Curious about 777

billg · Nov 30, 2011

i've been working with both the Photoformulary and Bluegrass versions of "Harvey's 777" and noticed a difference in developer action. Brought both solutions to work (it helps when you work in an analytical lab) and checked the pH. found significant differrences in the pH: Formulary = 7.51 and Bluegrass = 9.03. Looks like they are different formulations. Does anyone have any thoughts about additional analyses?

Trask · Nov 30, 2011

AFAIK, Bluegrass is considered the more "accurate" formulator of 777, as they allegedly have the actual formula (which has never been made public). Photoformulary is, I speculate, making a best-guess effort to imitate the true 777. See the 777 info at Unblinking Eye.

removed account4 · Nov 30, 2011

hi billg

trask is 100% on ...
the bluegrass formula is proprietary
and the formulary formula is a guess
( and according to the folks at bluegrass who make it " way off ! " )

john

M. Lointain · Nov 30, 2011

Billg, if you work at an analytical lab can you analyze it and see what is in it? There has been speculation on this for many years.

c6h6o3 · Dec 1, 2011

I'd be particularly interested to know if it contains any glycin. Bluegrass swears that it doesn't. I think it does.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 1, 2011

billg said:
i've been working with both the Photoformulary and Bluegrass versions of "Harvey's 777" and noticed a difference in developer action. Brought both solutions to work (it helps when you work in an analytical lab) and checked the pH. found significant differrences in the pH: Formulary = 7.51 and Bluegrass = 9.03. Looks like they are different formulations. Does anyone have any thoughts about additional analyses?

Also weigh the two kits. There's a lot less magic powder in one of them.

eclarke · Dec 1, 2011

Interestingly, I was on a quest to find the formula for 777 and found the formula for Germain's Finegrain in a tiny but terrific little book by..Germain. It's been my goto film developer for several years. I use sheet film and always make 2 identical exposures so I can compare developers or just experiment. Day in and day out I like my Germain negs best....

Germain's Finegrain
makes 1L

750 cc. Water
7 g. Metol
70 g. Sodium Sulfite
7 g. Paraphenylenediamine
7 g. Glycin
Water to make 1L

Use full strength

Evan Clarke

P.S. There have been numerous posts which suggest Germain was a hack and I should use the simlar Edwal formulas. Dr. Lowe made great formulae, including Edwal 12, which has been suggested as a superior developer to Germain's..I still prefer the Germain..EC

JLP · Dec 1, 2011

Evan, What's your prefered film in 777? I have used it on and off (The Bluegrass version) but never really found it to be the magic bullet for anything. I have several bags so it would be great to find a way to make it shine.
Thanks.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 1, 2011

M. Lointain said:
Billg, if you work at an analytical lab can you analyze it and see what is in it? There has been speculation on this for many years.

Pierre Glafkides, Photographic Chemistry, Volume One contains a chapter "Developer Analysis" which details how to test for various developing agents including Glycin.

M. Lointain · Dec 1, 2011

Edwal 12 is one of my favorite developers that I don't use only because I am too lazy to do the replenishment (at least I admit it!) I liked 777 when I used it for a few packages several years ago, but again with the replenishment.... I am curious to know what is in it, not to specifically replicate the formula, but just for the heck of it and perhaps experiment with variations of it; for example, using it as a one shot developer. I have been thinking of doing the same with Edwal 12, especially for rotary development of large format negs.

By the way, just because Bluegrass says there is no glycin doesn't mean there isn't a glycin type chemical or compound in it. Glycin has gone by many names, especially back when 777 was developed.

Evan, I have been doing this long enough to doubt there is any practical difference between Edwal 12 and 777 you are using so I wouldn't agree that one is vastly superior to the other as others have apparently claimed. I wouldn't know why someone would suggest so. Lots of hokum on the internet. Mostly people just like to argue. For all intents and purposes the formulas are practically the same. Here is Edwal 12 from the Film Developers Cookbook-

Water, distilled 900ml
Metol 6 grams
Sulfite 90 grams
PPD 10 grams
Glycin 5 grams
Water, to make 1 liter

Newt_on_Swings · Dec 1, 2011

I have been very curious about this developer for a bit now, ever since I read about it awhile ago. I was only hesitant to make it because in the accounts that I have read, its optimized for use in larger quantities, like in deep tanks or dip/dunk tanks. And the requirement to run a number of films through it before it reaches optimal consistency if making a new batch and/or add a bit of previously used 777 solution.

For the apugers who have used it, is it that special?

I bookmarked the original site where I found out about this 777 developer:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html

c6h6o3 · Dec 2, 2011

Newt_on_Swings said:
For the apugers who have used it, is it that special?

I bookmarked the original site where I found out about this 777 developer:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html

I've used it exclusively for about 7 years along with 400TMax but I've abandoned it for aesthetic reasons. It's very smooth and yields great midtones, but I prefer the higher accutance of a pyrogallol-based developer without metol. I keep hearkening back to Brett Weston's statement that the developer really doesn't make all that much difference.

I may use Harvey's again in the future for portraits, as it seems to render skin tones in a unique way, but every developer is special if you know how to exploit its individual qualities to get the print you want.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 2, 2011

Michael R 1974 said:
On the other hand when it comes to gradation, my understanding is that 777 functions closer to the way something like Edwal 12 works (ie non-compensating), which makes it a little different than most general purpose fine grain developers like XTOL, D76 etc. Developers such as Edwal 12 tend to generate higher contrast than most current general purpose developers, while being fine grained.

I used Edwal 12 for a year or so, and will likely use it again in the future. The high contrast is interesting, and analogous to what I have experienced with it. In flat lighting Edwal 12 is phenomenal, and from what I understand, it was actually designed with flat Midwestern light in mind. The negative obtains a quality of a long toe and a pronounced shoulder, which gives strong blacks and intense highlights.
So I wonder if the perceived increased acutance could have to do with the contrast boost.

Either way, the negatives print like a dream. Probably no better than my Xtol negatives, but when used right, the developer is appropriate. My experience shows them as even finer grained than Xtol. The downside is the use of PPD, which is a nasty chemical, but the results are very interesting, and wonderful for places like Minnesota.
Attached print is 120 Tri-X in Edwal 12, printed on Foma 112 / Ethol LPD. (Hasselblad, 80mm lens, hand held at f/2.8 and 1/60th s).

c6h6o3 · Dec 2, 2011

I only contact print, so I couldn't care less about grain. I used it for it's tonal qualities. But according to Fred DeVan, who wrote the Unblinkingeye article, 777 is different from Edwal 12. I corresponded with him via email a few years ago and he says that the Bluegrass 777 formulation, whatever may be in it, is the same stuff he and Gene Smith used when Fred was a working commercial fashion pro. As to Edwal 12, here's what he had to say (from Unblinkingeye):

"Edwal 12 was close but no cigar, though it did have it's uses. Generally it was disappointing, but if you had to photograph Times square at night from a helicopter and the top of a building using fill flash and street and traffic lights, Edwal 12 and a film with a good anti halation backing (and a bevy of assistants) was the ONLY way to do it. 777 was perfect for anything else." --Fred DeVan

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 2, 2011

I have never tried 777, Jim.

But Edwal 12 was perfect for me.

mikebarger · Dec 2, 2011

I think what it boils down to is pick a developer, learn it, and have fun.

Mike

c6h6o3 · Dec 3, 2011

Amen!

eclarke · Dec 3, 2011

"Evan, I have been doing this long enough to doubt there is any practical difference between Edwal 12 and 777 you are using so I wouldn't agree that one is vastly superior to the other as others have apparently claimed. I wouldn't know why someone would suggest so. Lots of hokum on the internet. Mostly people just like to argue. For all intents and purposes the formulas are practically the same. "

I agree, have already been using the Germain and like all films in it so when I tried the Edwal 12 it was fine but I already have something that works and have all my tmes tuned in somthere's no reason to switch.

JLP, I have never used 777, I was interested in it but make all my own chemistry and don't want to invest time in products which could disappear. I saw the Germain in my little book and the formula was 7,70,7 and 7 grams...777 so I just decided to give it a whirl and like what I get.

It's a robust developer that keeps well, a little better than D76. To be objective, a good photograph, made in good light of an interesting or beautiful subject works for me with any film and developer combo. No developer will fix a bad picture Evan

Crashbox · Dec 3, 2011

I've been trying to find where this Bluegrass 777 Panthermic stuff can be purchased- I'd like to try it out. The 'net seems to come up dry-

[SNIP] No developer will fix a bad picture [/SNIP]

Except a monobath

MaximusM3 · Dec 3, 2011

Crashbox said:
I've been trying to find where this Bluegrass 777 Panthermic stuff can be purchased- I'd like to try it out. The 'net seems to come up dry-

Except a monobath

BPI packaging on the net. Called them about two months ago to push them to make a new batch and they finally said they would. Still have not heard back though.

Crashbox · Dec 3, 2011

MaximusM3 said:
BPI packaging on the net. Called them about two months ago to push them to make a new batch and they finally said they would. Still have not heard back though.

Thank you very much.

removed account4 · Dec 3, 2011

i agree with what others have said about developers
it really doesn't matter much what you use, as long as you
know / figure out how to use it ...
for years i tried to discover the formula for a developer i used back in the 90s
which i thought was the best developer i had ever come across ...
before then i was using xtol, tmxrs and 1 or 2 others but wasn't satisfied ...
the mystery developer was gaf universal, and it gave me nice contrasty beefy negatives ..
but when i ran out ( this was a can left on the windowsill where i used to rent )
i tried to learn about gaf universal ... and always came up dry ...
a friend told me about ansco 130 and he suggested maybe that was it .. ( but it wasn't )
i didn't care, i used it anyways and made believe they were the same ..
i processed my film like the can of gaf universal said, and i learned how to use 130 to suit
my needs ... now, years later, i still buy 130 ( 4-6 gallons at a time ) and a few months ago
i learned what the actual formula for the gaf universal was ... but it doesn't matter much now
i found my own way to get great film without having to use the mysterious product ....

so find out the formulation for defender 777, use bluegrass's packaged 777, use the formulary's
"unblinkingeye777" ... whatever you do, just use something, and learn how to use it and you will be happy ...
===

hi crashbox

just in case you weren't sure who bpi is
http://www.bluegrasspackaging.com/

c6h6o3 · Dec 3, 2011

MaximusM3 said:
BPI packaging on the net. Called them about two months ago to push them to make a new batch and they finally said they would. Still have not heard back though.

Please post an alert on this forum if you're successful in actually having them ship you some 777.

MaximusM3 · Dec 3, 2011

c6h6o3 said:
Please post an alert on this forum if you're successful in actually having them ship you some 777.

Jim

Will call them on Monday and update here.

Max

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 3, 2011

MaximusM3 said:
BPI packaging on the net. Called them about two months ago to push them to make a new batch and they finally said they would. Still have not heard back though.

I called them about ten days ago and the lady who answered said they were waiting for some of the chemicals to come in and that they would probably be making some in January. Someone had previously posted that Bluegrass had stopped making 777, but apparently that isn't true.

Curious about 777

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency