Defender (aka Harvey's) 777

[c6h6o3]

Oh yes, I returned from Auto Zone, only to see the UPS truck stop at my door, and give me my package from BlueGrass. Yes!!!!!!!!! Two gallons of Panthermic 777! Cost $54.67.

OK, now what do I do?

#1 Son

Two gallons? or Four Gallons? The cases I've bought were always four gallons. If there are only two in the box they've doubled the price. Not helpful.

 

[#1 Son]

What do you mean, they doubled the price?

I think the reason was I ask/requested UPS delivery. Not USPS.

Please correct me if I am incorrect.

#1 Son

 

[Richard Man]

I got my 4 gallons packs in. Will try it tonight with FP4!

The price seem to be similar to what I paid 3-4 years ago...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have used 777 and use Edwal 12 and MCM 100, Edwal 12 results in very differnt negatives than 777.

I'm just saying that's what sprung to mind. I use Edwal 12 replenished, if that matters. Can you show the difference in the negatives with some examples, or maybe explain exactly how they differ?

 

[c6h6o3]

What do you mean, they doubled the price?

I think the reason was I ask/requested UPS delivery. Not USPS.

Please correct me if I am incorrect.

#1 Son

You said that you received 2 gallons. The case should contain 4 gallons. 4 packages of powders.

 

[Richard Man]

Alright, I developed couple sheets of 4x5 FP4 and they look pretty good! Nothing "magical" since it's a newly mixed brew. Then I grabbed an ancient 35mm Delta 3200, rated it at ISO1250 and photographed the dogs at 1/60 and 1.4. The grain is huge of course, but you can see the nice tones in the dark (the dogs have black fur). Both the 4x5 and the roll are developed in a Jobo. I used a 5 min prewash to compensate for the rotary action. I used 12 1/2 mins with the FP4 and 17 1/2 mins with the Delta 3200.

The brew *seems* slightly different from what I got from Bluegrass a few years ago, but I'm not 100% sure. The brew is still brownish in color, but seems more clear, I think. Anyway, don't quote me on that I think we are beginning to see some of that legendary delicate creamy highlights. Not sure why I am getting Newton rings all of a sudden on one photo, I will look into that.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've got a couple of gallon kits coming my way, so I'll be checking it out to see what the fuss is about.

Are there instructions for how to run a replenished batch going? I can't do deep tanks, so will have to replenish on a 'per roll' basis. Ideas?

 

[Richard Man]

You just recover the developer, then add new stock to top off the container.

I am going to construct a deep tank soon...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You just recover the developer, then add new stock to top off the container.

I am going to construct a deep tank soon...

Yeah, that's how replenishment works...

But how much developer per 8x10 / 120 / 135-36 film?

 

[c6h6o3]

Tom:

There's a link to a replenishment table in the Unblinkingeye article. It's about 2 oz. replenishment for each 8x10 sheet, which is about the same surface area as a 35mm roll. Here is the link.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Tom:

There's a link to a replenishment table in the Unblinkingeye article. It's about 2 oz. replenishment for each 8x10 sheet, which is about the same surface area as a 35mm roll. Here is the link.

Thanks. I had read that a long time ago, but didn't remember.

 

[Richard Man]

Yeah, that's how replenishment works...

But how much developer per 8x10 / 120 / 135-36 film?

Are you asking how much replenishment you need, or how much developer you need for the film?

For replenishment, you replenish the missing portion XD

For developer, as much as your tank can hold. 777 works in large volume. I max them out with my Jobo.

Here's the latest one:

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Are you asking how much replenishment you need, or how much developer you need for the film?

For replenishment, you replenish the missing portion XD

For developer, as much as your tank can hold. 777 works in large volume. I max them out with my Jobo.

Here's the latest one:

I was asking about replenishing rate. How much developer does one replenish per film, as a starting point. Jim has answered my question, with 2oz per 8x10 equivalent.

Thanks.

 

[Richard Man]

My experience is that it also depends on what film and whether you do pre-wash. Also, the way it works is that you initially mix up a couple gallons and put one gallon as the replenishment. I separate them into 5 full screw top wine bottles. The main working solution is in a one gallon jug. After each use, you pour the developer back and just top off from the replenishment bottle. When they are all gone, time to mix up another batch

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My experience is that it also depends on what film and whether you do pre-wash. Also, the way it works is that you initially mix up a couple gallons and put one gallon as the replenishment. I separate them into 5 full screw top wine bottles. The main working solution is in a one gallon jug. After each use, you pour the developer back and just top off from the replenishment bottle. When they are all gone, time to mix up another batch

Great. Thanks again. I have found with replenished developers that I need to find a balance to get repeatable results. Xtol and Edwal 12 are the two I've used that way, and there is certainly a break-in period to understand the stuff.
With 777 I was just convinced it is a different animal, so I'm trying to avoid as many mistakes upfront as I can. If one used Xtol replenished, and simply just topped up the missing volume after each developing session, you would run out of developing activity very rapidly.

 

[c6h6o3]

I was asking about replenishing rate. How much developer does one replenish per film, as a starting point. Jim has answered my question, with 2oz per 8x10 equivalent.

Thanks.

It's actually a little less than that according to the table. If I remember correctly the 2 oz. per sheet (or roll) came from Fred DeVan. I corresponded with him at one point. Does anyone on this forum know if he's still around?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A good friend is doing some testing with this current batch, and is finding out what most here already know, that deep tanks with large volume is definitely the way to go with this developer.

I don't have a darkroom that's dark enough to run big tanks, so I have to go with maybe a four roll tank with just one or two reels on the bottom with empty ones on top. Has anybody here had success with such an approach? I'm just curious how much of the magic I'm missing due to my incapacity to do the deep tanks.

 

[Trask]

....so I have to go with maybe a four roll tank with just one or two reels on the bottom with empty ones on top.

Just to say that if I were to use two of the four reels in a four-reel tank, I'd put an empty reel on the bottom and top, sandwiching the two reels with film in the middle. To my way of thinking, this would permit better flow when agitating, and reduce concern about the effect of the developer dragging across the floor of the tank.

I'm been interested in 777 for decades, but I, like you perhaps, cannot run deep tanks. So I look forward to reading how others respond to your question.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Just to say that if I were to use two of the four reels in a four-reel tank, I'd put an empty reel on the bottom and top, sandwiching the two reels with film in the middle. To my way of thinking, this would permit better flow when agitating, and reduce concern about the effect of the developer dragging across the floor of the tank.

I'm been interested in 777 for decades, but I, like you perhaps, cannot run deep tanks. So I look forward to reading how others respond to your question.

I have no concern with where in the tank the full reel is. If I process four rolls at a time they all come out equal, irrespective of where in the tank they are.

My intention is to go into the 777 adventure as if I know nothing about it and use it like I did Edwal 12. Examining the results I will first establish a good developing time using the same methods I have with other developers, and after I have the contrast and density down to a science, I will experiment with larger tanks.
I'm starting with a 2 liter working solution, seasoning it with a few exposed old rolls of film, replenish to top up, and start using it. I'm guessing at around 15-16 minutes at 68*F to start, agitating on the minute.

I hear that 777 holds highlights printable, but needs time to develop the shadows fully. Shooting films at half box speed appears to be a good starting point.

Since we all have to fine tune our work flow anyway, it makes sense to just dive in and critically observe. But it's good to know a thing or two before wasting too much precious material.

 

[Richard Man]

My tests so far do indicate that about 1/3 to 1/2 stop slower than box speed is the way to go...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My tests so far do indicate that about 1/3 to 1/2 stop slower than box speed is the way to go...

Thanks. That's interesting. Most people I hear testing it prefer something like Tri-X to be shot at around 200 or 250.

But that could be down to metering technique, shutter accuracy, lighting conditions, etc, and certainly within the margin of error.

 

[Richard Man]

Thanks. That's interesting. Most people I hear testing it prefer something like Tri-X to be shot at around 200 or 250.

But that could be down to metering technique, shutter accuracy, lighting conditions, etc, and certainly within the margin of error.

May be I used the wrong terminology, but yes Tri-X at 250, for example

FP4 @ around 70-80. That type of thing. So we are in agreement.

 

[c6h6o3]

I rate my film at half of the box ISO and place my shadows on Zone IV. It's still almost impossible to blow a highlight using 777, at least with TMY. I'm not sure about HP5+.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I rate my film at half of the box ISO and place my shadows on Zone IV. It's still almost impossible to blow a highlight using 777, at least with TMY. I'm not sure about HP5+.

We will soon find out, Jim. I've got four gallon kits coming my way, which should be enough to get a good feel for it.

My starting point with films will be to shoot at half the box speed, but I will be relying on my in-board meter and/or Sunny 16 since I don't use the zone system and shoot mostly roll film.

I have read some interesting things about this developer, and interviewed many who have used it or are using it, and one thing is for certain - it IS different! Friends have provided me with literature from when Harvey was still doing sensitometric tests with the developer in the late 1930s, and technically the first aim with the developer was simply to be able to develop film at a higher temperature (as high as 90 degrees F, back when film emulsion would blister at 80 degrees). That to me is evidence that this developer has something no other developer does, and that's what got me interested years ago.

I'm really curious about it, and can't wait to start seasoning the developer with some old 5x7 sheets I have laying around, and then start working with it in earnest.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Just ran my first film through the 777, freshly seasoned. I use a 2 liter working solution, replenished with 2 oz per 135-36 / 120 / 8x10 equivalent film area. Small tank so far.
First test shows HP5+ normal EI of 250 in normal contrast. I shot at EI 400 and developed 10 minutes, agitation every 30s at 75 degrees F, and it's a hair thin in the shadows. That's where I get EI 250 from, so not very scientific. At EI 250 I'll dial back dev time to 8m30s I think and go from there.

It's been a long time since I ascribed any magic to a film developer, and I was wrong in doing so. 777 isn't magic, but it does something special to the highlights that I have not seen before, which lends a quality to the light that is extremely real, and that's a quality I thoroughly enjoy.

More to follow once I've done some more work with it.