Compare pyrocat vs xtol/etc... on the same scenes?

[Kawaiithulhu]

This year I'm going to get back to basics now that I've filled out my camera stable and standardize on a single developer for all my rescue-cameras from 35mm to 8x10. While I've used both pyrocat and xtol up to 4x5 before it was unscientifically and I was more interested in whether the repaired cameras worked or not.

While pyrocat seems like a winner for most film bases, including the inevitable/affordable 8x10 Xray stock, I'm having a heck of a time finding side by side comparisons or even unbiased descriptions of results to make a final decision.

Has anyone run across a resource to compare different developers against the same subjects?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I really wouldn't worry about it so much. Pyrocat-HD is my main developer, and I have used Xtol extensively. Xray film is very nice in both. Just use the one you can get easily. I don't know of any resource that compares the two... But side by side (I've done this), there is very little difference... unless you do stand/semi-stand, then Pyrocat-HD is the clear winner.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Just looking at two prints you cannot discern which was made from a pyro negative. There may be a difference in perceived detail but no other difference.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

Thanks! My unscientific observation this past year is that either choice supports a good film speed, and I like that and it's how I ended up wanting to standardize on one or the other.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think the benefits of Pyrocat really kick in once you get into larger film formats. There isn't as much need for what it does in 35mm, because there's less information being recorded in that 1.5 square inches of film, so less tones to separate in the first place. That said, I use it as my go-to developer for everything b/w now, from the rare roll of 35mm I shoot to 14x17 FP4+. I keep a bottle of Rodinal around on the off-chance I miscalculate when to re-order my Pyrocat and I run out, or my last few ml's go bad.

 

[Anon Ymous]

When it comes to comparisons between staining/tanning developers (Pyrocat is an example) and non-staining/tanning developers, you will mostly find nonsense. Myths abound. All you can really do is try them for yourself and draw subjective conclusions.

My subjective conclusion from a rather limited usage of Pyrocat HD is that it's rather gritty for use with 135 film. Xtol is a better all around developer IMHO. This might be indifferent for larger formats.

 

[JWMster]

My experience with pyrocat-HD in 35mm is that it did give nice results with FP4+ at full box speed. In fact, that was the first combo that made me say, "Oooooh.... aaaahhhh.... LOVE it!" Yet I'd have to admit that like Anon Ymous above, my experience was limited. I defer to others on the LF experience, but for my part, I am increasingly drawn to the combination of Kodak TMAX at less than box speed and Perceptol 1:2. But sticking to your inquiry, I've found examination of paired shots (by others) done in XTOL and pyrocat-HD showed marginal improvement with p-HD over XTOL, but not enough to switch if the Kodak product was your main squeeze. I can't find the link at the moment (maybe unblinkingeye?) but its out there on the net. XTOL is a bit granier than pyrocat-HD in 35mm for my money.

I think to make the information from others really useful, you'd have to suggest what it is you want most from the combination you want to use as your go-to. Tone? Accutance? etc. and what sorts of subjects you're using it with. Maybe not critical... but likely more instructive. Can site a number of references who also fall in my category of finding that there's little that p-HD adds over what Perceptol will do for you (35mm and 120)... but rather than leave their quotes at that... which it is btw, I'd add simply that: if that "little" extra is EXACTLY what you need or want, then it's essential and you need it.

 

[bdial]

I did my own comparison in 4x5, the difference in looking at the prints is very subtle, and I can only tell the difference by looking at the notes on the back of the prints.
I'd say the only meaningful comparison would be one you do using your gear and evaluate with your eyes. None of the rest of us viewing the result will see the difference.

Right Xtol 1:1 Left Pyrocat HD

 

[Sirius Glass]

I did my own comparison in 4x5, the difference in looking at the prints is very subtle, and I can only tell the difference by looking at the notes on the back of the prints.
I'd say the only meaningful comparison would be one you do using your gear and evaluate with your eyes. None of the rest of us viewing the result will see the difference.

View attachment 188180

Please label which is which.

 

[bdial]

Please label which is which.

Xtol is on the left

 

[JWMster]

bdial: I am 99% certain that this is the comparison I saw somewhere (else). Can't remember. But thanks for re-posting it here. This was really helpful in convincing me to spend less time on picking a developer and more on sharpening my photography and development skills. Since then, I've seen more folks post the same conclusion (or write in textbooks... like "Way Beyond Monochrome"), and that's been enough to convince me that as nice as Pyrocat-HD is, it's not a magic bullet and maybe the Toxic Level 4 warning suggests I should take a look elsewhere. I'm now focused on simpler stuff like Perceptol when speed isn't critical, and XTOL or ID-11 for everything else. Haven't played with any of the 2-part developers (Barry Thornton's, Beutler or DD-23) once touted as "better for zonies and roll film", but maybe another day. Thanks!

 

[bdial]

@JWMster, I've posted it threads in here a few times, and it's in my gallery/media collection which is where it was posted initially.

...This was really helpful in convincing me to spend less time on picking a developer and more on sharpening my photography and development skills...

Yes, that was my takeaway from the exercise, pick a developer, any developer, that suits your preferred working methods and vision, then move on.
That said, staining developers have their use, especially if you're looking to produce negs to print in silver and alt processes because of the slight contrast masking provided by the stain.

When the print is up on the wall, no one, except for a photo geek, will ask "what film or what developer?"
And then, 9 times out of 10, he/she won't understand how you got that result with that combination.
I know I've been there.

 

[JWMster]

bdial: Yep... I went after pyrocat-HD for the stain, but frankly, in 35mm it's not very apparent... even mild at best. Perhaps in an alt process.... it makes a difference as you've said. I haven't tried it in MF 120, but don't really feel the need... having sharpened my skills and really liking the way things are coming out ... for now. May be a time when I'll want to come back to p-HD and look at it again, but the screaming need ain't there. The polls I ran on developer picks both here and on the rangefinderforum indicated very few people were using pyro of any kind. And that, too, was a good message to pay attention to (for me). And I have to say that working with MF 120 (imagine only more so with LF) makes your negative big enough that if there are any defects in your technique.... it's gonna show and you're going to be able to work the kinks out. Can't say for sure, but I think this helps improve processes all along the line, down to 35mm, too. So I'm thankful for taking up the challenge... picking up the lead weight of a MF Bronica SQ, and "having at it". Thanks to everyone here!!!

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

The best developer is the developer you decide to master, same with film. If I was shooting tabular films I'd probably use XTol, and for traditional I'd consider a pyro. But only for a 100% analog workflow.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

I ended up grabbing some pyrocat-HD in glycol and some TF-4 that I should thank PE for
Long shelf life and since I do these things in bursts of random free time I prefer one-shot developer it matches well.
Works well with rotary drums.
Some promise that if I try alternative printing in the future the negatives will help with contrast for UV.
And I'm happy working in nitrile gloves

Thanks all, great discussion altogether!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The best developer is the developer you decide to master, same with film. If I was shooting tabular films I'd probably use XTol, and for traditional I'd consider a pyro. But only for a 100% analog workflow.

Not to open the wrong rabbit hole here, but staining developers work extremely well with hybrid workflows. They scan very nicely.

 

[Ian Grant]

The best developer is the developer you decide to master, same with film. If I was shooting tabular films I'd probably use XTol, and for traditional I'd consider a pyro. But only for a 100% analog workflow.

Taking that a couple of steps further what if you master 2 developers and more than one film, in my case that was 2 developers and 5 different films. Originally I used Rodinal and replenished Xtol from the late 1980's onwards (Xtol from when it was first sold in the UK _ I'd used only really 2 developers before that except for specialist uses.

About 12 or maybe 13 years ago I switched from Rodinal to Pyrocat HD, my main films by then ere Tmax 100 & 400 both developers are superb with T garin films. I still used Xtol but moved abroad traveling home and using the Xtol about 3 times a year. At the same time finding Tmax impossible to get while abroad I began using Fomapan 100 & 200 as a back up, switching from Tmax to Delta 100 (all formats) & 400 (120) and HP5 (for LF).

I dropped Xtol because it was not really viable and switched to Pyrocat HD entirely, what I found when home in the UK and printing was just how easily the Pyrocat negatives print compared to Xtol/Rodinal, now I'm not saying the latter are hard to print just there's a subtle but noticeable difference. I'm definitely not the only person to find this. Now I happen to be a traditional darkroom printer, I did toy with the idea of Plat/Pall using =digital internagatives (and made some prints) but prefer Silver Gelatin. As Scott (Flyingcamera) says Pyrocat HD negatives scan extremely well, something I totally agree with and that's important as I prefer to scan negatives rather than prints for reproduction.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

I wasn't going to comment on this topic since you already have very good replies to your question, but there is one little tidbit I'd like to add and that is that Xtol replenished is also very easy to scan. I have used Pyrocat-HD, MC and HDC and Xtol, both replenished and one-shot and here's what I found. I will only speak mainly about two films in 120 format, HP5+ and FP4+. I've used these two developers on others, but will only give my impression on these two. Pyrocat-HDC, which is the version I now use, does a great job with both. It doesn't seem to give the apparent speed that Xtol replenished does, but very close. It wet prints very easy, but no easier than a perfectly exposed Xtol replenished negative does. Both scan just fine, with maybe P-HDC slightly edging out Xtol in that department. When I say slightly I mean by just a frogs hair. I like P-HDC for both FP4+ and HP5+, but I prefer Xtol replenished for HP5+ over P-HDC. Why? I prefer Xtol replenished for HP5+ over FP4+ since it seems sharper and less mushy due to the grain structure, but that's only seen in very large (16x20 plus size prints wet printed) prints. I could easily live with either one as my only developer, but if I had to pick one it would probably be Xtol replenished. On second thought.............................?

 

[JWMster]

John: Can you qualify that a bit please? What form of XTOL are you starting with for replenishment? And then what is your working dilution? Stock? 1 to 1? 1 to 3? Are you adjusting your time for replenishment? Have you been doing this long? Any particularly helpful internet links for additional data on this or other recommended sources?
Reason I ask is that I've just recently switched to using Perceptol and XTOL as my two go-to developers, and using a Uniroller with Jobo tanks for development. Bumped my Perceptol up to 1:1 dilution from 1:2, and after making these switches, happy at last. But any data I can find on these two is helpful.Thanks!

 

[Ian Grant]

John: Can you qualify that a bit please? What form of XTOL are you starting with for replenishment? And then what is your working dilution? Stock? 1 to 1? 1 to 3? Are you adjusting your time for replenishment? Have you been doing this long? Any particularly helpful internet links for additional data on this or other recommended sources?
Reason I ask is that I've just recently switched to using Perceptol and XTOL as my two go-to developers, and using a Uniroller with Jobo tanks for development. Bumped my Perceptol up to 1:1 dilution from 1:2, and after making these switches, happy at last. But any data I can find on these two is helpful.Thanks!

Replenished means Full Strength and topped up with fresh developer to maintain consistency, it give the best results this way.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

John: Can you qualify that a bit please? What form of XTOL are you starting with for replenishment? And then what is your working dilution? Stock? 1 to 1? 1 to 3? Are you adjusting your time for replenishment? Have you been doing this long? Any particularly helpful internet links for additional data on this or other recommended sources?
Reason I ask is that I've just recently switched to using Perceptol and XTOL as my two go-to developers, and using a Uniroller with Jobo tanks for development. Bumped my Perceptol up to 1:1 dilution from 1:2, and after making these switches, happy at last. But any data I can find on these two is helpful.Thanks!

Ian clarified the Xtol replenished question. I replenish with 80ml of straight Xtol, but if my stock has sat for a long spell I'll remove 90ml of stock and top of with 90ml. of straight Xtol(replenisher). Perceptol is a great developer and I like it 1+2. I make my own and it works perfect, but you can't get the same apparent speed you get with Xtol replenished or one-shot. As for better grain structure? In 120 format I really can't see much difference so I will almost always opt for Xtol-R or Pyrocat-HDC(if lighting requires). 35mm might be different, but I almost never shoot 35mm anymore.
If I were home I'd post two scans of HP5+ and FP4+ developed in Xtol replenished so you could see what I'm talking about. You can use Xtol 1+1 starting times for Xtol replenish since they are very close in output. Of course I hand develop in SS hand tanks so your times will very from mine.

 

[Mike McMullen]

Ian clarified the Xtol replenished question. I replenish with 80ml of straight Xtol, but if my stock has sat for a long spell I'll remove 90ml of stock and top of with 90ml. of straight Xtol(replenisher). Perceptol is a great developer and I like it 1+2. I make my own and it works perfect, but you can't get the same apparent speed you get with Xtol replenished or one-shot. As for better grain structure? In 120 format I really can't see much difference so I will almost always opt for Xtol-R or Pyrocat-HDC(if lighting requires). 35mm might be different, but I almost never shoot 35mm anymore.
If I were home I'd post two scans of HP5+ and FP4+ developed in Xtol replenished so you could see what I'm talking about. You can use Xtol 1+1 starting times for Xtol replenish since they are very close in output. Of course I hand develop in SS hand tanks so your times will very from mine.

 

[Mike McMullen]

Xtol with Ilford Delta films is the best combination I've found for maximum sharpness, fine grain and no loss of film speed; but using P-cat with Fp4, Pan F and Verichrome Pan (one of the best films ever made, I'm down to a dozen boxes in the freezer!) provides wonderful, subtle gradation in the highlights with excellent sharpness for 120 and 4 x 5. I also use TFX-2, that is the best high acutance developer (with Fp4) I have seen, really amazing. I urge you to try it if high acutance is appropriate for the subject.

Question: mixing P-cat from scratch vs. buying A and B solutions already mixed, the results are very similar, however, the working solution made from scratch, when mixing A and B together in distilled water for the working solution, immediately turns black, while the commercial mix doesn't. Also, the made-from-scratch stuff (1.5 A + 3B + 100 distilled H2O as I recall, will post again if my memory is wrong) produces the same Zone VII density after 4 minutes at 80 degrees, vs. 7:15 min with the commercial stuff. Obviously the solutions are different in some very significant respect - if anyone else has noticed this, please let me know, and I can post the recipe I am using for P-Cat from scratch. Has anyone else compared P-Cat made from scratch vs. buying it already made? Thanks.

 

[JWMster]

Ian and John: Thanks! Focusing on this more, I did see that the results of XTOL 1:1 were similar to XTOL-R and I find it interesting the times do as well. Thanks for that helpful tidbit. I haven't compared side-by-side 120 Perceptol and XTOL yet, but the point about speed is handy. and I need to do that work. Yet there are times when slower is better.... like when trying to do long exposures in the early hours as the sun comes up. In either case, thanks!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Replenished XTOL is cheaper than XTOL 1:1 one shot. More rolls can be developed with replenished XTOL.