Pyro Vs. Kodak Xtol developer

StigHagen said:

There are so many variables that matters, agitation method, temperature and dilution. I got tired of testing developers, I settled on Xtol dilution 1:2 in my Jobo rotary system and do not plan to test more. I would rather experiment more with papers and paper developers, I believe there you will find the most visible variables.

Click to expand...

Personally speaking, bearing in mind nearly 30 years of B&W silver printing and vastly more failures than successes the above approach is correct for long term success, IMHO.

Settle on one film, chemistry and regime of doing things, paying no attention to your neighbor until you can make educated assessments from your own experiences and results.

Consider this, when I / many of us began B&W negative making and printing there was no internet, no network of like photographers other than those in our circle of immediate friends with similar interests. We were left to figure things out for ourselves or take workshops with Masters who shared knowledge in that forum.

In today's world with the internet at everyone's finger tips and dare I say a host of photographers who like to expound about areas of photo they have only passing knowledge I think it especially prudent of those asking in general "which is better questions" leave themselves open to no real resolution as the general answers with run just as this thread has, everywhere.

2 cents, Cheers

brucemuir said:

I believe "Rollo Pyro" was designed/formulated for rotary.
I'm not up on what has been done for the oxidation but I 'm sure it is on the PF page in the product description.

Click to expand...

Part of my interest is for the hardening, specifically for Efke.

I use 510 Pyro on a unicolor base with a very old Jobo tank for 4x5, semi stand traditional tank for 120 films, and a more normal invert first 30 seconds and then two inversions every minute for 35mm.

510 Pyro seems to work well for each type of development.

Mike

I've used pyro PMK and Xtol. PMK pyro renders snow very nicely. XTOL is great for shadow detail. I don't think one is better than the other. It all depends on the subject matter you're shooting. I terms of safety, XTOL is the winner. Just buy both developers and do some testing. Luckily, both developers keep well. I mix my Pyro PMK right before I use it. The weird part of using pyro PMK is after fixing, you dunk the film back into the developer.

You may be the only person left putting film back into a pyro developer after fixing.

Mike

I wonder, at the end of the day, how many could pick out a well executed print from, for example, a Tri-X or TMY negative developed in either Pyro, HC110 or XTOL. As Steve Sherman wisely pointed out, the questions of "which is better" are futile. Any of those developers will give a fine negative, if processed correctly, which can then have the "potential" of turning out a fine print. Learn to use one, or two at the very most, and never compare. Otherwise it can become keen to being a jack of all trades but master of none. The internet is fabulous for getting people distracted and constantly searching for that Holy Grail, thinking that a particular film developer can finally turn images into something special. A choice of film developer is probably the very last thing a photographer needs to worry about.

I agree that you shouldn't chase a "holy grail" but I for one don't want to become complacent.
I'm always trying to refine my processes.

I treat the internet like the corner tavern and enjoy the BS as much as the pearls.

I think my initial post was misunderstood. Perhaps the following will clarify matters. I never said that a negative from a staining developer couldn't be fine grained but rather that it could never be as fine grained as a normally developed negative. The reason for this is that a staining developer adds to each grain a dye cloud. The dye cloud is formed of oxidation products of the developing agent which are strongly colored. Since it cannot occupy the same space as the silver grain from which is was created it must form around the silver grain. Therefore, the effect is to enlarge the grains. In fact, if you look at published photomicrographs of such negatives you will see that each grain is surrounded by a dye cloud which is several times larger than the silver grain. The same thing happens with color emulsions but in this case the silver is eventually removed. There is nothing mystical about what happens. A print from a stain negative can have all the aspects we desire. But at very large magnifications it will never be as sharp as a print from a conventional fine grain negative.

Again very wrong because a staining developer can be finer grained than a standard fine grain developer, and significantly sharper, and will retain that sharpness with enlargement.

Of course itb does depend on the balance of the developer formulation, some staining dev formulae will give increased grain and excessive acutance, fine for contact printing but awful for enlarging.

Ian

I remember reading an interview in the 80s with Brett Weston wherein he talked about switching from ABC pyro to a non-staining developer. (I'm not sure, but I think it was Ethol UFG). His point was that the choice of developer really doesn't make much difference. A fine printer can work with any negative. If Brett Weston didn't care, should we?

I think a staining developer is fine, we just finished two hundred plus rolls of trix, hp5 and tmax all developed in PMK , one of our standards , the other is D76.

I think Steve pointed this out, and I will defer to Ian to fill in the blanks on how it all works , but IMHO the most significant point about Pyro is it is a tannin developer. the hardening effect stops migration of the exposed silver which keeps our highlight detail very detailed.

I also agree that most if not all could not tell the difference between developers when the print is made, we are looking at f.dkfjds images and those who say they can tell developers used on prints, or film are funny people indeed and not to be trusted.:munch:

c6h6o3 said:

I remember reading an interview in the 80s with Brett Weston wherein he talked about switching from ABC pyro to a non-staining developer. (I'm not sure, but I think it was Ethol UFG). His point was that the choice of developer really doesn't make much difference. A fine printer can work with any negative. If Brett Weston didn't care, should we?

Click to expand...

No, we shouldn't Time would be better spent learning from people like Bob Carnie and others about how to turn a good composition and a well processed negative into a winning print. Don't get me wrong, discussions about the choice of film developers are not a total waste of time but there is no denying that too many people regard it as a very important piece of the image making puzzle when it really isn't. You like Pyro? Great. You like XTOL? great. It's just a choice dictated by a few factors, but one of them isn't whether one is better than the other to get a beautiful print.

I like Pyro for strong lighting situations where I can expose for the deep shadows.
I like HC110 for Lith and Solarization Printing.
I like D76 , straight or 1:1 for most applications.
I like super thin negs for grade 5 printing.
I like thick negs for lith printing.
If I had a choice I would like to be able to read a newspaper through the highlights for portraits.
Five stops overexposed negative, make killer lith prints.


They all work , they all have purpose.

Panoman617 said:

What works Best? Is one type better for one kind of film them an other?

Click to expand...

Hi,

First of all, there are many pyro developers, so more specificity is needed, and "best" is probably not a useful word here, as it is too general, and can be quite subjective.

In my short experience with PMK pyro, it stains more extremely when using films with a traditional grain structure, i.e. not T-Max, Delta, or Acros. So you might say it "does it's thing" more with films like HP5, Tri-X, FP4, Plus-X, etc. This is not to say that it doesn't work with tabular-grained films. It just seems to stain less, thus it masks less.

X-Tol is well known by many and it is available pretty much everywhere. Pyro is not as universally known, and not as commonly available off the shelf.

X-Tol is a pour-back, one-shot, or replenished developer. Every pyro developer I know of is one shot only.

Neither will give you unacceptable grain or sharpness for most things.

Pyro should be used with an alkaline fixer to obtain the most extreme stain. X-Tol can be used with any fixer without any possible drawbacks.

Pyro is a highly concentrated developer, used similarly to HC-110 or Rodinal, while X-Tol is used more like D-76.

Pyro can be useful for alt process printers who also print on silver paper, as the stain works as a spectral highlight mask on the higher tones when printing on VC paper, while it works to boost the contrast on UV-sensitive processes like cyanotype, VDB, and platinum, which need higher contrast negatives than your typical silver print. It is is kind of like having two negatives in one...all through the magic of the spectral sensitivity of the printing material. Of course, different types of pyro produce different colors of stain, so they will do this masking to different degrees with different printing materials

Pyro takes some more care in the lab, as it's ingredients are more toxic. X-Tol is a very safe developer in the grand scheme of things.

Both create good results with pretty much any film, though different. It would be nice if the Photographer's Formulary offered a small 4 or 5 batch sample package of PMK and Pyrocat HD so you could see if you like it or not. It is not for everyone. For general purposes, it is not for me. It requires too much special handling, and I am accustomed to the "snap" in the high tones that I get with more standard developers. I use pyro in certain circumstances only. But some people use it for everything, so that certainly is an option.

Wow! I've never gotten this meany replies from a post on something. Why I am asking. I don't shoot much B&W. I mostly shoot Fuji chromes in my 617. So after going up to photo stock. I thought I'd shoot some. It's ben 20 years for me to shoot any B&W. So I went out and shoot some landscapes with my #29 red filter on my camera. Shot a roll of Neopan, Tmax, Tri-X and Verchome. I don't have darkroom set up at home to do B&W. So I was going to ship it out to get dev. Just did not know how I wanted to get it dev up. Pyro or Xtol.

The late UK author Barry Thorton had something knowledgeable to pass on about Pyro type developers. The book was titled, "The Edge of Darkness".

Michael R 1974 said:

The key to great prints is printing skill (assuming the image is great to begin with). Frozen Lake and Cliffs is my favourite Ansel, and I often use it as an example in discussions about perfect chemicals/materials because that negative was pre-zone system, developed in partially exhausted D76, it is grainy, has very thin shadows, and blocked highlights.

Click to expand...

c6h6o3 said:

I remember reading an interview in the 80s with Brett Weston wherein he talked about switching from ABC pyro to a non-staining developer. (I'm not sure, but I think it was Ethol UFG). His point was that the choice of developer really doesn't make much difference. A fine printer can work with any negative. If Brett Weston didn't care, should we?

Click to expand...

Glad you said it. Every time I bring up the importance of printing, somebody gets PO'ed. So you brought it up, not me. More is the pity that photography is now judged at large via the display of a computer screen.

Ian Grant said:

Again very wrong because a staining developer can be finer grained than a standard fine grain developer, and significantly sharper, and will retain that sharpness with enlargement.

Of course itb does depend on the balance of the developer formulation, some staining dev formulae will give increased grain and excessive acutance, fine for contact printing but awful for enlarging.

Ian

Click to expand...

For the record, I have foregone the final return to developer staining step for some years now. I use PMK more for its "fine grained" characteristics, not the "grain-masking" staining. There is still more than enough stain for me. I notice no difference in the pre–only and post stained negative's ability to produce a fine print except that the former are easier to print through with my cold light. I currently use it on fine grained 120 films as well (Pan F, Rollei Pan), since it seems to produce mostly better results (fine grain and sharpness) than other common developers.

But, all other factors being equal, which they're not, I'd prefer to use Rodinal on everything. I guess I'm more of a reluctant user of PMK.

My next door neighbor, Yong-ran Zhu and I have the same Jobos, the exact water supply, darkrooms which are at the same depth in the same dirt, indentical block walls, many identical lenses, same films and developers, we have stood on the same spot and photographed the same subject, we use the same paper and paper developer and STILL have different times, results and looks to our prints. As Thomas pointed out, it's your entire system including exposure philosophy which will determine the outcome..Evan Clarke

mikebarger said:

You may be the only person left putting film back into a pyro developer after fixing.

Mike

Click to expand...

Actually if I recall right, DiXactol's instruction sheet says that film should put back to developer for a short time after fixing.

Don't remember whether this was when using DiXactol as two bath or single bath...

However, as far as I know, it does not have any practical sense.

Putting the film back into the once used first solution, Solution A, provides the staining that gives pyro the tonal smoothness that many pyro users all looking for.

Steve

I put my film back into the developer to stain it when souping in PMK pyro is because I'm too cheap to use a separate alkaline solution to to the staining.

I do it this way as well, for all Pyro development.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

I put my film back into the developer to stain it when souping in PMK pyro is because I'm too cheap to use a separate alkaline solution to to the staining.

Click to expand...

Mainecoonmaniac said:

I put my film back into the developer to stain it when souping in PMK pyro is because I'm too cheap to use a separate alkaline solution to to the staining.

Click to expand...

The scuttlebutt is that this step affords little gain if any (maybe hardening?).
It supposedly adds to GENERAL stain not imaged silver stain.

I've seen the recommendation to do an afterbath with the Formulary's PMK instructions.

IDK but thought I would point it out.

eclarke said:

My next door neighbor, Yong-ran Zhu and I have the same Jobos, the exact water supply, darkrooms which are at the same depth in the same dirt, indentical block walls, many identical lenses, same films and developers, we have stood on the same spot and photographed the same subject, we use the same paper and paper developer and STILL have different times, results and looks to our prints. As Thomas pointed out, it's your entire system including exposure philosophy which will determine the outcome..Evan Clarke

Click to expand...

Precisely. Which is why I felt it appropriate and necessary to point out the primacy of consistency in one's own workflow in a (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

Redunking the film after developing in pyro seems not to increase the density-proportional masking, but just to add a general mask (AKA fog). I don't do it any more.