Rollei 80s in 510 Pyro -- 1st experiences (and hopefully a long-term log)

[Foto Ludens]

After reading horror stories about the contrast curve of Rollei 80s, I decided to shoot a roll and see if I could salvage shadow detail without blowing the highlights. I rated the roll at E.I. 50, and (following general directions by Ilford I remember reading a while back ), lowered that E.I. to 25 when using (and metering through) an orange filter. I developed the roll in 510 Pyro diluted 1:500 for 60 minutes (75 degrees Fahrenheit) , agitating for the first minute and letting it sit undisturbed for the remainder of the time.

The results were good, but stand development with 510 Pyro controlled the contrast too well! The negatives have good shadow detail, but are thin. Next time I'll add some agitation halfway through the development and see if that helps.

Here are a few negative scans of the results (scans required gamma settings in excess of a grade #5 paper, according to the software I use):

Photos were taken with a Yashica Electro 35 CC, and an orange filter by Tiffen (#21, I think). You can start to see some infrared effects with this film & filter combo...

Anyway, I hope this proves helpful to folks thinking about using this film and developer combo. I'll post updates as I tweak the development, hopefully getting even better results

 

[Foto Ludens]

A quick update to this log: I have developed another roll in 510-Pyro 1:500 for 60 minutes, but with geometric agitation rather than standing. So, continuous agitation for first 30s, then 2 inversions at the 1,2,4,8,15 and 30 minute marks. The film was rated at EI 50, through an orange (#21) filter.

The negatives still look a tad thin, though they scan easily. If printing in a darkroom, they'd probably need a high contrast grade. Here's a straight scan (linear contrast, no exposure adjustment):

And here's the final image (inverted with Color Perfect plug-in in Photoshop Elements):

This was a sunlit mural in mid-morning summer sun, so I think the film / developer handled it quite well. There's a bit of highlight blocking in the peeling paint, but the sunlit leaves have enough detail for my tastes.

Here's another from that same roll. Straight scan:

Final image:

To be honest there's no clear difference between 60 minutes standing and 60 minutes with geometric agitation, so I think I'm either hitting the limits of the developer or this film has lower Dmax than I thought. Next roll I'll either develop in 510 Pyro 1:100, or in PMK 1:2:100 and see what I get. I recently souped a roll of Retro 400s in PMK, and got higher Dmax than I did here...

 

[Foto Ludens]

suum cuique pulchrum est, eh buddy?

 

[JensH]

Hi,

it looks the pyro oxidizes before the lights can build up density.
I had such negatives when testing PanF+ with sulfite-free pyrocat dev. (a mixture Windisch recommended for very thin and contrasty films).
Regular agitation, not stand or semi-stand.
Doubling the pyrocat concentration helped a bit... too much compensation remained with thin highlights.
Ended up using a variant with little sulfite.

Best
Jens

 

[Foto Ludens]

Hi,

it looks the pyro oxidizes before the lights can build up density.
I had such negatives when testing PanF+ with sulfite-free pyrocat dev. (a mixture Windisch recommended for very thin and contrasty films).
Regular agitation, not stand or semi-stand.
Doubling the pyrocat concentration helped a bit... too much compensation remained with thin highlights.
Ended up using a variant with little sulfite.

Best
Jens

Thanks for the insight, Jens. I was hoping that the other two developers in 510 would keep the highlights going a little more. Next roll I'll try regular dilution and agitation and see where it takes me. Might try it with PMK and rodinal as well, just to compare apples to oranges

 

[john_s]

A quick update to this log: I have developed another roll in 510-Pyro 1:500 for 60 minutes, but with geometric agitation rather than standing. So, continuous agitation for first 30s, then 2 inversions at the 1,2,4,8,15 and 30 minute marks. The film was rated at EI 50, through an orange (#21) filter.

......
To be honest there's no clear difference between 60 minutes standing and 60 minutes with geometric agitation, so I think I'm either hitting the limits of the developer or this film has lower Dmax than I thought. Next roll I'll either develop in 510 Pyro 1:100, or in PMK 1:2:100 and see what I get. I recently souped a roll of Retro 400s in PMK, and got higher Dmax than I did here...

1:500 is extremely dilute. How much diluted developer did you use? In my experiments I have found that using a lot of very dilute developer works better than the same concentration of a more ordinary amount, like 500mL. I'd try 2 Litres without changing anything else to try to minimize the effect of developer oxidation or exhaustion.

 

[Foto Ludens]

1:500 is extremely dilute. How much diluted developer did you use? In my experiments I have found that using a lot of very dilute developer works better than the same concentration of a more ordinary amount, like 500mL. I'd try 2 Litres without changing anything else to try to minimize the effect of developer oxidation or exhaustion.

I was using a two reel tank, so a bit under 500ml. I don't have a bigger tank at the moment, so stronger dilution & less time is the best I can do. I'm hoping that 1:100 will do the trick.

 

[Foto Ludens]

1:500 is extremely dilute. How much diluted developer did you use? In my experiments I have found that using a lot of very dilute developer works better than the same concentration of a more ordinary amount, like 500mL. I'd try 2 Litres without changing anything else to try to minimize the effect of developer oxidation or exhaustion.

Forgot to add: thanks for the insight and suggestion!

 

[koraks]

I agree with the suggestion to try a dilution of e.g. 1:100 or 1:150. I'd also recommend a normal agitation scheme to keep development times manageable and build up some decent contrast. The pictures of your negatives show extremely thin, lifeless and flat negatives, which indeed translates into the positives as well despite the trickery inherent to digital. I have to agree to a large part with the first response; there's a lot of room for improvement.
Btw, I have up on 510 pyro because it didn't do anything magical for me and other developers turned out to be less finicky and overall better performers. But to each their own; I know Jay DeFehr has been very vocal in the past defending his inventions so let's not stir up any demons and keep it at the observation that 510 pyro can develop silver.

 

[pentaxuser]

Have a look at a Pictorial Planet video on what the presenter calls Semi-stand development. Yes it was FP4 film and yes the contrast was allegedly high but bear in minds the negs were taken in Scotland in mid winter which does not have the high contrast such as Arizona in summer. The negs on his video looked pretty good to me
His regime is perhaps different enough to what you have already used to make a difference



pentaxuser

 

[Foto Ludens]

But to each their own; I know Jay DeFehr has been very vocal in the past defending his inventions so let's not stir up any demons and keep it at the observation that 510 pyro can develop silver

I'm not stirring anything up, just recording my attempts to develop a supposedly tricky film with a developer that has worked well with tricky films in the past. In fact, stand developing in 1:500 worked very well with Arista APHS Ortho film, which is why I decided to start there with this film. To be fair I did use a fair amount of mixed developer at that dilution when tank developing 8x10 sheets, so John's suggestion of a bigger tank would likely yield a noticeable improvement. If only I still had my 8-reel tank!

I know many APUGers have been very vocal about their dislike for Jay and his developers, but this is not a thread about him or his history in this site. It's a thread about attempts to nail down the developer of a particular film with a particular developer. It should be possible to discuss the developer without bringing up any baggage people may have about its creator, right?

Anyway, I'll have to order a few more rolls of Retro 80s (or Aviphot 80, if I find it under that name for less $$) before I can continue these experiments. I'll likely get a few rolls of RPX 25 (which seems to be Aviphot 40, judging by the spectral sensitivity chart on their respective datasheets), and probably some Pan F as well. Hopefully between these 3 I can find a EI 25-50 film/developer combo that works well for my uses, so I can buy it in bulk and bleed less $$$

So, updates on this thread may take a while. In the meantime, I have a bulk roll of Kentmere 100 to shoot

 

[Foto Ludens]

Have a look at a Pictorial Planet video on what the presenter calls Semi-stand development. Yes it was FP4 film and yes the contrast was allegedly high but bear in minds the negs were taken in Scotland in mid winter which does not have the high contrast such as Arizona in summer. The negs on his video looked pretty good to me
His regime is perhaps different enough to what you have already used to make a difference



pentaxuser

That's a great suggestion, thanks! I'll give that video a watch.

 

[john_s]

I was using a two reel tank, so a bit under 500ml. I don't have a bigger tank at the moment, so stronger dilution & less time is the best I can do. I'm hoping that 1:100 will do the trick.

1:100 is a great deal stronger than 1:500. If you think that a very dilute developer will solve a problem, maybe 1:200 would be worth a try?

FWIW, I found that 510 Pyro gave difficult negatives with Neopan400 inasmuch as the shadow speed was extremely low. I was attracted to the elegance of the formula. It was the only time I ever experienced unexpected results with a developer. I use Pyrocat-HD and I have found it reliable and it does well more dilute than the standard 1+1+100.

 

[koraks]

It should be possible to discuss the developer without bringing up any baggage people may have about its creator, right?

Exactly. And that goes both ways. I found 510 pyro to be nothing magical. It wasn't horrible, and it wasn't excellent. It was just middle of the road or a little less so, and not worth the trouble of mixing it and keeping around pyrogallol for it.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Exactly. And that goes both ways. I found 510 pyro to be nothing magical. It wasn't horrible, and it wasn't excellent. It was just middle of the road or a little less so, and not worth the trouble of mixing it and keeping around pyrogallol for it.

I guess I'm just confused by your original comment, which given the context seemed to imply that by mentioning 510 I was stirring something up.

There's nothing wrong with you disliking 510, but I'm not sure what was gained by your comments about it. I never really liked D76, but don't feel the need to tell folks using it that I never got great results from it (let alone tell them that and then say that we shouldn't get caught up in that debate).

 

[koraks]

My comment about stirring something up was about I myself being cautious in expressing my opinion of 510 pyro as a rather mundane developer regarding its qualities with no clear benefits over other, more accessible and less problematic formulas. I never liked the toxicity of pyrogallol. I vehemently disliked the propensity of pyro developers towards uneven development and rapid oxidation. I didn't enjoy mixing 510 pyro, which takes a day or two to take to completion. And I simply wasn't impressed by the images it produced. What's to be gained from this? I don't know; you decide. What's to be gained from your post by me? Do you have to answer that question? No? Then do I have to answer it? This is a forum - we share insights and opinions here. Anyone can take from that (or add to it!) whatever they like!

 

[Foto Ludens]

Sorry for being a little harsh, but if one is determined to use this film, I can’t think of many worse ways of processing it. However in the end if you are able to get results that are consistently pleasing to you that’s all that really matters.

I appreciate it. I must confess that I've been pretty surprised by some of the replies I've been getting here. My purpose in this thread has been to give folks looking for information on this film and developer combo something a bit more concrete to go on. If nothing else, folks can see what 1:500 standing and reduced agitation will give (this is why I posted straight scans of the negatives, after all). The results so far have not been great (though I wouldn't say they were that awful), and the photos posted have been little more than snapshots, but anyone looking at the scans should be able to see that and come to their own judgments.

I'm not sure what the purpose of a couple of the replies has been.

 

[koraks]

I'm not sure what the purpose of a couple of the replies has been.

Perhaps, hiding underneath those replies, is the sentiment that tinkering is nice, but don't mistake it for making progress in your photography.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Perhaps, hiding underneath those replies, is the sentiment that tinkering is nice, but don't mistake it for making progress in your photography.

Perhaps you are projecting a tad here.

Photography is a hobby for me. I'm not too concerned with "making progress" with it; I'd rather just enjoy the process of making photographs. I'm quite happy with my current ability to create good photographs. That doesn't mean that I can't also enjoy the act of trying new films, cameras, or processes.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

My comment about stirring something up was about I myself being cautious in expressing my opinion of 510 pyro as a rather mundane developer regarding its qualities with no clear benefits over other, more accessible and less problematic formulas. I never liked the toxicity of pyrogallol. I vehemently disliked the propensity of pyro developers towards uneven development and rapid oxidation. I didn't enjoy mixing 510 pyro, which takes a day or two to take to completion. And I simply wasn't impressed by the images it produced. What's to be gained from this?

Larry Dressler recommended Diafine divided developer for this film. Here is one of the results he posted. Here is another. For those who don't want to use Diafine, Larry recommended Rodinal 1-200 full stand for an hour. Let us hope that OP's experiments with 510-Pyro will lead him to results that are at least as good as these two.

BTW I once bought a few rolls of low speed high contrast docu film from Astrum, Ukraine which they called Micrat. I got results that I liked by reducing the pH of the developer. I think I was experimenting with Jerry's version of Kalogen then. Maybe that's something OP can try with 510-Pyro. YMMV.

 

[koraks]

Perhaps you are projecting a tad here.

Certainly; that was the extent of the explanation. Everyone posts from their own perspective. You expressed your surprise at some of the replies you got, so I though I'd explain at least a small part of it.

Photography is a hobby for me.

For me too, so I'm very concerned about making progress. I can't really be content sitting around doing the same thing over and over again with the same result. I envy those who can, but it's not for me. I get very bored, very quickly that way.

That doesn't mean that I can't also enjoy the act of trying new films, cameras, or processes.

Why fix it if it ain't broken? Apparently you want to make progress in a way too, it seems.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Larry Dressler recommended Diafine divided developer for this film. Here is one of the results he posted. Here is another. For those who don't want to use Diafine, Larry recommended Rodinal 1-200 full stand for an hour. Let us hope that OP's experiments with 510-Pyro will lead him to results that are at least as good as these two.

BTW I once bought a few rolls of low speed high contrast docu film from Astrum, Ukraine which they called Micrat. I got results that I liked by reducing the pH of the developer. I think I was experimenting with Jerry's version of Kalogen then. Maybe that's something OP can try with 510-Pyro. YMMV.

Thanks for those suggestions, I'll look into them! I've liked diafine in the past, so might go that route if the developers I have on hand don't work out.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Why fix it if it ain't broken?

Because tinkering is fun!

 

[koraks]

So your progress is in the fun dimension

Don't get me wrong - I *love* tinkering. It's absolutely great. You wouldn't believe it if you saw me tinkering (there's signs of it here and there on this forum and others). It does have its downsides, though. Tinker too much...and before you now it, no photos are made. Tinkering has an opportunity cost.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Tinkering has an opportunity cost.

That's a very fair point. I guess it's a matter of finding the right balance, and that's certainly something I will have to keep in mind.

Once upon a time I obsessed with making great photographs, and that served me well then (sold some prints to the permanent collection of a museum, even!), but as I found myself without the time or energy to photograph that seriously, I found that I didn't pick up the camera at all, for months/years at a time. By shifting my perspective and approaching photography with an eye towards enjoyment rather then making great art, I find that I am making photos more often. Take the photos I posted above: those were taken while I waited for mechanics to finish working on my car. In my old mindset I would not have bothered to have the camera with me. Did I take great photos? No, but I did have fun.

Tinkering (testing films, building FrankenCameras, etc) is part of that fun. And in the process, I might even end up with another film/camera/whatever to use when out taking more serious photos (whenever that happens).