510 Pyro - First Impressions

[tundra]

No prints yet, this is based on inspection of wet negs...

Tri-X 4x5 exposed at ASA 320
Pyro 510 1:400
60 min semistand: 3 min prewet, 2 min initial agitation 15 sec agitation @ 31min
Open tank, minimal suspension

Initial Impressions:


Negatives show deeper stain associated with Pyrogallol (like PMK)
Shadows suggest film hit full speed
There appear to be some hints of transition effects on cloud edges similar to PMK, but only printing can confirm this
One of the negatives shows striping effects in the clouds but I cannot tell yet if that was just the scene or a development artifact



In general, all the howling about how 510 isn't any good seems unfounded.

I won't know about acuity and edge effects until I print.

More to follow.

[popdoc]

Thanks for the report!
Excited for “the rest of the story”…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tundra]

I have now tested 510 Pyro with 4x5 films both at 1:300 (Fompan 200) and 1:400
(Tri-X, Fomapan 200) with Semistand development:

3 min presoak
2 min continuous agitation @68F
Stand
15 sec agitation @31min
Stand
End at 60min


Observations

Note that these are from magnified examinations of the negatives and scanning
one of them, not based on silver prints:

1. The developer has nearly the consistency of honey
and cannot be poured, but requires a syringe.

2. I do not see the mid-tone microcontrast that, say, Pyrocat-HD
produces, at least, it's not as pronounced.

3. To my eye, the negatives lack the edge effects and acuity
I get with Semistand Pyrocat-HD negatives. NOT NOTED IN ACTUAL PRINTS - 7.16.2022

4. Although 510 is Pyrogallol based, it seems to actually produce less
stain than Pyrocat-HD for the exact same subject.

Conclusions

It might be possible to get better results by further fiddling
with 510 dilutions, but I see no compelling reason to use this
developer.

Pyrocat-HD is easier to handle and produces sharper negatives, at least
to the degree I've tested so far.

The claim of lower grain may be because the developer is acting with an
increased solvent effect, which would also explain the lower sharpness.
Again, more testing would be indicated, and - again - I'm not going to bother.

[koraks]

#1 is a fact; that stuff is hard to pull up even in a good syringe. I didn't like that at all. I think I recognize #2. That is to say, I just preferred the tonal relationships the same film made in Pyrocat vs. 510. Perhaps we're talking about the same thing.

Re: #4: this one is tricky to judge by the naked eye because the stain color is different. If you keep in mind that the stain from 510 is more greenish vs. the more brown stain from Pyrocat, you might find the quantitative difference isn't so big. I haven't done measurements on it.

Sounds like you hit pretty much the same spot I did a few years ago when I tried 510. It worked OK, but it just wasn't superior to other developers that had slight advantages over this one for me.

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Anything more dilute than 1:100 is bound to be problematic due to the very low amount of developing agents in the working solution. Combined with stand/semistand, this is a sure recipe for inconsistent results.

For ease of measurement and pouring, it might be useful to dilute the concentrate with equal amount of Propylene glycol so that you use twice the amount than recommended.

[Alan9940]

I've followed this thread with interest because I've used a lot of 510-Pyro for many rolls of 120 and sheets of LF film (4x5 and 8x10) and I've never noticed all the issues posted herein. I use a child medicine syringe to dispense the developer and don't find it problematic. I do rate my film lower than I would with, say, Pyrocat-HD but, in my experience, you have to do that with most pyrogallol-based formulas--I've used PMK, WD2D, and ABC Pyro. I've always used 510-Pyro at the standard 1:100 dilution and have processed in both hand tanks and on my Jobo in Expert Drums without issues. Yes, the stain is different from Pyrocat-HD but that's to be expected. I have no way to measure or quantify edge effects but I can say that in glancing light across the emulsion the image looks etched into the base. I've seen this same thing with Pyrocat-HD negatives. I still do use Pyrocat-HD for certain development techniques but have to keep it fairly fresh as I've had it die on me suddenly and without warning. I've used 510-Pyro until it's pretty much black and the negatives are always fine. Not trying to convince anybody that 510-Pyro is just as good as any of the other pyro-based formulas...just thought I'd post my experience for comparison.

[tundra]

Anything more dilute than 1:100 is bound to be problematic due to the very low amount of developing agents in the working solution. Combined with stand/semistand, this is a sure recipe for inconsistent results.

For ease of measurement and pouring, it might be useful to dilute the concentrate with equal amount of Propylene glycol so that you use twice the amount than recommended.

I routinely dilute Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200 or even 1.5:1:300 and get consistent and excellent results Semistanding across a wide variety of films. The only film that's had any real problem with it, is very old (1974) Plus-X sheet film that showed bad bromide drag no matter what I did. That same film did fine in D-23 1:1.

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I routinely dilute Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:200 or even 1.5:1:300 and get consistent and excellent results Semistanding across a wide variety of films. The only film that's had any real problem with it, is very old (1974) Plus-X sheet film that showed bad bromide drag no matter what I did. That same film did fine in D-23 1:1.

Any reason why you didn't use the recommended dilution of 1:100 for 510-Pyro? Any dilution of 510-Pyro weaker than 1:100 is to be treated with skepticism due the very low amount of developing agents and the propensity of Pyrogallol to get oxidised quickly. Even Zone Imaging warns against using higher dilutions if one cares about image quality:
"510 Pyro is supplied as a liquid concentrate diluted for 1:100 one-shot use. However, it can be further diluted for economy though there will be a reduction in image quality and longer development times."

[koraks]

Ok, but arguably pyrocatechol is likewise easily oxidized, dilutions beyond 1:1:100 are likewise regarded with suspicion by some...and at the same time it works for OP and many others. Apparently tundra wanted to do a comparison within process parameters that are normal for him.
Who's to stop you or me to run other tests? (Well, I did, you know the story.)

[tundra]

Any reason why you didn't use the recommended dilution of 1:100 for 510-Pyro? Any dilution of 510-Pyro weaker than 1:100 is to be treated with skepticism due the very low amount of developing agents and the propensity of Pyrogallol to get oxidised quickly. Even Zone Imaging warns against using higher dilutions if one cares about image quality:
"510 Pyro is supplied as a liquid concentrate diluted for 1:100 one-shot use. However, it can be further diluted for economy though there will be a reduction in image quality and longer development times."

Yes, if I were inclined to do more tests, I would try 1:100. But I am seeing nothing in 510 that compels me to try and tune it further. It produced entirely printable negatives, but the outcomes were generally inferior to my dialed-in Pyrocat-HD process. If/when I get bored or have more time, I may return to visit 510. In the mean time, I am going to try to mix it with Propylene Glycol to try and make the stock solution more manageable. What I don't know is whether it will go into solution with room temp PG or if I have to preheat it first.

[tundra]

Ok, but arguably pyrocatechol is likewise easily oxidized, dilutions beyond 1:1:100 are likewise regarded with suspicion by some...and at the same time it works for OP and many others. Apparently tundra wanted to do a comparison within process parameters that are normal for him.
Who's to stop you or me to run other tests? (Well, I did, you know the story.)

The 1.5:1:200 dilution was Sandy King's recommendation as a starting point for low agitation development. Steve Sherman has similarly dilute concoctions in his workflow.

There is a balancing act here. When doing (Semi)Stand or EMA, you want highly dilute developer in order to exhaust highlight development quickly to give those lovely edge transitions and apparent overall acuity. But if it is too dilute, you won't get full shadow development because the developer isn't there in sufficient amounts no matter how long the film sits in it. I have have found that 1.5:1 to 200 or 250 works well, the latter being indicated for really big SBR scenes.

Note that "normal" Pyrocat-HD at 1:1:100 produces a 1% Part A in solution (the business end of the developer). But even at 1.5:1:200, there is still 0.75% Part A in solution which isn't that great a difference and - in my extensive testing - is more than enough.

[tundra]

I finally got to print some of the 510 Pyro negatives. I am retracting the observation that they are less sharp/lower acuity than Pyrocat-HD. Actual prints show excellent sharpness as expected from a 4x5 negative.

[ajsikel]

the 510 pyro has been discussed indepthly since its creation zilion years ago by Jay de Fehr, owner of the formula and creator, and its users likewise.
Many pages has been written , many stories unfolded.
Why not ask him, for his practical advice backed by true facts and serious practice?

[tundra]

the 510 pyro has been discussed indepthly since its creation zilion years ago by Jay de Fehr, owner of the formula and creator, and its users likewise.
Many pages has been written , many stories unfolded.
Why not ask him, for his practical advice backed by true facts and serious practice?

Because nothing matters but my own work, done my way, with my workflow. Until I have a process dialed in, there is no way to know how the material works in context.

[Michael R]

When it comes to these home-made concoctions it is really up to the individual user to try things for themselves and draw their own subjective conclusions. These user experiences may (or may not) be of value to other potential users. There is almost nothing scientific and/or objective out there which can be considered reliable. Even in a best case scenario the equipment, knowledge and time required for objective evaluations and comparisons of characteristics such as granularity, acutance etc. is beyond what a hobby formulator can undertake. Even basic sensitometry is lacking, and is somewhat more difficult to both test and interpret for staining developers in the context of tone reproduction.




the 510 pyro has been discussed indepthly since its creation zilion years ago by Jay de Fehr, owner of the formula and creator, and its users likewise.
Many pages has been written , many stories unfolded.
Why not ask him, for his practical advice backed by true facts and serious practice?

[tundra]

When it comes to these home-made concoctions it is really up to the individual user to try things for themselves and draw their own subjective conclusions. These user experiences may (or may not) be of value to other potential users. There is almost nothing scientific and/or objective out there which can be considered reliable. Even in a best case scenario the equipment, knowledge and time required for objective evaluations and comparisons of characteristics such as granularity, acutance etc. is beyond what a hobby formulator can undertake. Even basic sensitometry is lacking, and is somewhat more difficult to both test and interpret for staining developers in the context of tone reproduction.

Well, it can't be done to lab precision levels, but comparing concoction A against concoction B by processing negatives shot at the same time/place comes close enough for practical purposes. It's true that real sensiometry and detailed acutance analysis is outside the ability of most individual photographers. That's why I make test prints for comparison - the print (or, arguably, the scan) are really all that matter.

It took me the better part of 6+ months to dial in Pyrocat-HD as a low agitation developer. I wouldn't expect to have to do anything less with 510. But I wanted to at least take a brief look at it to see if there was anything new or compelling there. So far, I've seen nothing, really. But I'll occasionally revisit it as time permits.

[Michael R]

I agree. That was basically my point. Particularly in the case of a developer such as 510 pyro, there is little or nothing to go on, so it is up to the individual user to figure things out and come to a subjective conclusion, in which case experimentation along with best efforts at some semblance of controlled comparisons - including prints - is a reasonable approach.

In other words, I disagree with the points made in post #13. The fact many people have written about this developer is pretty much irrelevant. It doesn’t make your own testing unnecessary, and it doesn’t diminish the value in sharing your results.


Well, it can't be done to lab precision levels, but comparing concoction A against concoction B by processing negatives shot at the same time/place comes close enough for practical purposes. It's true that real sensiometry and detailed acutance analysis is outside the ability of most individual photographers. That's why I make test prints for comparison - the print (or, arguably, the scan) are really all that matter.

It took me the better part of 6+ months to dial in Pyrocat-HD as a low agitation developer. I wouldn't expect to have to do anything less with 510. But I wanted to at least take a brief look at it to see if there was anything new or compelling there. So far, I've seen nothing, really. But I'll occasionally revisit it as time permits.

[j.e.simmons]

Jay often said he would release his developers almost like beta version software - for the photo community to comment on and improve. Looks like we’re doing just that.

[jag09]

Will be referencing this thread in the coming weeks as I have some 510 pyro on the way. Looking to try it out as a step away from HC110

[tundra]

Will be referencing this thread in the coming weeks as I have some 510 pyro on the way. Looking to try it out as a step away from HC110

Just remember that Pyro is a toxic substance so use appropriate lab technique - a protective apron or labcoat, nitrile gloves, eye protection, good ventilation, an appropriate mask, etc. Do this while in use and while cleaning up.

[ajsikel]

post number 13 had nothing to do with diminishing undermining anyones trials>
It stated what it stated and nothing more in between.
OP states that it took him circa 6months to dial in Pyrocat....
How long is it since he hes been dialing in 510?
Trials and experimentation , Im all in , but lets be honest the ordering here is a bit off.

No, im not trying to be rude.
yes, Im trying to get something practical from this very incoherently subjective thread.



I agree. That was basically my point. Particularly in the case of a developer such as 510 pyro, there is little or nothing to go on, so it is up to the individual user to figure things out and come to a subjective conclusion, in which case experimentation along with best efforts at some semblance of controlled comparisons - including prints - is a reasonable approach.

In other words, I disagree with the points made in post #13. The fact many people have written about this developer is pretty much irrelevant. It doesn’t make your own testing unnecessary, and it doesn’t diminish the value in sharing your results.

[jag09]

Thank you for the reminder and heads up

[Tin Can]

I tried 510, it worked

but I dislike thick gooey pipets

[tundra]

I tried 510, it worked

but I dislike thick gooey pipets

I found that mixing the stock solution 1:2 with propylene glycol for storage and then using 3x that solution as one would of stock works fine.

[Tin Can]

I no longer TRY various concoctions

Using up my good supply of Rodinol

Then switching to D23

Making D-23 Developer With Teaspoons (https://youtu.be/H1vWa6fF4FA)

[tundra]

I no longer TRY various concoctions

Using up my good supply of Rodinol

Then switching to D23

Making D-23 Developer With Teaspoons (https://youtu.be/H1vWa6fF4FA)

I like D-23 a lot and use it in certain specialized situations - e.g. Rescuing very old film that will not properly process in Pyrocat-HD without massive bromide drag (semistand). Noted, for example, with some circa 1970s Plus-X sheet film.

However, for most uses, I find the Pyrocat produces noticeably better grain results, hence i use it most of the time.

[tundra]

post number 13 had nothing to do with diminishing undermining anyones trials>
It stated what it stated and nothing more in between.
OP states that it took him circa 6months to dial in Pyrocat....
How long is it since he hes been dialing in 510?
Trials and experimentation , Im all in , but lets be honest the ordering here is a bit off.

No, im not trying to be rude.
yes, Im trying to get something practical from this very incoherently subjective thread.

Everything about creating compelling images is "subjective". I already made it clear that I've spent nowhere near the time with 510 as I have Pcat. But the little I have done doesn't compel me to dig much deeper.

Other than the need for internet bloviating, I'm not sure what your point here is.

[Sert]

can i use this developer with kodafix? i bought this but found out i dont have any alkaline or neutral fixers

[koraks]

Yes, that'll work fine. You don't really need to use an alkaline or neutral fix; an acid fix will work just fine and the pyro stain really won't be gone.

[esearing]

I found that mixing the stock solution 1:2 with propylene glycol for storage and then using 3x that solution as one would of stock works fine.

I do the same with Jay's Obsidian Aqua formula since it is really tough to make 100ml batches, I just double the water to make 200ml at half strength and adjust the final working solution. You can get away with that with most Pyro based developers but may not get full shelf life or forget you are at half strength to begin with (Mark the bottle appropriately). I really like this OA/2 formula for HP5 @ 2:5:500, its just a little sharper than my usual Pyrocat M and has a rich stain color that lets me print at grade 2.5 for most scenes if exposed properly. Part B is the standard Part B for Pyrocat HD.

[tundra]

Does OA have the same high rate of oxidation as PMK and therefore have to be continuously agitated (or nearly so)? I am interested in trying OA with long/high dilution standing techniques.