ZoneImaging Photochemicals: A new photochemical company

[Ian Grant]

The farce is Alex Luycky's review is based on "I should mention that I purchased my 510 from Bostik & Sullivan, the older 2006 formulation." It's also Lane's heavy input. Some of the images show extremely poor or non-existent shadow detail,

Is the skull and crossbones symbol in the lower right corner of that post what James Lane had previously removed from the 510 Pyro labeling?

The skull and crossbones is from the Bostick & Sullivan data, Lane has removed it from his MSDS etc, the list of chemicals and their CAS numbers is also from Bostick & Sullivan.

I'd add that it's worth watching Andrew O'Neill's video, it shows how sticky and difficult to use 510 Pyro really is, also why it should only really be used by experienced photographers.

Ian

 

[albireo]

Alex Luyckx's review of 510-Pyro left me with more questions than answers.

I have quickly checked this guy's blog. He seems to have a flickr presence, too.

I believe you have been too kind in your assessment. I would say these are some of the worst negative scans I've ever seen. Signature scans of poorly exposed and poorly developed negatives. His recent SPUR HRX 'review' is a feast of pervasive underexposure+overdevelopment. Sheesh.

It's just my opinion here, but I would be ashamed of posting such content and claiming I've 'reviewed' this stuff.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have quickly checked this guy's blog. He seems to have a flickr presence, too.

I believe you have been too kind in your assessment. I would say these are some of the worst negative scans I've ever seen. Signature scans of poorly exposed and poorly developed negatives. His recent SPUR HRX 'review' is a feast of pervasive underexposure+overdevelopment. Sheesh.

It's just my opinion here, but I would be ashamed of posting such content and claiming I've 'reviewed' this stuff.

I think most of us would agree 100% with you.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I believe you have been too kind in your assessment. I would say these are some of the worst negative scans I've ever seen. Signature scans of poorly exposed and poorly developed negatives. His recent SPUR HRX 'review' is a feast of pervasive underexposure+overdevelopment. Sheesh.

It's just my opinion here, but I would be ashamed of posting such content and claiming I've 'reviewed' this stuff.

I agree completely.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

It was a weird experience reading that blog. It recommended a product that it hadn't actually tested.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It was a weird experience reading that blog. It recommended a product that it hadn't actually tested.

It seems as though there is an alternate world in which clueless people write reviews and others run developer manufacturing businesses promoted via gibberish....

 

[faberryman]

It seems as though there is an alternate world in which clueless people write reviews and others run developer manufacturing businesses promoted via gibberish....

Unfortunately, it is not an alternate world.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Unfortunately, it is not an alternate world.

I know. Hopefully at least some new to this area discover places like Photrio and other generally higher quality resources first, and aren't taken in too much...

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Just spotted this text on Alex's review attributed to James Lane:

Special thanks to James Lane from Zone Imaging for helping me with 510-Pyro and some of the nitty-gritty included in this review. Another quick note despite showing several warning diamonds on the banner image, 510-Pyro, while not 100% safe, is incredibly non-toxic, based on studies by the EPA and ECHA.

Developer Review Blog No. 34 – Zone Imaging 510-Pyro

Pyro developers hold a special place in my development tool kit. Despite being one of the oldest developers, being viewed as highly-specialised and highly toxic. I've found them to be one of the best developers

www.alexluyckx.com

 

[faberryman]

Just spotted this text on Alex's review attributed to James Lane:

Special thanks to James Lane from Zone Imaging for helping me with 510-Pyro and some of the nitty-gritty included in this review. Another quick note despite showing several warning diamonds on the banner image, 510-Pyro, while not 100% safe, is incredibly non-toxic, based on studies by the EPA and ECHA.

Developer Review Blog No. 34 – Zone Imaging 510-Pyro

Pyro developers hold a special place in my development tool kit. Despite being one of the oldest developers, being viewed as highly-specialised and highly toxic. I've found them to be one of the best developers

www.alexluyckx.com

I am waiting on Zone Imaging's YouTube video of James Lane drinking a bottle of 510 Pyro.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I am waiting on Zone Imaging's YouTube video of James Lane drinking a bottle of 510 Pyro.

Exactly. The James Lane world of photographic nonsense has to come crashing down at some point...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Just spotted this text on Alex's review attributed to James Lane:

Yes, it's an 'incredible' review! We discussed the review some time ago here.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Yes, it's an 'incredible' review! We discussed the review some time ago here.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[pentaxuser]

Our 63rd In Focus interview is with our ILFORD Master printer, Andrew Sanderson.

GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO YOUR FAVOURITE LAB SERVICE, IF YOU HAVE ONE.​

Dan Wheeler who runs a lab and a social get together in Nottingham he goes under the name of @makeiteasylab on Instagram. Previously it was known as The Photo Parlour. He is a photographer, teacher and darkroom practitioner who has a passion for building communities and supporting all photographers of any age, ability or background. He is a person who manages to cram such a lot into a day, and Dan is a nice guy too. https://makeiteasylab.com/
@zoneimagingltd James Lane, who runs Zone imaging lab in London. He has been very active on social media, promoting new developers, encouraging new photographers, answering questions as well as running his lab. I don’t know how he fits it all in. Plus he is a really nice guy and we need more of them. https://zoneimaging-photochemicals.co.uk/

I couldn't find a way just to download the part above on James Lane It's quote from Andrew Sanderson on whom Ilford did a profile. Andrew Sanderson is an Ilford Master Printer


pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

James Lane, who runs Zone imaging lab in London. He has been very active on social media, promoting new developers, encouraging new photographers, answering questions as well as running his lab. I don’t know how he fits it all in. Plus he is a really nice guy and we need more of them. https://zoneimaging-photochemicals.co.uk/

I couldn't find a way just to download the part above on James Lane It's quote from Andrew Sanderson on whom Ilford did a profile. Andrew Sanderson is an Ilford Master Printer

Well, the analogue photography world has gone mad. Anyone reading my post new to this area, please start with standard products from the major manufacturers. e.g Adox Rodinal, Tetenal Ultrafin, Kodak D-76 / ILFORD ID-11, Adox XT-3 etc.

There is no logic in suggesting that new photographers should start with a pyrogallol staining developer.

 

[Henning Serger]

There is no logic in suggesting that new photographers should start with a pyrogallol staining developer.

Exactly!
As someone who has used and tested dozens of different developers over the decades I absolutely agree.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

It's quote from Andrew Sanderson on whom Ilford did a profile. Andrew Sanderson is an Ilford Master Printer

Andrew Sanderson reviewed 510 Pyro in Silvergrain Classics Spring 2022 edition. His words quoted by https://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/film...taining_developer_100ml__syringe/30644_p.html:

‘I realised, though, that the true test would be 35mm. I processed a roll of Ilford HP5 and a roll of Kentmere 400 . . . when the films were dry, I made 10x8 prints of a few of the frames. The Kentmere was OK, nothing special, but the HP5 was a real surprise; the grain of the image was finer than I would expect from FP4. I examined the print carefully under a strong lens and was pleasantly surprised to see really fine grain and detail. The acutance is good, but I would say that negatives developed in Rodinal have a slightly higher acutance (often with the tradeoff of exaggerated grain). It was still impressive though. Looking at the print from this negative, you would not guess it was from a 35mm HP5 negative’.

 

[Ian Grant]

Without going into details what's been said privately about 510 Pyro to myself and friends does not match what's written by a number of people in articles and reviews. The major issue is the stickiness of the thick syrup, the fact that it stains anything it has contact with if not cleaned away immediately, and the poor shadow details

What's concerning many is flouting postal/shipping regulations, it's worth noting Speed Graphics comments "We regret that due to shipping restrictions we are unable to supply this product to customers outside the UK mainland!".

Ian

 

[Richard Man]

I tried the Bostick and Sullivan version, it was OK, but the inaccuracy of getting just the right number of drops drove me nuts and I sold the remaining bottles. My go-to is the 2-bath pyro and it gives great results so will stick with it (other than playing with reversal kit)

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Exactly!
As someone who has used and tested dozens of different developers over the decades I absolutely agree.

I know we've discussed this before, but I guess we just have to keep plugging away at correcting / fact checking misinformation.

 

[ajsikel]

The seller from Poland, Piortek Kawasizoor, quoted this price for 510-Pyro in his Facebook post in the Large Format Photo Gear B/S/T group about a week ago:
18euro per 100ml+ shipping costs.

correct
it was me selling it in EU/Poland
I still do that if anyone is interested.'Price changed over the last two years a bit.
Im not a wholesalere , just a regular user and avid LF/MF photographer,printer
Regards, Peter

 

[RalphLambrecht]

https://zoneimaging-photochemicals.co.uk/about-us

"our vision .. to bring actual new developers to the commercial market that would be more environmentally friendly than the traditional ones already available with the added bonus of giving advancements in technical results and breakthroughs in the science."

"All of our film developers will always be ones formulated in the 21st century, either by us or by our partner photo-chemists. They will never be copies or rebrands."

"We guarantee that none of our products will ever contain hydroquinone and DPTA/EDTA. In all our products, we will strive to minimise the environmental footprint."

the world really doesn't need a new photochemical company. All proven formulae are readily available and can be self-brewed from raw chemicals. Instead, we need photographic film and paper companies to stay in business and keep the supply affordable.