510 Pyro and Pyrocat HD, is there really a difference?

[chuckroast]

Isn't the OP asking about differences between 510 Pyro and Pyrocat HD so what's the relevance of PMK, other than it is another staining developer that is different from the two the OP want to know about ?

pentaxuser

Because 510 stains and prints more like PMK than does HD. It's just a point of reference from those of us who have used all three.

One of thing that commends 510 (and why I have "fixins'" here for it) is that it handles big SBRs much like PMK - that is to say, it manages highlights very well - but works much better than PMK with 35mm wherein grain can become an issue.

As noted upthread, HD[C] doesn't shoulder off highlights anywhere near as much so big SBRs have to managed more carefully.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Just from my very limited playing with 510-pyro I think it handles highlights (reins them in) a little better than Pyrocat-HDC. I should also add that I am using the old 510-pyro recipe that called for .25g of phenidone and not the newer .375 phenidone one.

 

[Alan9940]

When I anticipate developing in 510-Pyro, I meter for detailed shadows in Zone III, then take the shot. I never worry about the high end because I know 510 can handle it. However, if I'm planning to develop in Pyrocat-HD (never used the C variant) I place my shadows as before, but I'll also spot meter around the scene to determine SBR. Neither is more cumbersome to use, rather it's nice to have options when out in the field.

 

[John Wiegerink]

When I anticipate developing in 510-Pyro, I meter for detailed shadows in Zone III, then take the shot. I never worry about the high end because I know 510 can handle it. However, if I'm planning to develop in Pyrocat-HD (never used the C variant) I place my shadows as before, but I'll also spot meter around the scene to determine SBR. Neither is more cumbersome to use, rather it's nice to have options when out in the field.

Both are very good developers and you won't go wrong using either one. Both are also good for stand and semi-stand developing, if you are into that.

 

[GregY]

after some problems with bad chemicals, i finally have a working pyrocat-hdc.
When wet printing i'm finding that the contrast is really low (landscapes, pretty normal contrast scenes), too much to obtain a decent print, with no local contrast in the midtones.
Is it me or it's more suitable for very high contrast scenes?

T, i can't offer a solution other than what's been said about exposure & agitation. But i've used Pyrocat since it was introduced (before that i used PMK) & it is my standard developer for anything. Here are two examples of Tmax (400 & 100)

w yellow filter processed in Pyrocat HD and wet printed. Lots of mid tone separation.

 

[John Wiegerink]

T, i can't offer a solution other than what's been said about exposure & agitation. But i've used Pyrocat since it was introduced & it is my standard developer for anything. Here are two examples of Tmax (100 & 400)View attachment 415742 w yellow filter processed in Pyrocat HD and wet printed. Lots of mid tone separation.
View attachment 415741

Greg,
That ought to answer any questions as to whether or not Pyrocat-HD is any good or not. That said, I bet you'd do well with 510-pyro also. Love that mountain scene! One thing we lack in Michigan is mountains. Plenty of water, but no real mountains.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Very much consistent with my own findings, but PMK has two drawbacks in my exprience: It's too grainy for 35mm, and you cannot use it for semistand/EMA extended development because it oxidizes too fast and develops unevenly if it's not agitated a lot.

I have zero issues with PMK for 35mm but I typically use Rodinal for 35mm. I also haven't found a need for semistand developing either. One of the major benefits of staining/tanning developers is the highlights tend to take care of themselves. I don't think I've ever had a neg that had blown highlights with PMK/Pyrocat.

 

[tykos]

I use mainly large format. I rate FP4 at EI 64.

a third of a stop difference, not that much

Many of us here use it for SBRs of all kinds, in normal development, in extended development, and pretty much every way a developer can be used.

If you are getting consistently low contrast, there are a number of possible
causes:

• Inadequate exposure. Try rating your film at an EI that 1/2 box speed to see if this helps.
  
  
• Underdevelopment and/or lack of agitation
  
  
• A faulty batch of developer. The ascorbic acid in HDC needs to be fairly fresh. If the powder is discolored, it need to be replaced. Ditto the phenidone. Similarly, you have to pay good attention to the weights and proportions and the order of mixing the chems.

Any time I make up a new batch of HDC, I run a test roll through it to confirm the developer is working as expected.

exposure: as i said i don't think i'm underexposing. Or at least i expose more or less decently and have no major problems with other developers (d76, mainly)
underdevelopment: i used suggested times, i will try to develop more.
ascorbic acid was opened minutes before mixing pyrocat, phenidone as well. procedure was followed.

i should certainly try it some more, but i was not that much impressed (hence the original "is it me or")

 

[John Wiegerink]

a third of a stop difference, not that much



exposure: as i said i don't think i'm underexposing. Or at least i expose more or less decently and have no major problems with other developers (d76, mainly)
underdevelopment: i used suggested times, i will try to develop more.
ascorbic acid was opened minutes before mixing pyrocat, phenidone as well. procedure was followed.

i should certainly try it some more, but i was not that much impressed (hence the original "is it me or")

Do you have enough shadow detail? If your shadows are open enough for you then you can vary different amounts of part A and part B to obtain a little difference in contrast. If you are way over-exposing that might kill a little contrast separation in your shadow and middle tones. For me, pyro developers tend to be a little lower in contrast than what I get with Xtol.

 

[john_s]

......... For me, pyro developers tend to be a little lower in contrast than what I get with Xtol.

In my limited experience with PMK, I concluded that the lack of contrast was due to the developer being exhausted or oxidized. I based that on a couple of experiments, one being that extended development time made no difference at all. A workaround would be using a larger volume of developer, and minimizing the air space on the tank. But I went to pyrocat where I am still.

 

[tykos]

Do you have enough shadow detail? If your shadows are open enough for you then you can vary different amounts of part A and part B to obtain a little difference in contrast. If you are way over-exposing that might kill a little contrast separation in your shadow and middle tones. For me, pyro developers tend to be a little lower in contrast than what I get with Xtol.

i get the shadow detail i want, not a massive overexposure

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have not found a pyro type developer that performs better than PMK. Sometimes Pyrocat HD simply renders too much razor-sharp detail for my tastes, kinda like oversharpened Photoshop work.

Paul,
I just developed two rolls of TMY2, one in 510-pyro and the other in Pyrocat-HDC. The printed results from both look excellent. When I hold the negatives, emulsion side up, and look at them through a 10X loupe I see the look of over-sharpening on the Pyrocat-HDC negatives. They look like over-sharpened digital scans. That said, I don't seem to see that in the prints themselves.

 

[retina_restoration]

Paul,
I just developed two rolls of TMY2, one in 510-pyro and the other in Pyrocat-HDC. The printed results from both look excellent. When I hold the negatives, emulsion side up, and look at them through a 10X loupe I see the look of over-sharpening on the Pyrocat-HDC negatives. They look like over-sharpened digital scans. That said, I don't seem to see that in the prints themselves.

Hey John. Glad you did a comparison to see for yourself. Nothing beats testing materials to obtain firsthand data.
Some people like the extreme sharpening effect of Pyrocat, and there are times when it works for me. But too often I have seen what looks to me like excessive edge effects that feel artificial, and I'm not keen on that. But it's all a matter of personal tastes, of course. You do you, etc!

 

[kozesluk]

I have used DD-X with Delta 400 for very long time on 35mm film and switched to 510-Pyro, using it for about two dozen more films. I have felt the sharpness is better but the shadow details lacked significantly, so I have rated the films at 200 EI. Tonality was nice as long as nothing was too near shadows. After moving countries I have settled again a bit and after looking through my archive checked again at one of my experiments with HP5+ and Pyrocat-HD at 2+2+100 dilution and ended really liking that combination. I have mixed up fresh batch of Pyrocat-HDC now and developed several films in it, mostly HP5+, Delta 100 and FP4+, working in 645 format, and I like it way way better than the 510-Pyro - the shadows tonality (transition from very little to no details) seems much better and gently graded. Only issue is that I had a case of noticeable dichoric fog on one film (sorted by using acid stop bath, which I have never ever used before without any issues) and had to stop using even slightly expired 120 films as the paper backing "fog" just shows up with Pyrocat-HDC (it does not so much with 510 but then the shadow details seem considerably worse). In the end I kinda prefer having two easy to use stock solutions than having to fiddle around with thick honey-like sticky substance.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have used DD-X with Delta 400 for very long time on 35mm film and switched to 510-Pyro, using it for about two dozen more films. I have felt the sharpness is better but the shadow details lacked significantly, so I have rated the films at 200 EI. Tonality was nice as long as nothing was too near shadows. After moving countries I have settled again a bit and after looking through my archive checked again at one of my experiments with HP5+ and Pyrocat-HD at 2+2+100 dilution and ended really liking that combination. I have mixed up fresh batch of Pyrocat-HDC now and developed several films in it, mostly HP5+, Delta 100 and FP4+, working in 645 format, and I like it way way better than the 510-Pyro - the shadows tonality (transition from very little to no details) seems much better and gently graded. Only issue is that I had a case of noticeable dichoric fog on one film (sorted by using acid stop bath, which I have never ever used before without any issues) and had to stop using even slightly expired 120 films as the paper backing "fog" just shows up with Pyrocat-HDC (it does not so much with 510 but then the shadow details seem considerably worse). In the end I kinda prefer having two easy to use stock solutions than having to fiddle around with thick honey-like sticky substance.

I have nothing against 510-pyro, but will say it is not a speed increase type developer. It's still a darn good developer, but to get good shadow detail I have to rate my film about a 3/4 to a full stop slower than Xtol-R (or Adox XT-3 R). With Pyrocat-HDC I can get close to box speed with TMY2 120 film, but rate my HP5+ between EI 250 to 320. If I'm going for speed I use XT-3 R and that's about as good as it gets. But for super-bright scenes or high SBR there is nothing like the staining developers for reigning in the high values.