Comparison Between XTol-R & 510-Pyro

I made these side by sides using my Nikon F2 and F6 cameras. The F2 used my Voigtlander 40/2 and the F6 had the 35/2D. The Voigtlander is probably a better lens than the Nikon, so I leveled the playing field a bit by shooting at F4. I probably should have just swapped lenses but I was a bit lazy.

The roll from the F2 was processed in 510-Pyro at 1:100, and the F6 roll was in our replenished XTol working solution. Both rolls were done at 24C, 7:30 in a Jobo ATL3. (The development times just happen to be the same, this wasn't some intentional thing).

The scans were made using an Eversmart Supreme II at 5600ppi, converted using Negative Lab Pro, and left unsharpened. I did reduce the TIFF from 16 to 8 bits to save size. If I was printing these or displaying them personally I would definitely apply some sharpening, but it's up to you to do it to taste.

I'll leave it up to you to draw conclusions, if you have thoughts leave them in the comments! The only thing I will say is that I intend to keep using both these developers a lot, and that the stain has it's own effects when printing using VC paper which are likely not reflected in these scans. You will know the F6 frame by the data imprint.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ghe8txwck53c85n/510:XTol-R.zip?dl=0

The bar on the white on white window, second floor on the left in #3 stands out more than #4. Other than that there are no significant differences.

Graphs and charts are of little relevance for me. I use both Xtol !:2 for roll film and Pyrocat-MC. for large format negatives. I do lots of Alternative process with the large format negatives. Both of these developers are excellent in their own right. learn to use them properly and you will get consistent results.

NortheastPhotographic said:

The roll from the F2 was processed in 510-Pyro at 1:100....

Click to expand...

Are you going to offer 510-Pyro developing, commercially?

MultiFormat Shooter said:

Are you going to offer 510-Pyro developing, commercially?

Click to expand...

I think so.

As you can observe in these samples, both 510 Pyro and XTol are remarkably close. I think that says more about the quality of XTol than anything, it's a fantastic developer when replenished. From the tests I've done I will say that the Pyro negatives still do have some advantages due to the stain. They are often a bit more 'brilliant' looking in contrast, or maybe micro contrast. Printing them in the darkroom also is a breeze. Plenty of highlight and shadow detail.

From a production perspective... It's very slightly more challenging to work with but the times and temps are close if not the same. The working solution doesn't last very long...and it's quite expensive. That's the drawback.

I'm buying mine from Zone Imaging Lab.

Interesting! Have you compared 510-Pyro with D76 1:1 or seen any comparison by others similar to what you have done here? I can't recollect if Jay DeFehr or sellers of 510-Pyro did any such comparative study. Is there any noticeable difference in the results unless one does pixel peeping with scanned images? Would appreciate your insights.

I am interested to see the final comparison for XTOL and pyro.

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

Interesting! Have you compared 510-Pyro with D76 1:1 or seen any comparison by others similar to what you have done here? I can't recollect if Jay DeFehr or sellers of 510-Pyro did any such comparative study. Is there any noticeable difference in the results unless one does pixel peeping with scanned images? Would appreciate your insights.

Click to expand...

Well D76 is pretty close to XTol. The differences you'll mostly see are more pronounced grain and possibly slightly sharper grain. I sort of consider developers like HC-110, D76, XTol (etc etc) to be standard type developers and I kind of think they all produce pretty similar results. (They're also used the most and as a consequence possibly vastly under-rated for how good they actually are.) So if I'm looking for an alternative developer it would be a choice based on the realistic workflow, i.e. it needs to be suitable for a rotary environment, and/or the results should be different enough to warrant the usage. D76 is slightly different than XTol, but XTol is easier to replenish and slightly finer grained/maybe produces better tones? It would be the same story with HC-110 or Clayton F76...

From what I see there is a psychological effect that Pyro produces and some real effects. It's fun to use things that you might think of as exotic... This test shows that the results they produce are super close in actual fact...but I bet you if I DIDN'T do a side by side and just printed the dang negs I'd be marveling at the tones and grain pattern. I actually think this is perfectly fine! Side by sides and blind tests throw out the experiential factor. That's why people still shoot film to a large degree IMHO. The digital workflow is often boring and no single image is special when you can fire off a million...but I digress...

However the caveat here is that Pyro to the home user is much more flexible than it is to me. 510-Pyro is very suitable for stand and semi stand development which surely will produce markedly different results than my rotary process. Unless someone wants to buy me a Heiland TAS I can tell you I'm not doing stand development for clients.

I'd say my personal conclusion is that 510-Pyro is an excellent developer that I'm happy to continue working with. I will not however promise it will deliver stunning results vastly different from XTol-R. That being said, it does produce in some situations greater micro contrast and I also think it has more delicate highlights that have a bit more brilliance. Unexpectedly I find the look a bit more 'modern'. It's easy to fit into my Jobo ATL workflow and so I probably will offer it soon. I will also use it more for my personal work when I am enlarging...I've had good darkroom experiences so far. The Heiland splitgrade controller readings were spot-on and my prints required very little work.

I guess I wish this was more decisive but that's just not how photography often works!

@NortheastPhotographic: thank you, this is very valuable, much appreciated.

NortheastPhotographic said:

Well D76 is pretty close to XTol. The differences you'll mostly see are more pronounced grain and possibly slightly sharper grain. I sort of consider developers like HC-110, D76, XTol (etc etc) to be standard type developers and I kind of think they all produce pretty similar results. (They're also used the most and as a consequence possibly vastly under-rated for how good they actually are.) So if I'm looking for an alternative developer it would be a choice based on the realistic workflow, i.e. it needs to be suitable for a rotary environment, and/or the results should be different enough to warrant the usage. D76 is slightly different than XTol, but XTol is easier to replenish and slightly finer grained/maybe produces better tones? It would be the same story with HC-110 or Clayton F76...

From what I see there is a psychological effect that Pyro produces and some real effects. It's fun to use things that you might think of as exotic... This test shows that the results they produce are super close in actual fact...but I bet you if I DIDN'T do a side by side and just printed the dang negs I'd be marveling at the tones and grain pattern. I actually think this is perfectly fine! Side by sides and blind tests throw out the experiential factor. That's why people still shoot film to a large degree IMHO. The digital workflow is often boring and no single image is special when you can fire off a million...but I digress...

However the caveat here is that Pyro to the home user is much more flexible than it is to me. 510-Pyro is very suitable for stand and semi stand development which surely will produce markedly different results than my rotary process. Unless someone wants to buy me a Heiland TAS I can tell you I'm not doing stand development for clients.

I'd say my personal conclusion is that 510-Pyro is an excellent developer that I'm happy to continue working with. I will not however promise it will deliver stunning results vastly different from XTol-R. That being said, it does produce in some situations greater micro contrast and I also think it has more delicate highlights that have a bit more brilliance. Unexpectedly I find the look a bit more 'modern'. It's easy to fit into my Jobo ATL workflow and so I probably will offer it soon. I will also use it more for my personal work when I am enlarging...I've had good darkroom experiences so far. The Heiland splitgrade controller readings were spot-on and my prints required very little work.

I guess I wish this was more decisive but that's just not how photography often works!

Click to expand...

But friends do not let friends do semi stand development.

Minimal agitation and staining developers come into their own when dealing with very high SBRs. The OP's photos didn't seem challenging in that respect. I don't want to stoke a battle between factions, but 510-Pyro might not be the best choice in a comparison of staining v a very good non-staining developer.

510-Pyro might or might not be the best choice as a very good staining developer, but neither the inventor of the developer nor its supplier has made available any comparative study of the developer with any of the widely used non-staining developers. In the absence of such an informative study, OP's modest attempt at comparing 510-Pyro with XTol-r is definitely a step forward and welcome.

NortheastPhotographic said:

I think so.

As you can observe in these samples, both 510 Pyro and XTol are remarkably close. I think that says more about the quality of XTol than anything, it's a fantastic developer when replenished. From the tests I've done I will say that the Pyro negatives still do have some advantages due to the stain. They are often a bit more 'brilliant' looking in contrast, or maybe micro contrast. Printing them in the darkroom also is a breeze. Plenty of highlight and shadow detail.

From a production perspective... It's very slightly more challenging to work with but the times and temps are close if not the same. The working solution doesn't last very long...and it's quite expensive. That's the drawback.

I'm buying mine from Zone Imaging Lab.

Click to expand...

I had a similar quandary regarding xtol and ended up going with Ilford replenished Ilfotec DD. Its very well suited to a lab environment and produces negatives that I have no complaints about. If Pyro turns out to be more problematic/expensive than you want to deal with, it may be worth looking at DD. Ilford's documentation for it is very good, and it's been super reliable for me so far. Though, that being said, it looks like Kodak's XTOL problems are largely gone minus the current pandemic logistics issues they're dealing with. Once I work through my current supply of DD, I'll be taking another serious look at switching back to replenished XTOL.

Adrian Bacon said:

I had a similar quandary regarding xtol and ended up going with Ilford replenished Ilfotec DD. Its very well suited to a lab environment and produces negatives that I have no complaints about. If Pyro turns out to be more problematic/expensive than you want to deal with, it may be worth looking at DD. Ilford's documentation for it is very good, and it's been super reliable for me so far. Though, that being said, it looks like Kodak's XTOL problems are largely gone minus the current pandemic logistics issues they're dealing with. Once I work through my current supply of DD, I'll be taking another serious look at switching back to replenished XTOL.

Click to expand...

Yeah I went to D76 during the dark ages. When they finally sent me the replacement packages and I noticed that it's regularly in-stock I switched back. Just so dead simple to replenish and it's pretty cheap to use. 510-Pyro would be an 'upgrade' service...it's definitely not suitable for general purpose work. The working solution only lasts a few hours when mixed where as a replenished XTol tank lasts indefinitely.

Comparing 510-Pyro with XTol-R, do you get similar shadow speed? I found 510-Pyro quite unsatisfactory in that regard, but maybe something went wrong. It was the only time I have had unexpected results from mixing a developer.

The granularity on the 510-Pyro looks a little 'off' when looked at closely - and it definitely isn't the scanner. I have my suspicions as to what it is & if it is what I suspect, it would likely cause the developer formulation (as it stands) to be rejected by Kodak, Ilford, etc. Essentially it might be that the developer is not developing a lot of the grain a bit (lots of development centres), but less of the grain a lot more (fewer development centres). This seems to be a well known fault (especially with certain formulations of high definition developers using Phenidones without adequate levels of semiquinone 'refreshment' - and I have my suspicions that Pyrogallol might be prone to this too) since the 1960s-70s in the industry but little published outside of some industry technical papers & the like - and minimally disclosed to the wider popular press (and possibly too sensitive/ cutting edge at the time to have made it disclosable information in some of the better known & good quality standard works).

As ever, interesting to see what the differences are between the Eversmart and the Imacon output-wise - as far as I remember, they used the same sensor - and what compromises/ strengths each has (though it's splitting hairs, compared to many other machines).

Lachlan Young said:

The granularity on the 510-Pyro looks a little 'off' when looked at closely - and it definitely isn't the scanner.

Click to expand...

You bring up a very interesting point! When I did some testing of my own, albeit very amateurish, I found that 510-Pyro grain was bigger but very fuzzy which made it look inconspicuous till one looks closely. Not exactly very fine grain that I was expecting to see based on some claims made about this developer. 510-Pyro has a cult-like following and I don't see anyone expressing reservations about the grain. My observations could just be a statistical outlier.

Lachlan Young said:

The granularity on the 510-Pyro looks a little 'off' when looked at closely - and it definitely isn't the scanner. I have my suspicions as to what it is & if it is what I suspect, it would likely cause the developer formulation (as it stands) to be rejected by Kodak, Ilford, etc. Essentially it might be that the developer is not developing a lot of the grain a bit (lots of development centres), but less of the grain a lot more (fewer development centres). This seems to be a well known fault (especially with certain formulations of high definition developers using Phenidones without adequate levels of semiquinone 'refreshment' - and I have my suspicions that Pyrogallol might be prone to this too) since the 1960s-70s in the industry but little published outside of some industry technical papers & the like - and minimally disclosed to the wider popular press (and possibly too sensitive/ cutting edge at the time to have made it disclosable information in some of the better known & good quality standard works).

As ever, interesting to see what the differences are between the Eversmart and the Imacon output-wise - as far as I remember, they used the same sensor - and what compromises/ strengths each has (though it's splitting hairs, compared to many other machines).

Click to expand...

I would have considered an Imacon but it's significantly more limited in it's capabilities. I wonder if the Imacons or X5s have the same active cooling that Creo integrated into the Supremes? One frame at a time, pretty low output resolution with sheet film, no 8x10 or 11x14... It's very nice to load up 8 sheets of 4x5 or 2 8x10s and walk away for a bit. Plus the way resolution shakes out on the Imacon is weird. IMO you want the high numbers when scanning 120 but you're limited to 3200. You can easily get 5600ppi worth of information out of a 6x7, 6x9 and larger 120 frames. You may have 8000ppi on 35mm but the usefulness of that is a bit suspect to me...then in sheets only 2000? And no wet mounting capabilities. Just way too many compromises IMHO.

If you're a single studio and you don't shoot anything larger than 4x5 and aim to use mostly 24" printers then an Imacon is a great choice, probably followed by a Coolscan 9000 if you don't need 4x5. However the way pricing is shaking out these days Micheal Streeter will outfit you with an IQSmart or ES scanner for less than an Imacon...you just need the desk space.

NortheastPhotographic said:

I would have considered an Imacon but it's significantly more limited in it's capabilities. I wonder if the Imacons or X5s have the same active cooling that Creo integrated into the Supremes? One frame at a time, pretty low output resolution with sheet film, no 8x10 or 11x14... It's very nice to load up 8 sheets of 4x5 or 2 8x10s and walk away for a bit. Plus the way resolution shakes out on the Imacon is weird. IMO you want the high numbers when scanning 120 but you're limited to 3200. You can easily get 5600ppi worth of information out of a 6x7, 6x9 and larger 120 frames. You may have 8000ppi on 35mm but the usefulness of that is a bit suspect to me...then in sheets only 2000? And no wet mounting capabilities. Just way too many compromises IMHO.

If you're a single studio and you don't shoot anything larger than 4x5 and aim to use mostly 24" printers then an Imacon is a great choice, probably followed by a Coolscan 9000 if you don't need 4x5. However the way pricing is shaking out these days Micheal Streeter will outfit you with an IQSmart or ES scanner for less than an Imacon...you just need the desk space.

Click to expand...

The 949, X5 and a couple of others have a Peltier cooler - you can get a 400+mb file every couple of minutes out of them. The resolution seems to aim at delivering about enough out-of-the-box for about A1 prints (and roughly scales to about 1.25", 2.5" and 3.9" scan widths for the 6300/ 3200/ 2040 settings - plus you can set custom widths/ resolutions if you feel confident in always getting the holders dead square & centre) - have run 120 at 8000ppi (arguably massive overkill - unless microdensitometry is your thing) and 6300ppi using three stitched scans from the 35mm holder (quick way to hit limits of tiff files) - doesn't take long to do - the slowest bit is the stitching - have made 5ft+ prints from this (much to the consternation of the granularity worriers on here, 1960s FP3 held up to this just fine - and going to multi-panel billboard prints). It's also very noticeably better all round than the Coolscans (less stuff in the light path & better optics). For 4x5 - very occasionally, 3000ppi or more would be useful - but almost all the time, 2040ppi at a high enough MTF level is better than most people's ability to keep 4x5 sheets flat enough, lenses at optimal aperture, camera in focus & steady enough - and is already recording quite a bit of film granularity information too. Resolution is only part of the equation - without sharpness, high contrast resolution charts mean nothing at all. The slower Imacons don't have as many advantages overall - in essence, the strengths of the Imacon system (the fast ones at least) are that they are pretty simple to operate/ maintain & don't lose some sharpness via mirrors & glass platens for the same noise floor. The big flatbeds are better for setting up batch scans & handling bigger sheet formats at a variety of resolutions (for fluid mount, I'm not keen on the flatbed mount systems - drum scanners are much better at this) - and yes, the prices for the old high end flatbeds are much better - unless the right drum scanner turns up at the right time (and locally) - at a certain point, the strengths and weaknesses of each high end scan system all even out & you have to pick the winnable battles for what you are doing.

Lachlan Young said:

. The big flatbeds are better for setting up batch scans & handling bigger sheet formats at a variety of resolutions (for fluid mount, I'm not keen on the flatbed mount systems - drum scanners are much better at this) - and yes, the prices for the old high end flatbeds are much better - unless the right drum scanner turns up at the right time (and locally) - at a certain point, the strengths and weaknesses of each high end scan system all even out & you have to pick the winnable battles for what you are doing.

Click to expand...

I considered a drum scanner for a bit but what swayed me to the ESII is the ease of dry mounting which I do 90% of the time. Lots of my every day clients are shooting 4x5. I run the film, dry it, and give them a proof scan at roughly 1200ppi (the preset resolution in oXYgen close to that, I don't recall the precise figure). They look so good and would print large enough for a 17" printer, which most people don't even have. The ESII is very fast when doing this. Plus what is the real advantage is that while it's going I'm feeding film into the HS1800 and Fuji Frontiers. The ability to do very high res scans when needed are a nice bonus.

I believe there is a decent amount of support for the drum scanners but in the end Micheal Streeter's business and service level made it an easy choice. He's not that old, he has a warehouse of parts and units being refurbished, and he's a phone call or email away. My far more expensive HS1800 doesn't have that level of support sadly.

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

You bring up a very interesting point! When I did some testing of my own, albeit very amateurish, I found that 510-Pyro grain was bigger but very fuzzy which made it look inconspicuous till one looks closely. Not exactly very fine grain that I was expecting to see based on some claims made about this developer. 510-Pyro has a cult-like following and I don't see anyone expressing reservations about the grain. My observations could just be a statistical outlier.

Click to expand...

You're probably closer to the norm than those who want everyone to believe that staining developers are the only answer. A lot of claims are often based on quite narrow methodologies/ exposure scales/ very modest enlargements - especially with staining developers.