Defender (aka Harvey's) 777

[Jim Noel]

LONG LIVE BLUEGRASS!
LONG LIVE HARVEY'S PANTHERMIC 777!

Do you have a web site, or email,or snail mail address for Bluegrass?

I used Panthermic 777 as my go to developer from about 1939- 1950and would lpve to get my hands on some now.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Richard Man]

They are still in Kentucky. Just search this thread or elsewhere. No email, just call them and give them your credit card number or send a check.

 

[removed account4]

Do you have a web site, or email,or snail mail address for Bluegrass?

I used Panthermic 777 as my go to developer from about 1939- 1950and would lpve to get my hands on some now.

Thanks,
Jim

hi jim

their phonenumber is on their website
http://www.bluegrasspackaging.com/i...hackguard-title-outputfilters/ct-menu-item-15

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I used my batch of 777 the other day and ended up with some nice negatives. Bluegrass makes 777 developer, and also 777 replenisher. Before I bought the replenisher I used regular developer to replenish, which worked well also, but now I use the real deal for better capacity.

I find now after having used the developer for about a year, that I love how it renders midtones, and it's forgiving in a sense that it's almost impossible to overdevelop highlights. The more I use the develop the more I push the boundaries of printable highlights, and I find that right on the ragged edge of blocking up the highlights, by using much longer than recommended developing times, I get these amazing highlights in my prints. Love it.

My film of choice is mainly Ilford HP5+, which suits the developer very well. My girlfriend shoots Tri-X, which also works extremely well. We've also used it with TMax 400 and Ilford FP4+ with tremendous results, so I'm very happy with how the developer works.

With that said I'm thinking about buying some Edwal Developer 12 and start using it again. It is totally different from 777 in the midtones compared to highlights, where if I develop the negatives to similar overall contrast, the mid-tones are darker with Edwal 12, creating a different darker mood. Shadow speed is about the same. They would complement each other quite nicely, I think.

 

[buzz94]

I used my batch of 777 the other day and ended up with some nice negatives. Bluegrass makes 777 developer, and also 777 replenisher. Before I bought the replenisher I used regular developer to replenish, which worked well also, but now I use the real deal for better capacity.

I find now after having used the developer for about a year, that I love how it renders midtones, and it's forgiving in a sense that it's almost impossible to overdevelop highlights. The more I use the develop the more I push the boundaries of printable highlights, and I find that right on the ragged edge of blocking up the highlights, by using much longer than recommended developing times, I get these amazing highlights in my prints. Love it.

My film of choice is mainly Ilford HP5+, which suits the developer very well. My girlfriend shoots Tri-X, which also works extremely well. We've also used it with TMax 400 and Ilford FP4+ with tremendous results, so I'm very happy with how the developer works.

With that said I'm thinking about buying some Edwal Developer 12 and start using it again. It is totally different from 777 in the midtones compared to highlights, where if I develop the negatives to similar overall contrast, the mid-tones are darker with Edwal 12, creating a different darker mood. Shadow speed is about the same. They would complement each other quite nicely, I think.

A few questions if you don't mind:
What speeds do you shoot your HP5+ and Tri-X with 777 and E12? I get good results with Tri-x @ 320 for 7.5 minutes in E12. Also, how does grain and acutance compare between 777 and E12? Do you ever have issues with blown highlights with E12?
Thanks a lot!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

A few questions if you don't mind:
What speeds do you shoot your HP5+ and Tri-X with 777 and E12? I get good results with Tri-x @ 320 for 7.5 minutes in E12. Also, how does grain and acutance compare between 777 and E12? Do you ever have issues with blown highlights with E12?
Thanks a lot!

I'm shooting Tri-X and HP5+ @ 200-250 in normal contrast and high contrast. In low contrast I shoot at EI 400 and process longer. With both films.

I actually forgot what developing times I had with Edwal 12. It's been 7-8 years since I last used it in earnest, but I seem to remember that one has to watch highlight density a fair bit with Edwal 12. It is a brilliant developer, designed by Dr. Lowe to work well in flat Midwestern light. I don't remember having a lot of problems with blocked up highlights, but also remember some frames gone 'over the edge' when I miscalculated or made mistakes.

Neither of the two films are high acutance developers, neither are they fine grain, although the stain of the PPD in the Edwal 12 appears to mask the grain somewhat, so I would estimate it has finer grain than 777. For me it's all about tonality, though, and grain is what it is.

 

[Roger Pellegrini]

I have been trying to get some 777. I used to use it in the 1960's. Sent Ellen and email but so far no response.

 

[Roger Pellegrini]

Jim,
I too used 777 in the 1960's. I have called Bluegrass and sent two emails in the past two weeks. Still haven't heard back.
Roger Pellegrini

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Revisiting this old thread, with one single thing to report: I let a batch of replenished 777 developer sit for the better part of three months without doing anything to it. Details: I use the proper replenisher sold by Bluegrass, and the original developer too. There are four gallon kits left in my stash, and after that I'm not sure if I'm going to try to source more or not.

Today I decided to process a roll of 120 HP5+ with it, and boom! the negs were perfect.

It seems that this developer is very resilient with respect to time and storage once in solution. My working solution developer is stored in 2 liter brown plastic chemical bottles, and my 777 replenisher is stored in brown accordion bottles. Works extremely well.

I'm pleased with this outcome as school is really a severe impediment to me at this time, with respect to photography. Hardly any time at all.

 

[Paul Howell]

777, Edwal 12, MCM 100 all last a very long time, I kept a tank of Edwal 12 going for 4 or 5 years, I am now on a year for MCM 100.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

777, Edwal 12, MCM 100 all last a very long time, I kept a tank of Edwal 12 going for 4 or 5 years, I am now on a year for MCM 100.

I too had an Edwal 12 tank going for years. I had Xtol going for a little longer than that too, an excellent developer replenished.

My surprise came as I hadn't used it for about 3 months, and I had not replenished in that entire time. I just warmed it to 75 degrees and it worked like a champ. Very cool, and useful to know.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Maybe this is an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin comment, but if Bluegrass had to replace some unobtainable chemicals with others, doesn't that mean it's not 777 any longer? It may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but if the formula has changed then it's just a bizarro duck. OK, if the prints are same maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm kind of concerned about how we use our descriptors on APUG.

I, for one, would like to try 777, so perhaps I'll order some.

I thought the same. Since it lacks the previous characteristic smell paraphenylene diamine has been replaced with something else. This developing agent is what lends the characteristic small.

 

[Monday317]

Maybe they replaced the para-Phenylenediamine (hereafter “PPD) with CD3? For a time within the last 3-4 years, PPD had been difficult to obtain; Photographer’s Formulary had quit selling it; they stock it as of today, but it’s also one of those Certain Death On Contact chemicals CD3 is supposed to replace. Therefore one doubts it will appear in 777 in the Bluegrass product again. As has been said before, the formulas change over time. If the new stuff isn’t up to par, it dies off; remember New Coke..?

I myself remain intrigued by the Germain Fine Grain (hereafter, “GFG”) formula in the Unblinking Eye article, and may give that stuff a try. IMHO, any film developer you can drink and not die a horrible death (viz., Caffenol), isn’t worth beans. GFG is simply loaded with carcinogens, mutagens, and other -gens that are only shippable by UPS Ground—if at all—so it must be pretty good, right?

I have yet to read of any A/B comparison between GFG and 777, so it might be an idea to shoot two identical rolls of film, same subjects and exposures, send a roll to a 777 user, develop one in GFG, then have both of us send the negs to a third party here who could make scans/prints off both rolls and evaluate them for comparison. I think such an experiment would answer a lot of questions, and once the second film back for my RB67 arrives, the exposure process would be a cinch.

I wouldn’t want to kill off the business of making & distributing 777, but if GFG does the same job, it’d be less trouble to make, yais?