you answer it
>> yourself? Assuming you have the trays you want to use, just fill them
>> with water to the minimum height you think you'll need, then pour out
>> the water and measure it. (If you don't actually have those trays, then
>> you'll have to do a volume calculation, based on the area of the tray
>> multiplied by the height of the developer solution, which you can again
>> determine empirically.)
>>
>> This is what you wanted to know, right?
>
> Dear David, I think you don't understand. My problem is actually that
> I am not sure what the solution height is safe to smoothly processing
> paper. I want to use 1mm to get minimal soution volumn, but everyone
> knows that 1mm is not safe, I can use 30mm to ensure it's safe, but
> you know 30mm means almost 4 liter for a 12x16 tray. So, my question
> is just the solution height, without the heigth, I can not do any
> experiment or calulation. By reading replies in this thread, I now
> think 12mm is a safe solution heigth. So, I need 1.5 liter for 12x16
> or 1.2 liter for 11x14.
I still don't see why you can't determine the volume you need by simple
experimentation; you only need enough solution to cover the paper
completely, which should be very easy to determine visually. Forget
"solution height" in mm; just figure out how much liquid it takes to
completely submerge a piece of paper. We're not talking about
high-precision processing here.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
On May 5, 7:28 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> On 5/3/2008 6:38 PM Steven Woody spake thus:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 1:57 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> >> Since nobody else here can seem to understand, let alone answer, what's
> >> basically a simple question, might I suggest that you answer it
> >> yourself? Assuming you have the trays you want to use, just fill them
> >> with water to the minimum height you think you'll need, then pour out
> >> the water and measure it. (If you don't actually have those trays, then
> >> you'll have to do a volume calculation, based on the area of the tray
> >> multiplied by the height of the developer solution, which you can again
> >> determine empirically.)
>
> >> This is what you wanted to know, right?
>
> > Dear David, I think you don't understand. My problem is actually that
> > I am not sure what the solution height is safe to smoothly processing
> > paper. I want to use 1mm to get minimal soution volumn, but everyone
> > knows that 1mm is not safe, I can use 30mm to ensure it's safe, but
> > you know 30mm means almost 4 liter for a 12x16 tray. So, my question
> > is just the solution height, without the heigth, I can not do any
> > experiment or calulation. By reading replies in this thread, I now
> > think 12mm is a safe solution heigth. So, I need 1.5 liter for 12x16
> > or 1.2 liter for 11x14.
>
> I still don't see why you can't determine the volume you need by simple
> experimentation; you only need enough solution to cover the paper
> completely, which should be very easy to determine visually. Forget
> "solution height" in mm; just figure out how much liquid it takes to
> completely submerge a piece of paper. We're not talking about
> high-precision processing here.
>
> --
> The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
> conversation with the average voter.
>
> - Attributed to Winston Churchill
Thank you. This makes sense: "Yonly need enough solution to cover
the paper
> completely$B!H!%(BI can determine it visually after I decide and buy in the trays :)
> On 5/3/2008 6:38 PM Steven Woody spake thus:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 1:57 am, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> >> Since nobody else here can seem to understand, let alone answer, what's
> >> basically a simple question, might I suggest that you answer it
> >> yourself? Assuming you have the trays you want to use, just fill them
> >> with water to the minimum height you think you'll need, then pour out
> >> the water and measure it. (If you don't actually have those trays, then
> >> you'll have to do a volume calculation, based on the area of the tray
> >> multiplied by the height of the developer solution, which you can again
> >> determine empirically.)
>
> >> This is what you wanted to know, right?
>
> > Dear David, I think you don't understand. My problem is actually that
> > I am not sure what the solution height is safe to smoothly processing
> > paper. I want to use 1mm to get minimal soution volumn, but everyone
> > knows that 1mm is not safe, I can use 30mm to ensure it's safe, but
> > you know 30mm means almost 4 liter for a 12x16 tray. So, my question
> > is just the solution height, without the heigth, I can not do any
> > experiment or calulation. By reading replies in this thread, I now
> > think 12mm is a safe solution heigth. So, I need 1.5 liter for 12x16
> > or 1.2 liter for 11x14.
>
> I still don't see why you can't determine the volume you need by simple
> experimentation; you only need enough solution to cover the paper
> completely, which should be very easy to determine visually. Forget
> "solution height" in mm; just figure out how much liquid it takes to
> completely submerge a piece of paper. We're not talking about
> high-precision processing here.
>
> --
> The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
> conversation with the average voter.
>
> - Attributed to Winston Churchill
Thank you. This makes sense: "Yonly need enough solution to cover
the paper
> completely$B!H!%(BI can determine it visually after I decide and buy in the trays :)
In article <481e463e$0$11194$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com>,
David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> On 5/3/2008 6:38 PM Steven Woody spake thus:
> I still don't see why you can't determine the volume you need by simple
> experimentation; you only need enough solution to cover the paper
> completely, which should be very easy to determine visually. Forget
> "solution height" in mm; just figure out how much liquid it takes to
> completely submerge a piece of paper. We're not talking about
> high-precision processing here.
Forget reason some people- especially "photo" people are anal in the
worse ways.
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> On 5/3/2008 6:38 PM Steven Woody spake thus:
> I still don't see why you can't determine the volume you need by simple
> experimentation; you only need enough solution to cover the paper
> completely, which should be very easy to determine visually. Forget
> "solution height" in mm; just figure out how much liquid it takes to
> completely submerge a piece of paper. We're not talking about
> high-precision processing here.
Forget reason some people- especially "photo" people are anal in the
worse ways.
--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
"____" <internetphobic@deletedmail.com> wrote in message
news:internetphobic-2D74B7.21023205052008@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> Forget reason some people- especially "photo" people are anal in the
> worse ways.
In precisely what worse ways? In excruciating detail, please.
news:internetphobic-2D74B7.21023205052008@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> Forget reason some people- especially "photo" people are anal in the
> worse ways.
In precisely what worse ways? In excruciating detail, please.
On 5/5/2008 7:50 PM Pico spake thus:
> "____" <internetphobic@deletedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:internetphobic-2D74B7.21023205052008@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
>> Forget reason some people- especially "photo" people are anal in the
>> worse ways.
>
> In precisely what worse ways? In excruciating detail, please.
Wrong newsgroup for that.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
> "____" <internetphobic@deletedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:internetphobic-2D74B7.21023205052008@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
>> Forget reason some people- especially "photo" people are anal in the
>> worse ways.
>
> In precisely what worse ways? In excruciating detail, please.
Wrong newsgroup for that.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
- Attributed to Winston Churchill
"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:481fef0e$0$11144$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 5/5/2008 7:50 PM Pico spake thus:
>
>> "____" <internetphobic@deletedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:internetphobic-2D74B7.21023205052008@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>>
>>> Forget reason some people- especially "photo" people are anal in the
>>> worse ways.
>>
>> In precisely what worse ways? In excruciating detail, please.
>
> Wrong newsgroup for that.
ooooh. Wrong darkroom.
news:481fef0e$0$11144$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 5/5/2008 7:50 PM Pico spake thus:
>
>> "____" <internetphobic@deletedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:internetphobic-2D74B7.21023205052008@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>>
>>> Forget reason some people- especially "photo" people are anal in the
>>> worse ways.
>>
>> In precisely what worse ways? In excruciating detail, please.
>
> Wrong newsgroup for that.
ooooh. Wrong darkroom.
