Anyone Have 510-Pyro Experience?

[Snapshot]

Hi All,

I've decided to try using staining developers and the one I'll start with is 510-Pyro due to it's keeping properties and ease of use. If anyone has any comments on this developer (or a closely related developer) I will certainly be interested on any any they have to say, such as advantages/disadvtanges it may have. Any and all usage, handling and printing tips would also be appreciated.

 

[gainer]

You might consider any one of the Pyrocat series. For some reason, I have a small preference for Pyrocat MC.

 

[jim appleyard]

Haven't used 510, but Pyrocat HD was made for Efke 25 and WD2D+ was made for Tri-X; certainly the combos are endless.

I'm sure PMK is a fine dev, but it seems to be geared for graded paper; beautiful as it is, I just don't use much of it anymore.

 

[mikebarger]

I use 510 pyro, but have not used any other staining developer so I don't have anything to compare it with.

I do like the way it treats highlights, but that may apply to all pyro's. I also like the fact 510 works like HC-110 that I had used before. One solution measured with a baby sryinge and tossed when done.

I wouldn't let the two solutions stop me from trying any of the others. I just happended to try 510 first since it worked like the 110. I've liked it so well I haven't tried any of the other staining developers to date.

It is reported to have a long life on the shelf, but I think at least a couple of the pyrocat's, if not all, are long lasting also. I tend to use it up so that isn't an issue.

Best bet is to try a couple staining developers and see what works best for you and your work style.

Good luck with your search.

Mike

 

[Snapshot]

I use 510 pyro, but have not used any other staining developer so I don't have anything to compare it with.

I do like the way it treats highlights, but that may apply to all pyro's. I also like the fact 510 works like HC-110 that I had used before. One solution measured with a baby sryinge and tossed when done.

I wouldn't let the two solutions stop me from trying any of the others. I just happended to try 510 first since it worked like the 110. I've liked it so well I haven't tried any of the other staining developers to date.

It is reported to have a long life on the shelf, but I think at least a couple of the pyrocat's, if not all, are long lasting also. I tend to use it up so that isn't an issue.

Best bet is to try a couple staining developers and see what works best for you and your work style.

Good luck with your search.

Mike

How does 510-Pyro compare to XTOL/D76 in terms of grain, accutance and resolution?

 

[gainer]

How does 510-Pyro compare to XTOL/D76 in terms of grain, accutance and resolution?

I think you will have to find that out for yourself. No two opinions I have seen agree with each other about such things. You will find, I'm sure, that there are likely to be diverse opinions of the differences between XTOL and D-76. Why else would some buy one or the other and others buy both for different uses?

 

[craigclu]

I've decided to try using staining developers and the one I'll start with is 510-Pyro due to it's keeping properties and ease of use.

You may wish to start with a mix that has a larger user and support base.... PyroCat-MC would be an excellent alternative. I could never get shadow detail out of the 510 but liked its mid-tones and highlight behavior. PyroCat negatives print very easily on most materials, give good acutance, good shadow detail and the MC version concentrate should be extremely stable with good shelf life. I also feel that most of my scanning struggles were eased greatly with PyroCat with its grain masking and nice sharpness via its edge effects.

 

[mikebarger]

I guess I'm not technical enough.

I had to use D76 in the military, used HC 110 because a good friend made wonderful prints with it and he helped me with my work. I still very much like the look of 120 Tri-x 400 in HC-110.

However, I one day I just got the urge to try a pyro. I don't really know why.

Being a Fred picker fan, I picked one and started using it. Still working on figuring it all out.

I have too little time to devote to photography these days. It is much better for me to try something, try to figure out how to get a good print without introducing a lot of variables to the equation.

I'd much rather look at prints to determine if it's working than reading charts.

Guess I just read to much of Fred's stuff.

You may indeed want to give pyrocat a shot before 510, there is a very large user base here to provide information for you. The 510 base is very small and not very active posting.

I'm not trying to offend anyone's style or work method, this path is about all I have time to follow at this point in my life. Later I may have more time to devote to trying different projects.

YMMV.

Mike

 

[c6h6o3]

You may indeed want to give pyrocat a shot before 510, there is a very large user base here to provide information for you. The 510 base is very small and not very active posting.

No matter what you decide to use, you'll have to dope it out for yourself anyway. Just try 510. I think it's great developer.

 

[juan]

Unfortunately for 510, it's creator was not a particularly popular person on the forums. I never had a problem with him, but other folks did, and I suspect his developer has suffered because of it. Jay put up a web site for folks to comment on the developer, but he posted in January that he had suffered a personal tragedy and would not be continuing photography. I've tried to email him, and there has been no reply. That seems to leave 510 as something of an orphan.

I've tried 510, and it works. Unfortunately, my tests were on Forte films just before Forte went out of business, so I have not been able to throughly try out the combination. The results looked promising, although I have not tested enough to address the shadow issues that others have commented on. It may be an issue of needing to give more exposure than folks anticipated. I was given a few sheets of Bergger 200 to try out - which I did on a very low contrast scene. Some of the forums say that you can't expand much with the Bergger film, so, since I didn't have a developing time, I tried stand developing in 510 pyro. The negative developed so much contrast, I have been unable to print it on even the softest silver paper. It seems the 510 is very good for expanded development.

As the user base is small, you'll have to work it out on your own. It would appear that experimentation would be worth the effort.

BTW, you can't read too much Picker. I have all the newsletters and get them out and read them every few years.
juan

 

[craigclu]

Unfortunately for 510, it's creator was not a particularly popular person on the forums. I never had a problem with him, but other folks did, and I suspect his developer has suffered because of it.
juan

Jay was always a very decent person to deal with for me. He was perhaps a bit over zealous in promoting his concoctions which spurred some biting comments by others that set off some escalating tensions. A thousand miles and a keyboard adds a comfortable buffer to one's nose!

When he was going through his original 110 Pyro and HyperCat projects, it coincided with some similar things that I was playing with and I corresponded with him regularly regarding tweaks and general behaviors. I suspected that I could be adding some variation via mixing issues or things related to my components when I couldn't get good shadow activity and he sent me a supply of his mixed 510 to compare (it proved identical). He also sent me a sample print that was quite good. It was printed to a lesser contrast than I tend to print to and his print showed reasonably decent shadow behaviors and this could be where some of the differences for us came from. I don't have a UV densitometer but my blue channel curves showed a very long toe which also bore out in printing practice for me.

My original interest was in the HyperCat formulation as I thought it was easier to print to VC materials with it. I dropped an email to him wishing him well in whatever was going on for him but haven't had any correspondence from him.

 

[Snapshot]

Thanks for the input everyone. It sounds like Pyrocat-MC has some utility and support in this group. The formula I've found specified a few ml of water to create a slurry. I trust that it isn't critical that you use a specific amount. This is the formula I found is...

2.5 g metol
4.0 g ascorbic acid
7 ml triethanolamine

Mix with about a few ml of water until a thin slurry is formed, then add...

100 ml warm propylene glycol
50 g catechol

Keep the solution warm and stir until the catechol dissolves, then make up to 1 L with propylene glycol.

 

[Jordan]

Thanks for the input everyone. It sounds like Pyrocat-MC has some utility and support in this group. The formula I've found specified a few ml of water to create a slurry. I trust that it isn't critical that you use a specific amount. This is the formula I found is... <snip>

Looks like you got that from my site. I posted it a while ago because I had previously had a hard time finding the formula on the Web. I don't use Pyrocat-MC much at all, so if that formula needs correcting, someone please let me know.

 

[John Bond]

I have been using 510 pyro almost exclusively over the past year and find it a very versatile and forgiving developer. It is economical and does seem to last forever. I cannot make comparisons with other developers, but I think to some extent such comparisons are like apples to oranges.

The contrast on graded paper is much different than on variable contrast paper and development times should be adjusted to the kind of paper you intend to print on. Variable contrast paper will require longer development times than those that I have seen published. I have recently played around with semi stand development with 4X5 negatives and have been delighted with the results.

 

[Snapshot]

I have been using 510 pyro almost exclusively over the past year and find it a very versatile and forgiving developer. It is economical and does seem to last forever. I cannot make comparisons with other developers, but I think to some extent such comparisons are like apples to oranges.

The contrast on graded paper is much different than on variable contrast paper and development times should be adjusted to the kind of paper you intend to print on. Variable contrast paper will require longer development times than those that I have seen published. I have recently played around with semi stand development with 4X5 negatives and have been delighted with the results.

John,

How did you find the shadow detail for 510-Pyro? There have been some reports with shadow detail issues. As for printing, I am using VC RC paper so how much longer development is required when using 510-pyro? Currently, I develop prints for 60 seconds using XTOL developer and medium contrast filters.

Any help or advice would be appreciated, including advice on sem-stand development.

 

[John Bond]

I have used HP4, FP5 and Tmax 100 and all are different. Most of what I take is outdoor scenes with large subject/brightness range. Shadow detail is good with grade 2 paper with the published developing times- 6.5 minutes for HP5 for example. Shadows will be softer on variable contrast paper and I like 7.5 to 8 minutes for HP5. I think that part of the success with 510 pyro relies on deciding what kind of paper to print on and then determining the development time based on that. You can print on variable contrast paper with the shorter times, but will require 3.5 to 4 contrast filter. It is also helpful with scenes with a narrow subject brightness range, to give a little extra exposure. Using a spot meter and making sure that the darkest shadow is in zone II or III gives good shadow detail. Even with larger subject brightness range, the extra exposure is helpful, but might require burning in the highlights. Don't worry, highlight detail seems to go forever, much farther than the range of paper and is easily burned in.

I get wonderful shadow detail with semi- stand- 1:500, 45 minutes to one hour with three gentle agitations. I do not have any firm numbers, but think there may be a half to full stop boost in EI with this. With the outdoor scenes, there is much less need for burning and dodging with semi- stand. It is incredibly forgiving with wonderful effects with clouds. For the past month, I have done nothing but semi stand. It is addictive, but might make you a little lazy. Hope this helps.

 

[Snapshot]

I get wonderful shadow detail with semi- stand- 1:500, 45 minutes to one hour with three gentle agitations. I do not have any firm numbers, but think there may be a half to full stop boost in EI with this. With the outdoor scenes, there is much less need for burning and dodging with semi- stand. It is incredibly forgiving with wonderful effects with clouds. For the past month, I have done nothing but semi stand. It is addictive, but might make you a little lazy. Hope this helps.

Thank you John, this is most helpful. Have a great week!

 

[John Bond]

I look foreward to hearing or seeing how your pictures turn out.

 

[craigclu]

Cheez.... You guys have me rethinking my 510 attitudes.... I thought I had given it a good testing but I never tried the semi-stand with it. I've been a bit frustrated with some full emulsion speed trials of different soups of late and maybe this could use a rerun.