510 Pyro - First Impressions

[thronobulax]

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

Tri-X 5x4 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 artefact

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.

 

[Ian Grant]

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

On this forum it's not just about whether the developer works or not. It's about a very dangerous cavalier attitude to Health & Safety,, and the deliberate and fraudulent falsifying of the new MSDS/SDS datasheet to state it's nearly harmless, despite the extremely high toxicity, and Pyrogallol being equally or more carcinogenic than Hydroquinone.

I met up with someone running workshops for young people, introducing them to analogue photographer, he, like others on another forum, are horrified that James Lane has such a blatant disregard of Health & Safety regulations.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't use PMK, Rollo Pyro, 510 Pyro, etc, rather that James needs to adhere to the same high standards as others and list the true dangers and precautions needed.

A NOTE TO JAMES LANE:

HSE ask that people be given a chance to put things right, unfortunately you haven't,

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

On this forum it's nor about whether the developer works or not. It's about a cavalier attitude to Health & Safety,, and the deliberate falsifying of the MSDS/SDS datasheet to state it's nearly harmless, despite the extremely high toxicity, and Pyrogallol being equally or more carcinogenic than Hydroquinone.

I met up with someone running workshops for young people, introducing them to analogue photographer, he, like others on another forum, are horrified that James Lane has such a blatant disregard o.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't use PMK, Rollo Pyro, 510 Pyro, etc, rather that James needs to adhere to the same high standards as others and list the true dangers and precautions needed.

A NOTE TO JAMES LANE:

HSE ask that you be given a chance to put things right, unfortunately you haven't

Ian

I choose to stay out of this entire kerfuffle while noting that everyone should maintain the highest standards of safety where working with all darkroom chemistry.

My purpose here is merely to compare the claims made for 510 Pyro against reality as practiced by me using my own standard workflows. And there HAVE been claims, here and elsewhere that 510 Pyro is some sort of ineffective snake oil. I can- and will only comment on my observed results in contrast to such claims. I will leave the kerfuffleage to others interested in that sort of thing.

I am rigorous in using masks, face shields/eye protection, aprons and nitrile gloves when handling pyro, both when making the stock solution or diluting and using it in practice.

It is my strongest possible recommendation that people who do not understand these safety precautions and standard lab practices should avoid any chemical darkroom materials entirely. The again, people like this ought also avoid a good many home cleaning product that - when combined improperly - can be deadly as well.

 

[Ian-Barber]

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

Tri-X 5x4 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 artefact

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.

How do you find the viscosity of it say compared to the original HC110, I have heard that its like "honey".

 

[thronobulax]

How do you find the viscosity of it say compared to the original HC110, I have heard that its like "honey".

I wouldn't say it's quite that, but it's definitely more viscous than HC-110. It does not pour out of a measuring container easily. I've found that the only reasonable way to dispense it is with a syringe where in the pressure of the plunger gets most all the stock solution. Because of the viscosity, it's also important to mix thoroughly to get the developer into solution - much more so than other liquid developers.

 

[Ian-Barber]

@thronobulax You mentioned above that it appears to produce full speed from your intital tests. Would the ratio which you used make any difference to this compared to sat 1+100.

In you r opinion, would you say that PyroCatd-HD maintains full speed and the standard 1+1+100 dilution.

 

[thronobulax]

@thronobulax You mentioned above that it appears to produce full speed from your intital tests. Would the ratio which you used make any difference to this compared to sat 1+100.

In you r opinion, would you say that PyroCatd-HD maintains full speed and the standard 1+1+100 dilution.

I am still investigating whether or not 510 hit full speed.

My consistent experience is that NO developer - when used in standard dilution with regular agitations - will hit full box speed with any film. What makes Pyrocat-HD (and possibly 510) work this way is the very long development time one uses in a semistand type model. Shadows develop much more slowly than highlights. By using a development discipline that leaves the film in the developer for a really long time, the shadows have time to fully develop ... i.e., Hit box film speed. This hasn't got that much to do with the developer. I've seen full box speed from very highly dilute/long time HC-110.

At the moment, I am seeing inconsistent Pyro 510 results and need to do more testing. My first negatives showed full film speed but poor acuity. Thinking this may have been poor camera setup, I retested. I am seeing better sharpness, but poorer film speed. I plan to test once again, but this time decrease dilution to 1:300 or 1:250 and redo.

 

[Ian-Barber]

@thronobulax Are you judging by eye or are you measuring densities

 

[thronobulax]

@thronobulax Are you judging by eye or are you measuring densities

I do not have a densitometer that can compensate for pyro stain. So, I expose for Zone III in the shadows at the expected ASA - in this case, box speed. I expect to see slight detail in those areas. If I do, then - by my measure - the film is hitting box speed.

The more technically correct definition is to find the speed that lifts the H/D curve just a bit above FB+F, but for my purposes (and with my limited equipment) I've found the procedure above to be adequate.

Obviously, this is with my meters, my thermometers, my darkroom technique, etc.

P.S. By that measure no film/dev combo I have ever tried ever hit full box speed IF your a developing normally with agitations every 30 seconds or so. Almost all developers show effective film speed to about 1/2 box speed. This was repeatedly confirmed across a wide range of non-Pyro developers and many films using a standard densitometer. So much so, I quit measuring after a while.

Pyrocat-HD in normal agitations gives me about 20% slower than box speed as observed using the shadow guidelines above.

 

[Ian-Barber]

What films have you tested it with and are you only doing semi-stand testing or have you done any 1:100 testi

 

[thronobulax]

What films have you tested it with and are you only doing semi-stand testing or have you done any 1:100 testi

I have very briefly tried Pyrocat-HD at 1:1:100 and ordinary development with (as best I can recall) Agfapan APX 100. If memory serves, it delivered an effective ASA around 80. But by then, I'd discovered the power of semistand and for most - not all - the things I like to shoot, the midtone expansion and microcontrast you see in a semistand negative really makes the images pop.

I have tested a wide variety - i.e. checked on a sensitometer - of films APX 100, Tri-X, Efke PL 100M, Tmax 100, Plus-X ...) with at least 2 developers - D-76 and HC-110B. In every single one of these cases, with ordinary development time and frequent agitation, the effective ASA was near about 1/2 box speed.

After I stopped testing, I started using PMK Pyro, then DK-50, then Pyrocat-HD, and finally D-23 and used the aforementioned shadow placement test in lieu of sensiometric testing. They all confirmed that I would get 1/2 box speed, if I placed for Zone III as above, and underdeveloped (against manufacturer's stated times) about 20% when using normal agitation.

What I didn't realize until I did last year's deep dive into development mechanics and still development techniques, is that a film will not fully develop the shadows unless it sits in solution a long time.

One other small point of potential interest. My goal in creating a negative is to leave myself lots of choices in the darkroom when I print. I want to capture the image as I imagined it but have plenty of room for interpretation. So, I am utterly disinterested in pristine zone placement or N+ and N- niceties. I want to ensure that the negative captures what I want, the way I want it. Semistand with a Pyro staining developer like Pyrocat-HD or a compensating developer like D-23, gives me three things at once:

• Fully developed shadows
• Expanded midrange microcontrast
• Reigned in highlights

There are some places this doesn't work - notably when the scene already has a lot of midrange contrast - the result can be sort of cartoony with semistand. But even there, you can get some really interesting aesthetic effects. Consider the images below. (Warning, neither are 5x4 - they're both 35mm which makes the result even more interesting from my POV). Both used semistand on subjects with plenty of central contrast, but I really like the outcomes:

 

[thronobulax]

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.

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.

 

[Ian Grant]

That matches everyone else's comments 100%

It's also worth adding a comment from Jay De Fehr made to someone on another Forum:

Back when Jay posted his 510 Pyro formula, I tried mixing a batch. I found that it did not show much detail in the shadows at my normal film speeds. (I was using Efke PL-100 and TMX) for my high SBR landscapes, so I emailed Jay about that. We had a pleasant conversation, and he told me that he was only interested in making photos of his family, so that’s the kind of photo he tested his developers on. He made some of his images available, and I gave them a close look.

His shadows did not have much detail, either, and the shadows were not important to his portraits. I concluded that the developer just did not hold film speed and was unsuitable for my work, though it worked very well for the kinds of photos Jay made. Jay didn’t wholly agree with me, but didn’t disagree either. We agreed I should make more tests, but I returned to Pyrocat.

The seller’s claim for shadow detail is inaccurate in my experience.

This post was only made a few hours ago.

I would urge people to look at Parallax Photographic Coop's test images, they show extremely poor shadow detail with 510 Pyro.

Jemzyboz/Lane of Zone Imaging has threatened me with legal action, twice now , to which I'd say go ahead.

Mods, PLEASE DON@T DELETE THIS POST.

 

[thronobulax]

That matches everyone else's comments 100%

It's also worth adding a comment from Jay De Fehr made to someone on another Forum:

Back when Jay posted his 510 Pyro formula, I tried mixing a batch. I found that it did not show much detail in the shadows at my normal film speeds. (I was using Efke PL-100 and TMX) for my high SBR landscapes, so I emailed Jay about that. We had a pleasant conversation, and he told me that he was only interested in making photos of his family, so that’s the kind of photo he tested his developers on. He made some of his images available, and I gave them a close look.

His shadows did not have much detail, either, and the shadows were not important to his portraits. I concluded that the developer just did not hold film speed and was unsuitable for my work, though it worked very well for the kinds of photos Jay made. Jay didn’t wholly agree with me, but didn’t disagree either. We agreed I should make more tests, but I returned to Pyrocat.

The seller’s claim for shadow detail is inaccurate in my experience.

This post was only made a few hours ago.

I would urge people to look at Parallax Photographic Coop's test images, they show extremely poor shadow detail with 510 Pyro.

Jemzyboz/Lane of Zone Imaging has threatened me with legal action, twice now , to which I'd say go ahead.

Mods, PLEASE DON@T DELETE THIS POST.

WRT shadow detail, my results are a bit different. I am seeing decent shadow performance, but that's characteristic of long, dilute development protocols. I don't have a color densitometer, but my subjective assessment is that - where Pyrocat-HD delivers full box ASA with this protocol - 510 Pyro seems to not quite do as well - perhaps 1/3 stop slower or so. Again, this is entirely a guess.

But the apparent softness and lack of microcontrast makes this a nonstarter for me. Even if it performed as an equal to Pyrocat-HD in every way, I'd still be disinclined to use it regularly just because of how gooey the developer is.

I think the point about being appropriate for family photos is well taken. 510 Pyro probably is an excellent developer for negatives of people ... a subject I pretty much never shoot in monochrome. If I were to take such photos, I'd be inclined to use D-23.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's a test posted yesterday on the US LFP Forum that comes to the same conclusions. But one comment that's made time and again is its viscosity make it difficult to use. It's also noticeable that those who used and liked the Pyro 510 results all abandoned it fairly quickly. There appear to be no long term users.

Ian

 

[Camerashy]

510 Pyro stock can be diluted and made less viscous

There's a test posted yesterday on the US LFP Forum that comes to the same conclusions. But one comment that's made time and again is its viscosity make it difficult to use. It's also noticeable that those who used and liked the Pyro 510 results all abandoned it fairly quickly. There appear to be no long term users.

Ian

by increasing the amount of glycol, adjust the ratio to water for developing accordingly. If a developer works for your style of photography then use it, after all there are so many to choose from. Some people make their choice not only on results, shelf life, ease of use, consistency and availability can also influence personal preferences.

 

[Ian Grant]

One of Jemzyboz's customers on another Forum has asked that I contact HSE and Trading standards about the legalities of Zone Imaging. James has until midday 12:00 tomorrow to make a response.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

One of Jemzyboz's customers on another Forum has asked that I contact HSE and Trading standards about the legalities of Zone Imaging. James has until midday 12:00 tomorrow to make a response.

Ian

Why is this all so important to you and/or being aired in public? I'm not offended, merely curious.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's the deliberate sudden down=playing of the Toxicity, 510 Pyro is probably the most Toxic developer on the market. Even Jemzyboz/Lane has stated: Pyrogallol is certainly more toxic than hydroquinone

He states he won't use Hydroquinone on his website and on Podcasts, Videos, etc. So that's a double standard.

Ian

 

[thronobulax]

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 5x4 negative.