Glad you found it useful. I was trying to answer a few questions that I had in my head. I know I will go to 510 Pyro more readily if I have some idea of how it works!
WOW! This is a very informative video. I liked the comment about watered-down HC-110 which is another subject all its own. But to me the profound part of this comparison are the comments about the "staining" effect in "grain." This finally answered a question I have had for years. Why some (not all) formulas of the so-called "Caffenol" seem to produce better images (from my perspective) than some popular brands of developers. Thanks much!
I liked the video. I am an HC 110 guy and when I want to change it up I use Rodinal. However I like what the Pyro did to midtone grain. I might have to see if I can find some. Thanks for taking the time to make the video. I appreciate the effort.
I was impressed with it overall. The smaller your negatives the bigger the difference it's going to make, for sure. So on a 35mm neg I think the grain enhancement would be pretty striking. Even 120 on some higher ISO films would probably make a big difference. Not quite so much on 4x5, of course, I had to take some pretty close macro shots before I could see a really striking difference. But I'll definitely be using 510 Pyro again in the future.
Nice video. I think one of the factors that makes 510 Pyro so appealing for people who don't develop that many rolls is its long shelf life, so you don't have to worry about unused developer going off.
That is definitely a thing, for sure. I was using HC110 mostly before getting the 510, and that has similar shelf life. C41 on the other hand... jeez. How many litres of chemicals have i wasted because I don't shoot enough colour film. Painful.
I love it how you use the s2a for a quick test and the 4x5 for the real science 🙂. And I really liked the "it's Friday night..." comment. I must try to get the 510 pyro here now. Thx for sharing. Nice model you had for the quick test with the bronica
Ha ha! I considered doing the whole test on the S2A, but I don't currently have two functional film backs, one need repairing. So I would have struggled to get identical shots and separate them for different processing. I figured 4x5 was easiest because I could do single shot, swap film holder, and get a second identical shot, seconds apart. And easily separate them for developing. Plus... as you saw, my damn S2A is playing up again. Focus seems a little off again. So when I next get a moment I need to do some testing and some more fixing! James was saying that Silverprint ship internationally... if you can't find it closer to home - www.silverprint.co.uk
I’ve never understood the chemistry side of photography much the same as I don’t get the digital side for me it is and always will be pure magic. Back in the day I used ID11 for no particular reason, these days I’m using D76 as it’s generally on special at my suppliers. I traditionally always used stock solution for the speed of things these days I’m doing a 1-3 dilution the only reason being I have a bit more time to kill. That new stuff you used looks interesting might have a nosey at costs and delivery times cheers mate top vid again
Definitely worth trying the 510 Pyro… I wasn’t all that excited about it, and then one day thought I might as well try it, and it does make a big difference. I’ve tried a few in the past. Almost all my BW negs have been done in HC110, apart from a handful of 4x5 FP4 sheets I did in perceptol to see if it gave me breathtaking clear images… it didn’t! I think for all of these developers you’re only really going to notice reduced grain or sharpness on 35mm, or maybe 120 at a push. Worth giving the 510 Pyro a go through, if you can get your hands on some!
I'm in sort of the same boat, so this was really interesting! I moved to xtol from hc because it is better, in my experience, for rotary processing in my Jobo. I've really only been using xtol and c41 for xp2 (sometimes Ektar) for a long time now. I really want to try PMK, but it doesn't work in rotary processing. It turns out Bergger has a formulation that does, so I'm about to do this same exercise. I am even more excited to see the results after watching this. Thanks!
Glad you found it interesting! Never tried PMK but I've heard good things about it. Can you use 510 Pyro in rotary? I don't have a rotary machine so I don't know. There are dev times available for semi-stand and standard Iflord agitation, so you'd assume that provided you have the right times you could make rotary work. Also, worth mentioning that XP2 develops really well in BW chems! You don't have to use C41 for it, results are great in HC110 for example. So many developers, so little time... I'll see if I can find out about 510 Pyro in rotary.
@@the120ist My understanding for years has been that staining developers, in general, are a no-go with a rotary processor because of "streaky" results. I just happened to notice the "Roto Additive PMK" while on Bergger's site for other stuff. I expect PMK results to be similar to 510 Pyro. I like to have options for developers. At the moment with xtol and HC on-hand, I can't think of a scenario where I would use HC. Your video show's exactly why I'm interested in a staining developer - significantly different results. I spent a bunch of time working with XP2 and black and white chems. I used HC-110 to start, dd-x and xtol later. It's fantastic - my favorite emulsion. I tend to favor c-41 processing these days so that I can leverage automatic dust removal. If you have not tried xtol, I really recommend giving that a go next in your adventures (or dd-x if cheaper). I know, there are a million other developers out there, and everyone has their favorite. *However* xtol is a far newer developer (1996), and it is better for the environment. By what I've read, it was designed to be a "better" hc-110. In every category - grain, sharpness, scannability, highlight retention - I think Kodak succeeded. Looking forward to seeing what you're up to in Alaska!
@@jw48335 Interesting, my experimentation with BW chems has actually been quite limited. I have basically used HC110, Perceptol, Fomadon and 510 Pyro and that's it. I'm a little of the opinion that I want to try to limit the variables a bit, and while I keep switching cameras, I try to keep the film stock and chemicals as constant as possible. Hence a lack of experimentation there, and a tendency to pick up FP4 every time I leave the house! But perhaps it's time to slow down the camera turnover and focus a little. That appeals to me right now! Automatic dust removal with C41?? That doesn't ring any bells... Tell me more!
@@the120ist I use XP2 on a regular basis - which is a C41 B&W film. As such, I can use iSRD with Silverfast to do automatic dust removal with either my Epson v850 or my Prime Film XAs:) I get 2700dpi out of the Epson and 4200dpi out of the XAs, that's true optical data transfer. That's ~55mpx with 6x8 or ~24mpx with 35mm. I can camera scan with my EOS R, and I did for a year, but the overall process was more work. Also, I just found a better Xtol - "ECO Black, White, and Green" developer by Flic Film. Apparently they took the superior chemicals from Xtol and reformulated it in a liquid like HC110. All the benefits of Xtol, with the long shelf life and ease of use of HC110! My first bottle arrives this week:)
@@jw48335 Interesting, I'm still DSLR scanning, haven't found the need for a flat bed scanner yet. Isn't it really slow? I've got a good set up for the DSLR, I have a 90 inch monitor stand permanently fixed to one edge of my desk, with a super clamp and a macro tripod head attached, so when I need to scan I clip in the A73, put the light table on the desk, and I can get a roll of 120 scanned in about 3 mins. And if I want higher res scans I can get right in with the macro lens and scan quarters, and stitch in LR. Don't do that often! Never heard of ECO, I'll have to go take a look! Thanks for the tip.
Hc110 is a fantastic developer but unfortunately a lot of film shooters these days don’t test and go deep to find their proper exposures and development for their equipment, which varies extremely Now the key to achieving consistently good negatives is the correct placement of your shadows when exposing the film and ascertaining the correct development time for achieving good separation without losing the highlights. A simple and relatively quick way to way to pin all this down for the future is to do the following (WARNING: reading these instructions is more time consuming and a lot more laborious than actually doing it!!): 1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones 2. Using the box speed, meter the darkest area in which you wish to retain shadow detail 3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this shadow area 4. From the meter's reading close down the aperture by 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by two stops and then expose 6 frames at: the given exposure then +1 stop, +2 stops, -1 stop, -2 stops and -3 stops less than the meter has indicated 5. Process the film 6. Using the frame that was exposed at -3 stops less than the meter indicated (which should be practically clear but will have received lens flair and fogging - i.e a real world maximum black rather than an exposed piece of film that has processing fog)and do a test strip to find out what is the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black - Print must be fully dry before assessing this 7. Do another test strip with the first exposure being what you have selected for achieving maximum black minus your dry-down compensation then plus 1 second, 2 seconds, etc 8. The time that achieves full black inclusive of compensation for dry-down is you minimum exposure to achieve maximum black for all future printing sessions - print must be fully dry before assessing 9 You now know the minimum time to achieve full black inclusive of exposure reduction to accommodate dry-down 10. Using this minimum exposure to achieve maximum black exposure time, expose all of the other test frames. 11. The test print that has good shadow detail indicates which exposure will render good shadow detail and achieve maximum black and provides you with your personal EI for the tested film/developer combination 12 If the negative exposed at the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 400) 13. If the negative exposed at +1 stop more than the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/2 the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 200) 14. If the negative exposed at +2 stops more than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/4 box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 100) 15. If the negative exposed at -1 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) double the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 800) 16. If the negative exposed at -2 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 4x the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 1600) You have now fixed your personal EI but there is one more testing stage to go. 1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones 2. Using your EI, meter the brightest area in which you wish to retain highlight detail (but not the sky) 3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this highlight area 4. From the meter's reading open up the aperture by 3 stops or decrease the shutter speed by three stops 5. Expose the whole roll at this setting 6. In the darkroom, process one third of the film for recommended development time 7. When dry put negative in the enlarger and make a three section test strip exposing for half the minimum black time established earlier, for the established minimum black time and for double the minimum black time. 8. Process print and dry it. 9. If the section of the test strip exposed for 1/2 the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% more development 10. If the section of the test strip exposed for the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film is correctly developed 11. If the section of the test strip exposed for double the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% less development 12. You can use the rest of the exposed highlight test film to fine tune the development time. YES - it is VERY boring but . . .for the investment of minimal materials and a few of hours you will have pinned down so many variables that it is really worth doing. Now back in the real world, all you ever need to do in future is meter the shadows that you wish to retain good detail with meter set at your EI and then stop down the aperture 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by 2 stops. In the darkroom start your first test print with the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black (inclusive of dry-down compensation) and go from there.
Thank you so much for the detailed description! The difference between getting ok negatives, and consistently getting excellent negatives, is definitely worth the extra effort. I confess to being guilty of not putting the time in, yet, to pursuing consistency in both exposure and development. I feel like I'm edging towards that, as I narrow down the sort of photography that I wish to do, the film stocks that I work best with, and the cameras that I wish to use regularly. Once I have completed that superficial journey, then I will begin to really hone the next levels, including the exposure and development processes you have described. I also agree with you that HC-110 is a very capable developer, and one which I have used for years and been very happy with the results. I continue to use it regularly, and remain very happy with what I get from it. And when the time comes, it will almost certainly be one of the developers that I settle on to finesse my workflow. Thank you for taking the time to run through those steps. I really appreciate it. And I'm sure that will be a valuable resource for me in the future, as well as for others who visit this page. Thank you!
I think it would be a good comparison if you have both developers justice. Testing for the actual ISO of the film you use in the comparison. And from there, test each developer to find out what is the normal development time for each devs. Of course to each his/her own but something I’ve learned to understand is that manufacturers tend to push their ISO rating and with that, the recommended dev time is therefore not ideal. Keep in keeping.
Thank you for your comment. I agree that this was not an ideal test, for sure! The simple suggestion from James that I may have over or under developed one or the other does detract immediately from the comparison, although I tried to keep my review of the results focused on elements that this test did reveal, such as the grain. But there's no doubt a proper like for like comparison would involve a lot more technical work than I put in! Maybe I'll revisit this one day, if appropriate for where I am in my film photography journey, and examine both in more depth and with more care!
Just a word of caution about using any ' Pyro ' developer. Pyrogallol as used in 510 Pyro, and Pyrocatechin as used in Pyrocat, Pyrocat HD, Ornano Nucleol BF200 etc are highly poisionous and in particular Pyrogallol is carcenoginic and easily absorbed through the skin. Exercise exterme caution when handling and using Pyro developers. Wear gloves and mask and if pyro gets on your skin, wash if off right away. Although the formula for 510 Pyro has been in the public domain since its inception, it is well advised to buy the ready made product. Let people who know how to handle dangerous chemicals make the developer. Enjoy 510 Pyro. It is magic when used correctly.
Hey lensman57, actually it's pyrocatechin that is the carcinogenic and toxic one according to both ECHA and EPA. Pyrogallol is classified as harmful aka not toxic enough to be classified as toxic and is a suspected mutagen
I've formulated by own B&W developers for more than 35 years. For the security reasons you summarize, I have always avoided pyro formulas. Not sure there is serious point to comparing 510 Pyro with HC-110. Technically, that''s like comparing my Acrua with a Yugo.
@@randallstewart175 hydroquinone is also carcinogenic and is classified as harmful too. Phenidone falls in the same acute toxicity category as pyrogallol. HC110 contains hydroquinone, phenidone and pyrocatechin and lots of other carcinogenic ingredients like DEA. There is too much hysterical stigma about chemicals, pyrogallol particularly... Christ, coffee contains high levels of pyrocatechol and pyrogallol (these two in coffee is what causes the heartburn if you drink too much coffee) as well as present in many common fruits and vegetables.
I think it would be a good comparison if you gave both developers justice. Testing for the actual ISO of the film you use in the comparison. And from there, test each developer to find out what is the normal development time for each devs. Of course to each his/her own but something I’ve learned to understand is that manufacturers tend to push their ISO rating and with that, the recommended dev time is therefore not ideal. Keep in keeping.
I'm sure there would be better, more accurate tests. But I may not be the guy to do it. For all my efforts, I don't think my processes are accurate enough to really put developers to a proper test. This was intended to be a sort of qualitative, very insubstantial test to see the obvious differences that i could when putting the developers side by side. I think I learned a bit from it, but I have no doubt that I didn't get the very best out of either developer!
It's definitely a noticeable shift! I'll need to use it a bit more to really get a good sense of how to get the most out of it. I'm actually looking forward to developing some more 120 rolls in it. The sharpness and grain improvements are a little lost on 4x5!
@@AustenGoldsmithPhotography hadn’t seen your last videos, but have now caught up! Great stuff, the 510 Pyro is really working for you. I’m away at the moment, so having to get films developed by someone else, but when I get back I think I’ll head out with the S2A or GW690 and spend a bit more time working with the 510. You’ve inspired me! Thanks 👍
It definitely adds something, for sure. I use negative lab pro to convert my negs, and that does some automatic balancing out that kind of negates the differences. It's more clear on the negatives.
Yeah you might be right. I'm not sure that my film processing is accurate enough to do a great side by side comparison. This video was more about trying to understand how 510 Pyro works, and what the difference is, so I can make informed decisions on when to use it and when not to! Really interesting digging into the science a little!
You mean the dilution is too thin? That wouldn’t make a negative thing, you can agitate more/ increase temperature,if you need more density and contrast without changing dilutions.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for taking the time to put this together. I definitely learned alot wrt 510 Pyro….
Glad you found it useful. I was trying to answer a few questions that I had in my head. I know I will go to 510 Pyro more readily if I have some idea of how it works!
Thanks for your test. Thoroughly enjoyed the vlog and chat with James. Cheers!
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Great video. Thank you
Thanks!
WOW! This is a very informative video. I liked the comment about watered-down HC-110 which is another subject all its own. But to me the profound part of this comparison are the comments about the "staining" effect in "grain." This finally answered a question I have had for years. Why some (not all) formulas of the so-called "Caffenol" seem to produce better images (from my perspective) than some popular brands of developers. Thanks much!
I liked the video. I am an HC 110 guy and when I want to change it up I use Rodinal. However I like what the Pyro did to midtone grain. I might have to see if I can find some.
Thanks for taking the time to make the video. I appreciate the effort.
I was impressed with it overall. The smaller your negatives the bigger the difference it's going to make, for sure. So on a 35mm neg I think the grain enhancement would be pretty striking. Even 120 on some higher ISO films would probably make a big difference. Not quite so much on 4x5, of course, I had to take some pretty close macro shots before I could see a really striking difference. But I'll definitely be using 510 Pyro again in the future.
Nice video. I think one of the factors that makes 510 Pyro so appealing for people who don't develop that many rolls is its long shelf life, so you don't have to worry about unused developer going off.
That is definitely a thing, for sure. I was using HC110 mostly before getting the 510, and that has similar shelf life. C41 on the other hand... jeez. How many litres of chemicals have i wasted because I don't shoot enough colour film. Painful.
@@the120ist That's the main reason why I don't develop colour film at home. Simply not economical.
@@ehsanesbatiI'm reaching that conclusion myself. I've got one more 5 litre kit in stock, then I don't think I'll buy any more C41 chems after that.
I love it how you use the s2a for a quick test and the 4x5 for the real science 🙂. And I really liked the "it's Friday night..." comment. I must try to get the 510 pyro here now. Thx for sharing. Nice model you had for the quick test with the bronica
Ha ha! I considered doing the whole test on the S2A, but I don't currently have two functional film backs, one need repairing. So I would have struggled to get identical shots and separate them for different processing. I figured 4x5 was easiest because I could do single shot, swap film holder, and get a second identical shot, seconds apart. And easily separate them for developing.
Plus... as you saw, my damn S2A is playing up again. Focus seems a little off again. So when I next get a moment I need to do some testing and some more fixing!
James was saying that Silverprint ship internationally... if you can't find it closer to home - www.silverprint.co.uk
I’ve never understood the chemistry side of photography much the same as I don’t get the digital side for me it is and always will be pure magic. Back in the day I used ID11 for no particular reason, these days I’m using D76 as it’s generally on special at my suppliers. I traditionally always used stock solution for the speed of things these days I’m doing a 1-3 dilution the only reason being I have a bit more time to kill. That new stuff you used looks interesting might have a nosey at costs and delivery times cheers mate top vid again
Definitely worth trying the 510 Pyro… I wasn’t all that excited about it, and then one day thought I might as well try it, and it does make a big difference. I’ve tried a few in the past. Almost all my BW negs have been done in HC110, apart from a handful of 4x5 FP4 sheets I did in perceptol to see if it gave me breathtaking clear images… it didn’t! I think for all of these developers you’re only really going to notice reduced grain or sharpness on 35mm, or maybe 120 at a push. Worth giving the 510 Pyro a go through, if you can get your hands on some!
@@the120ist cheers mate
I'm in sort of the same boat, so this was really interesting! I moved to xtol from hc because it is better, in my experience, for rotary processing in my Jobo. I've really only been using xtol and c41 for xp2 (sometimes Ektar) for a long time now. I really want to try PMK, but it doesn't work in rotary processing. It turns out Bergger has a formulation that does, so I'm about to do this same exercise. I am even more excited to see the results after watching this. Thanks!
Glad you found it interesting! Never tried PMK but I've heard good things about it. Can you use 510 Pyro in rotary? I don't have a rotary machine so I don't know. There are dev times available for semi-stand and standard Iflord agitation, so you'd assume that provided you have the right times you could make rotary work.
Also, worth mentioning that XP2 develops really well in BW chems! You don't have to use C41 for it, results are great in HC110 for example.
So many developers, so little time... I'll see if I can find out about 510 Pyro in rotary.
@@the120ist My understanding for years has been that staining developers, in general, are a no-go with a rotary processor because of "streaky" results. I just happened to notice the "Roto Additive PMK" while on Bergger's site for other stuff. I expect PMK results to be similar to 510 Pyro.
I like to have options for developers. At the moment with xtol and HC on-hand, I can't think of a scenario where I would use HC. Your video show's exactly why I'm interested in a staining developer - significantly different results.
I spent a bunch of time working with XP2 and black and white chems. I used HC-110 to start, dd-x and xtol later. It's fantastic - my favorite emulsion. I tend to favor c-41 processing these days so that I can leverage automatic dust removal.
If you have not tried xtol, I really recommend giving that a go next in your adventures (or dd-x if cheaper). I know, there are a million other developers out there, and everyone has their favorite. *However* xtol is a far newer developer (1996), and it is better for the environment. By what I've read, it was designed to be a "better" hc-110. In every category - grain, sharpness, scannability, highlight retention - I think Kodak succeeded.
Looking forward to seeing what you're up to in Alaska!
@@jw48335 Interesting, my experimentation with BW chems has actually been quite limited. I have basically used HC110, Perceptol, Fomadon and 510 Pyro and that's it. I'm a little of the opinion that I want to try to limit the variables a bit, and while I keep switching cameras, I try to keep the film stock and chemicals as constant as possible. Hence a lack of experimentation there, and a tendency to pick up FP4 every time I leave the house! But perhaps it's time to slow down the camera turnover and focus a little. That appeals to me right now!
Automatic dust removal with C41?? That doesn't ring any bells... Tell me more!
@@the120ist I use XP2 on a regular basis - which is a C41 B&W film. As such, I can use iSRD with Silverfast to do automatic dust removal with either my Epson v850 or my Prime Film XAs:) I get 2700dpi out of the Epson and 4200dpi out of the XAs, that's true optical data transfer. That's ~55mpx with 6x8 or ~24mpx with 35mm. I can camera scan with my EOS R, and I did for a year, but the overall process was more work.
Also, I just found a better Xtol - "ECO Black, White, and Green" developer by Flic Film. Apparently they took the superior chemicals from Xtol and reformulated it in a liquid like HC110. All the benefits of Xtol, with the long shelf life and ease of use of HC110! My first bottle arrives this week:)
@@jw48335 Interesting, I'm still DSLR scanning, haven't found the need for a flat bed scanner yet. Isn't it really slow? I've got a good set up for the DSLR, I have a 90 inch monitor stand permanently fixed to one edge of my desk, with a super clamp and a macro tripod head attached, so when I need to scan I clip in the A73, put the light table on the desk, and I can get a roll of 120 scanned in about 3 mins. And if I want higher res scans I can get right in with the macro lens and scan quarters, and stitch in LR. Don't do that often!
Never heard of ECO, I'll have to go take a look! Thanks for the tip.
Hc110 is a fantastic developer but unfortunately a lot of film shooters these days don’t test and go deep to find their proper exposures and development for their equipment, which varies extremely
Now the key to achieving consistently good negatives is the correct placement of your shadows when exposing the film and ascertaining the correct development time for achieving good separation without losing the highlights. A simple and relatively quick way to way to pin all this down for the future is to do the following (WARNING: reading these instructions is more time consuming and a lot more laborious than actually doing it!!):
1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones
2. Using the box speed, meter the darkest area in which you wish to retain shadow detail
3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this shadow area
4. From the meter's reading close down the aperture by 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by two stops and then expose 6 frames at: the given exposure then +1 stop, +2 stops, -1 stop, -2 stops and -3 stops less than the meter has indicated
5. Process the film
6. Using the frame that was exposed at -3 stops less than the meter indicated (which should be practically clear but will have received lens flair and fogging - i.e a real world maximum black rather than an exposed piece of film that has processing fog)and do a test strip to find out what is the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black - Print must be fully dry before assessing this
7. Do another test strip with the first exposure being what you have selected for achieving maximum black minus your dry-down compensation then plus 1 second, 2 seconds, etc
8. The time that achieves full black inclusive of compensation for dry-down is you minimum exposure to achieve maximum black for all future printing sessions - print must be fully dry before assessing
9 You now know the minimum time to achieve full black inclusive of exposure reduction to accommodate dry-down
10. Using this minimum exposure to achieve maximum black exposure time, expose all of the other test frames.
11. The test print that has good shadow detail indicates which exposure will render good shadow detail and achieve maximum black and provides you with your personal EI for the tested film/developer combination
12 If the negative exposed at the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 400)
13. If the negative exposed at +1 stop more than the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/2 the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 200)
14. If the negative exposed at +2 stops more than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/4 box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 100)
15. If the negative exposed at -1 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) double the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 800)
16. If the negative exposed at -2 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 4x the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 1600)
You have now fixed your personal EI but there is one more testing stage to go.
1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones
2. Using your EI, meter the brightest area in which you wish to retain highlight detail (but not the sky)
3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this highlight area
4. From the meter's reading open up the aperture by 3 stops or decrease the shutter speed by three stops
5. Expose the whole roll at this setting
6. In the darkroom, process one third of the film for recommended development time
7. When dry put negative in the enlarger and make a three section test strip exposing for half the minimum black time established earlier, for the established minimum black time and for double the minimum black time.
8. Process print and dry it.
9. If the section of the test strip exposed for 1/2 the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% more development
10. If the section of the test strip exposed for the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film is correctly developed
11. If the section of the test strip exposed for double the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% less development
12. You can use the rest of the exposed highlight test film to fine tune the development time.
YES - it is VERY boring but . . .for the investment of minimal materials and a few of hours you will have pinned down so many variables that it is really worth doing.
Now back in the real world, all you ever need to do in future is meter the shadows that you wish to retain good detail with meter set at your EI and then stop down the aperture 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by 2 stops. In the darkroom start your first test print with the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black (inclusive of dry-down compensation) and go from there.
Thank you so much for the detailed description! The difference between getting ok negatives, and consistently getting excellent negatives, is definitely worth the extra effort. I confess to being guilty of not putting the time in, yet, to pursuing consistency in both exposure and development. I feel like I'm edging towards that, as I narrow down the sort of photography that I wish to do, the film stocks that I work best with, and the cameras that I wish to use regularly. Once I have completed that superficial journey, then I will begin to really hone the next levels, including the exposure and development processes you have described.
I also agree with you that HC-110 is a very capable developer, and one which I have used for years and been very happy with the results. I continue to use it regularly, and remain very happy with what I get from it. And when the time comes, it will almost certainly be one of the developers that I settle on to finesse my workflow.
Thank you for taking the time to run through those steps. I really appreciate it. And I'm sure that will be a valuable resource for me in the future, as well as for others who visit this page. Thank you!
@@the120ist you’re welcome
Also what I posted takes only a few hours to test, it seems like a lot but it’s much easier in practice
I think it would be a good comparison if you have both developers justice.
Testing for the actual ISO of the film you use in the comparison. And from there, test each developer to find out what is the normal development time for each devs.
Of course to each his/her own but something I’ve learned to understand is that manufacturers tend to push their ISO rating and with that, the recommended dev time is therefore not ideal.
Keep in keeping.
Thank you for your comment. I agree that this was not an ideal test, for sure! The simple suggestion from James that I may have over or under developed one or the other does detract immediately from the comparison, although I tried to keep my review of the results focused on elements that this test did reveal, such as the grain.
But there's no doubt a proper like for like comparison would involve a lot more technical work than I put in! Maybe I'll revisit this one day, if appropriate for where I am in my film photography journey, and examine both in more depth and with more care!
Just a word of caution about using any ' Pyro ' developer. Pyrogallol as used in 510 Pyro, and Pyrocatechin as used in Pyrocat, Pyrocat HD, Ornano Nucleol BF200 etc are highly poisionous and in particular Pyrogallol is carcenoginic and easily absorbed through the skin. Exercise exterme caution when handling and using Pyro developers. Wear gloves and mask and if pyro gets on your skin, wash if off right away. Although the formula for 510 Pyro has been in the public domain since its inception, it is well advised to buy the ready made product. Let people who know how to handle dangerous chemicals make the developer. Enjoy 510 Pyro. It is magic when used correctly.
Hey lensman57, actually it's pyrocatechin that is the carcinogenic and toxic one according to both ECHA and EPA. Pyrogallol is classified as harmful aka not toxic enough to be classified as toxic and is a suspected mutagen
I've formulated by own B&W developers for more than 35 years. For the security reasons you summarize, I have always avoided pyro formulas. Not sure there is serious point to comparing 510 Pyro with HC-110. Technically, that''s like comparing my Acrua with a Yugo.
@@randallstewart175 hydroquinone is also carcinogenic and is classified as harmful too. Phenidone falls in the same acute toxicity category as pyrogallol. HC110 contains hydroquinone, phenidone and pyrocatechin and lots of other carcinogenic ingredients like DEA. There is too much hysterical stigma about chemicals, pyrogallol particularly... Christ, coffee contains high levels of pyrocatechol and pyrogallol (these two in coffee is what causes the heartburn if you drink too much coffee) as well as present in many common fruits and vegetables.
I think it would be a good comparison if you gave both developers justice.
Testing for the actual ISO of the film you use in the comparison. And from there, test each developer to find out what is the normal development time for each devs.
Of course to each his/her own but something I’ve learned to understand is that manufacturers tend to push their ISO rating and with that, the recommended dev time is therefore not ideal.
Keep in keeping.
I'm sure there would be better, more accurate tests. But I may not be the guy to do it. For all my efforts, I don't think my processes are accurate enough to really put developers to a proper test. This was intended to be a sort of qualitative, very insubstantial test to see the obvious differences that i could when putting the developers side by side. I think I learned a bit from it, but I have no doubt that I didn't get the very best out of either developer!
The quality of my images has ramped up big time with 510 . Fp4, delta 100, hp5 to 800
It's definitely a noticeable shift! I'll need to use it a bit more to really get a good sense of how to get the most out of it. I'm actually looking forward to developing some more 120 rolls in it. The sharpness and grain improvements are a little lost on 4x5!
@@the120ist check out the pix on my last video, the hp5 looks like delta 100 , medium format
@@AustenGoldsmithPhotography hadn’t seen your last videos, but have now caught up! Great stuff, the 510 Pyro is really working for you. I’m away at the moment, so having to get films developed by someone else, but when I get back I think I’ll head out with the S2A or GW690 and spend a bit more time working with the 510. You’ve inspired me! Thanks 👍
@@the120ist tonal range is still vastly increased compared to other developers with 510 Pyro ;) not always about fine grain and sharpness
I prefer the pyro, punchy and sharper
It definitely adds something, for sure. I use negative lab pro to convert my negs, and that does some automatic balancing out that kind of negates the differences. It's more clear on the negatives.
WoW ! Your HC110 looks too 'Thin' to me ! ( Especially for a 4x5 neg -- you need more 'Meat' on a 4x5)
Yeah you might be right. I'm not sure that my film processing is accurate enough to do a great side by side comparison. This video was more about trying to understand how 510 Pyro works, and what the difference is, so I can make informed decisions on when to use it and when not to! Really interesting digging into the science a little!
You mean the dilution is too thin? That wouldn’t make a negative thing, you can agitate more/ increase temperature,if you need more density and contrast without changing dilutions.
Dad to Daughter: Do you want to be a photographer when you grow up?
Daughter: NO! 😂
I think she will change her mind! 🎉
Ha ha! I'm not sure she'll change her mind! All I get from my girls is grief for taking photos of them all the time!
Good vlog. I prefer 'normal' developers - I just like the look they provide.