how do i figure out a 1:10 dilution for a 16oz container??

<p>hello, i need for learn how to figure out a 1:10 dilution for a 16 oz tank??any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you for your time, megan</p>

<p>For 1 to 10, you will have 11 total parts. So for 1 part = 16/11. For 10 parts use 10*16/11=160/11.</p>

 

<p>1:10 is also written as 1+10=11<br>

16oz/ 11= 1.45 oz of concentrate<br>

16oz-1.45= 14.55 oz water.</p>

<p>1 part concentrate plus 1 part dilution equals 11 parts total. If you want your final volume to be 16 oz, divide 16 oz by 11. That equals roughly 1.45 oz of concentrate and 14.55 oz of dilution. <br>

One thing to keep in mind:<br>

Depending on what you are mixing, there are sometimes recommended minimum amounts of concentrate required no matter what the final volume will be. Example: If mixing Rodinal, the minimum recommended is 5ml (0.169 oz) per roll. If you were mixing Rodinal @ 1:100, you would need to mix up 174 oz minimum even though the tank might be only 20 oz or so.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Whoa, hold on here. 1:10 is <i>not</i> the same as 1+10. 1:10 means "one part of the chemical in 10 parts total." A 1:10 ratio is the same as 1+9, which is another way of stating "one part of the chemical to 9 parts water."<br>

If the dilution is 1:10, that's 1.6 oz chemical and 14.4 oz water. 16 oz total, 1.6 oz of that is the chemical.</p>

<p>hello, thanks so much, i really appreciate it!</p>

<p>Hmmm... I was a little surprised to read some of these answers. Standard laboratory practice for dilution at 1:10 calls for 1 part diluate to 9 parts diluent. In other words 1:10 is the dilution for a 10% solution of the diluate, or 1.6 oz concentrate to 14.4 oz water for a typical 16 oz developer formulation. That's what my chemistry textbooks said and how I've always done it photography and other chemistry applications. <br /> It's always worked perfectly for me with developers (the math is easier too) so I'd be interested to find out if I'm the only one doing it this "old fashioned" way.</p>

<p>Rick, and others:</p>

<p>when Kodak writes 1:"something", then the "something" is the water part (the diluent), not the total.</p>

<p>If that was not so, then the development times for "Full Strength Developer" would be the same as for "1:1", but that is not the case as can be seen in Kodaks Technical Data Sheets.</p>

<p>There is less confusion if one uses 1+"something" rather than 1:"something".</p>

<p>For calculation purposes I prefer the % method of writing. It is then also clear what is meant.</p>

<p>this is why the metric system is frequently used.<br>

a roll of 35mm 36 exposure film i will need at least 8 ounces ( about 250 ML ) the tank may hold 16 oz or about 500 ml..<br>

so calculating it that way is nuch easier. But as said, there is a minimum quanmtity of developer needed.<br>

so avoid high dilutions like 1:100 if the tank capacity is small.<br>

I have some tiny graduates, but now I am diabetic and have extra syringes to measure small quantities<br>

( and oil the electric fan) ( your federal tax dollars at work)</p>

<p>Rick,<br />You are not doing it the "old fashioned" way, you are doing it the "new fashioned" way. You are absolutely correct, your chemistry book has not lead you astray. Back in the 1950's dilutions were standardized in the scientific community world wide where 1:10 was 1+9. Unfortunately, photographers came from many different backgrounds and the "old ways" were carried forward to not confuse the non-scientific community. It is best to follow the 1+X nomenclature to avoid confusion. You may notice most photographic concentrated chemicals use the "+" in indicating dilutions, which makes both "old" and "new" school photographers happy.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>Megan what developer are you using and from a stock or a concentrait?</p>

<p>Using 1:1 and 1+1 interchangeably drives me nuts sometimes.</p>

<p>32oz = 1 liter = 1000ml<br>

1:10 = one tenth = 100ml<br>

I really like the metric system for lab stuff. ;)</p>

 

<p>Kodak ven in books from 80 years ago uses a practical ratio; NOT what several others seem to be confused about. I gues they are just new to? :) The raio 1:10 means on part stock plus 10 parts water; not that others are preaching wrongly. It is in EVERY one of the 100 lbs worth of Kodak books here; or all ages. Use the actual definition used fro over 100 years in photo work; NOT a tenured slacker in a chem lab with ZERO photo experience; is a duffus.:) Use the actual *recipe* by the Photo chemcial; Campbells Soup maker; not an orthogonal definition that dosnt NOT apply to the actual product. You want to to the correct ratio the *stuffs maker* uses; not some of the wall ratio that is wrong. If a soup cans say 1 part soup plus 1 part water it means just that. Same goes with photo stuff too. +</p>

<p>Sigh. One wonders how long a degenerate, formerly informative thread, will now drag on like two drunks scrapping in a parking lot.</p>

<p>Umm... Thanks Kelly, I feel like pulling my hair now.</p>

<p>Switch to metric (500 ml instead of 16 oz) and calculate accordingly. 500 ml is a little bit more than 16 oz, but just pour off any excess.<br>

And forget what you learned in high-school chem about dilutions---it's more accurately 1+10 than 1:10.</p>

<p>What Chuck said . . .<br>

Developing Minox in a tiny canister forced some inventiveness! While playing with my calculator and then dealing with the all the various conversions (American, English, metric etc) depending on the recipe and the container, I decided to do an easier method and just use a larger measured container and have more solution. The benefits for me were more consistency of solution and easier temperature control. I would essentially make a "batch." Given a few rolls and a few tanks, the method can be refined and documented.</p>

<p>The whole point of being abit scrapy by me was so instill the whole *darkroom* photo process is old; simple; and designed with no math.<br /> Thus it is with parts</p>

<p>. One migjht be dilluting down Kodagraph developer 3 decades ago to a 1:7 mix.<br /> One grabs a container; ANY container and you use 7 parts water to 1 part Kodagraph for the tray.<br /> <br /> There is nothing to calculate at all; except IF one wants an EXACT volume.<br /> <br /> In Megans case she wants 16 oz total; with a 1:10 mix (by darkroom terminology) 1 plus 10 equals 11 parts . This means 1/11th developer; ie 16 oz times 1/11th; which is 16/11; ie about 1.45 fluid oz developer.<br /> the water is 10/11ths; ie 16 oz times 10/11 is about 14.5 oz.<br>

Using 1.5 oz developer and 14.5 oz water might be a tad off; but an easier rule to follow. Here one would have a 14.5/1.5 ratio; ie 9.67; darn close to 1:10</p>

<p>Using some containers with milliliters is what many folks do; a dinky fine one for the raw developer.<br /> <br /> Mixing of other things follow the same rule as darkroom use; parts oil to parts gasoline for a 2 cycle gasoline motors. The British Seagull here uses a 1:10 mix; a Seaking a 1:16 mix; a generator and weedeater a 1:50 mix.<br /> <br /> If mixing of 2 cycle oil; darkroom and even cooking uses parts and ratios one way for many generations; there is no reason chemists should add confusion by quoting silly wrongs that do not apply to the task at hand. The same folks might discover a 2x4 is not really a 2x4 in size too! :)<br /> <br /> Kodak has used the stock : to water ratio before all of us were born; thus there is no reason change or confuse others with wrong math; or injecting what A:B means in another industry.<br>

<br /> On a bottle of Kodagraph thats 30 years old it says 1:7 and also says 1 part Kodagraph to 7 parts water. Thus it clearly states what the colon is ratioing; so folks know and do not assume.<br /> With larger ratios it really doesnt matter as much whether the weed eater really sees 1/49; 1/50 or 1/51 parts oil.</p>

<p>Good lord people. Does this minor point really require this amount of verbiage?</p>

<p>It hardly makes any practical difference whether it's 1+10 or 1:10 or 1☆10. Just pick a mixture and use it consistently; you have to adjust your times anyway, so it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.</p>

<p>Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. The intensity of these fights oft seems inversely proportional to their importance.</p>

<p><em> </em>I find that when higher dilutions are used it's easier to convert to metric measurement. If I'm using Rodinal at 1:50 and developing one roll of 35m film an a ss tank I round up to 250ml of water and add 5ml of Rodinal. This gives me 255 ml of working solution. If I pour all of it into the tank there won't be much room for the solution to move around when I agaitate so I leave about half an ounce in the measuring cup and discard that. A very long time ago when I first used Microdol-X I mistakenly diluted one part of Microdol-X with two parts of water instead of three. My negatives were a little dense.</p>

<p>Add 50 ml to 500 ml of water, stir, pour, and throw the rest out. Don't fool around with fractions of ml's (cc'c if you like).</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

<p>Lynn has it exactly right. Keep things simple, work out your times for his simplified dilution, and go forward boldly.</p>

<p>Michael; it really is not a fight to educate folks.<br /> <br /> <br /> Non Photo-Chemists inject the wrong way on many of these dilution threads; either to be cute; or thru ignorance or to mix the pot. The wrong way might be fun to preach; maybe your local lab will make a 33 percent error using Microdol-X 1:3 and you like the free overdevelopment?<br /> <br /> <br /> The photographic chemist ie Kodak WAY has been in the Kodak literature before any of us have been born to use stock parts to water parts.</p>

<p>It is annoying when folks preach the wrong method. Some of us like to correct their evil ways; ie correcting their ill dogma. Maybe reading labels or photography is not their strong suit</p>

<p>The Kodak system is simple; it has been used forever; it darn wrong for others to add more variablity to anothers developing thur their ill preaching. The way Kodak uses the colon; ie parts stock : water parts is in books from the 1920's and older; thus there is no reason for folks to inject the wrong dilution method; or even say Kodak is wrong.</p>

<p>The error is minor for large dilutions ratios; and the error grows large with dilution that uses less water. The error is large for a Dektols 1:1 mix like for 1950's Verichrome in soup bowls; versus 1:50 for Rodinol.</p>

<p>How about Microdol at 1:3?</p>

<p>***How about Kodak D-76 1:2 from 1926?</p>

<p>***Maybe a chart in 1930' shows Verichrome to be developed in D-76 at 1:2 for X minutes at 70F; the dilution for thrift; folks had little money.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ***A person ( Joe the Plumber) who read the Kodaks D76 Metal Can might mix 1 quart D76 to 2 parts water.<br /> <br /> <br /> ***A chemist (Phd?:)) who is the assuming type see the colon; and makes the mix 1:2 by his/her assumed ways; ignores the Kodak label; and mixes up 1 part chemical to 2 parts total, Thus they mix up 1 part D76 to 1 part water.</p>

<p><br /> ***Now the poor Know- it- all non-kodak chemist has a developer brew that is now WAY STRONGER than the correct chaps soup. It is 1/2 over 1/3 stronger; ie 50 percent stronger. Lets say one made up 60 oz of finished developer by both folks ways. The plumber would use 20 oz D76 and 40oz water. The chemist would use 30 oz D76 and 30 oz water.</p>

<p>***The *FILM* in the soup bowl *sees* 50 percent more active developer per unit volume; thus his/her negatives would come out way darker; maybe not what they really wanted. Or they just added more contast to an already bright beach shot and now they have to mess around with dilute developers in the printing stage; tying to make better prints.</p>

<p>With a Microdol-x 1:3 assumption; the error is less. Joe the Plummer mixes up 1 part dev to 3 parts water. The chemist mixes up 1 part dev to 2 parts water; for 3 parts. The error is less; it is just 1/3 divided by 1/4; ie 4/3 rd's; ie just a 33 percent stronger brew.</p>

<p>The reason to understand the *correct way* of using *photo dilutions* is so one does NOT get into trouble when using stronger brews like 1:2 or 1:3 . Like many assumptions; it works in many cases and blows up in your face where the faulty assumptions *error* grows large.</p>

<p>If one is mixing up Orange Juice or Coffee or tint of paint a small 3 percent error is down in the weeds; noise. A 50 percent error say in drinking 50 percent more beer, or 50 percent more coffee might be noticeable. Maybe it is ok to mix up 50 percent more selective weed killer for anothers yard; heck it is no your grass.</p>

<p>With Microdol-X the Plumber and Chemist might also fail to read the 1/2 century plus old warnings not to store the mixed 1:3 brew too; thus adding more confusion; more variation in processed results.<br /> Imagine if you give your B&W rolls of film to lab#1 and Lab#2; one might use dilution one way; one another. Maybe one too ignores agitation; small/large tank columns; temperature or even time; or how old/used the developer is too.</p>

<p>The reason Kodak says 1 part developer to 2 parts water and shows 1:2 is to clarify; so there is no assuming. It is in D76 from the 1930's; D8 of the 1940's, Microdol of the 1950's; Kodagraph of the 1960's. Its fairly clear what 1 part stock is to X parts water; whether OJ or developer.</p>

<p>A 50 percent error maybe is nothing if it somebody elses negatives. If one got 50 percent less cash on payday many might notice. Maybe it is like getting a job; you start at X per week and assume it is net pay; it turns out to be gross pay with AIG deductions! :)</p>

<p>The Kodak system has always been simple; it was designed to be simple; like cooking.<br>

<br /> It was simple 100 years ago.<br>

<br /> Reading this thread proves that many folks do not read labels; and are assuming types in life.<br>

<br /> When a can of Acme stuff says dilute 1:2 and says also 1 part stock to 2 parts water the assuming types run off with another industries definition; and ruin film; kill grass instead of just weeds; make kids rooms more Barney Purple; make dogs ill; make coffee too strong. Read the label of the product and turn off the assuming genes/DNA to get better results. :)</p>

<p>Wait, wait!</p>

<p>You're ALL correct!</p>

<p>It <strong>IS</strong> a desert topping <strong>AND</strong> a floor cleaner!</p>

<p>(Now let this thread die.)</p>