Getting to know Harvey's 777

df cardwell · May 10, 2006

So, I've been meaning to look into 777, casually, for some time.

Buffaloe's article reminded me of that a little while ago.

The whole aura that has arisen has been... weird. Yet some folks have been working quite well with it, Mr. Harmon in particular.

Yet, whenever I've had some time on my hands, Bluegrass has been out of stock. Until now. So, yesterday my 777 arrived and I mixed up a gallon.

Now, I'm not a rocket scientist ( Goodness knows we have enough of THEM here ) but I'm sort of deliberate about what I do because I have a long history of screwing up and the more hurdles I put in my way, the less I screw up. So, I got out my journal and my pretty accurate scale.

The first thing I learned was that if you weigh Bag A, and Bag B, then while you're waiting for the stuff to dissolve, weigh the empty bags and subtract that from the total, you learn that you're playing with about 590 grams of stuff. Which works out to be about 155 grams of stuff per liter.

Then, is 777 is the same as Germain's ? ( 7+70+7+7.... = .... 91 grams of stuff ). Probably not.

It surely doesn't mix like Germain's / Edwal 12. Yep, Bag A is crushed PPD... but there could be other stuff in it. Or, Bluegrass might be using a different grade of PPD..... Formulary's PPD is virtually clear and dissolves easily by comparison.

Oh, well. A good mystery to begin the spring.

I'll mix up a second gallon, and take a good look at the stuff with a loupe.

Wonder what it is ? Probably Fairie Dust. :confused:

df

.

Gerald Koch · May 10, 2006

When contacted awhile back Bluegrass staunchly maintained that their product does not contain Glycin. However, organic chemicals can have several valid names so the actual composition of 777 versus the Germain formula is still a matter of conjecture. The unblinkingeye website says that the two behave the same.

Various finegrain developing agents such as Atomal have become impossible to obtain. This has caused some finegrain formulas to be recompounded using one of the color developing agents like CD-4 as a replacement. Check the MSDS on Calbe A-49 which is supposed to be the Agfa Atomal formula. Another example of reformulation is Tetenal Emofin.

c6h6o3 · May 10, 2006

df cardwell said:
..... Formulary's PPD is virtually clear and dissolves easily by comparison.

Bag A dissolves very easily, but you have to get the water hotter than what they tell you in the instructions. Get it up to about 180 degrees. Mix the B bag at room temperature.

As Fred DeVan pointed out in his article on Ed Buffaloe's website: who cares what's in it? Let the competition waste their time trying to figure it out while you make stunning prints from negatives developed in it.

If it's good enough for Henri Cartier-Bresson to have insisted on its use at Magnum, do I really care what grade of paraphenylenediamine is in it?

removed account4 · May 10, 2006

yup,
i contacted them and the person who mixes and sends out the "777" chuckled said " no there is no glycin" and then "that website is way of "

it is a patented formula from what i can remember. so if folks NEED to know what is in it, i am sure it wouldn't really be that hard to research it.

SNIP

Gerald Koch said:
When contacted awhile back Bluegrass staunchly maintained that their product does not contain Glycin.

Peter Schrager · May 10, 2006

Contact Info

Could someone please post the contact info to purchase 777? I would appreciate that
Peter

c6h6o3 · May 10, 2006

Peter Schrager said:
Could someone please post the contact info to purchase 777? I would appreciate that
Peter

Bluegrass Packaging Industries, Inc.
3651 Collins Lane
Louisville, Ky. 40245

502 425 6442

They have no online presence and do not take credit cards. I find that refreshing in this day and age, actually.

HTH,

Jim

c6h6o3 · May 10, 2006

Fred Devan's article on Harvey's at Unblinkingeye.com

df cardwell · May 10, 2006

c6h6o3 said:
Bag A dissolves very easily, but you have to get the water hotter than what they tell you in the instructions. Get it up to about 180 degrees. Mix the B bag at room temperature.

Yep ! Worked better the second time.

Film's a-soaking in the wash.

Densitometer in a little while

Thanks c6......

don

Paul Howell · May 10, 2006

The Frugal Photographer also carries 777, I bought a kit last fall.

df cardwell · May 10, 2006

The quickie analysis of test strip 1, TMY :

Fine, regular grain. Full shadow detail. Predictable long, straight scale. Handsome look. (no, I'm not going to share densitometer readings yet ! ).

Overall look ? Aculux 2. Very nice.

Second strip is in the pot, after 'ripening'.

Oh.

This is not at ALL like E12. No way. Since Germain's is simply a subset ot variation of E12, it is NOT Germain's. If this stuff has a long life and 'calms down' like replenished D23... and other replenishment tank developers, it's a good viable soup.

Cool.

More later.

df

Lee L · May 10, 2006

Don,

I know you're in the beginning stages, but I'll ask anyway. Are you dipping and dunking with rod (or racks) and tank, or inverting and twisting in a cylinder? I just found some new old stock floating lids for my Kodak rubber tanks (that has 777 written all over it), so I'm curious about that, and your agitation cycle as well.

Thanks,
Lee

df cardwell · May 10, 2006

well, test strip #2 looks promising

10% less development time, and the developer had been 'ripened'

densities are right in the target range for my diffusion enlarger

the grain is much finer ( not soft )

no significant loss of shadow speed, and the highlights are a little lower, indicating a slight shoulder ... way out around .... XII or XIII. There's no glycin in this stuff.

The point of this first roll is to see what the stuff WANTS to do, and design an adequate test to get the most from it. But I wouldn't hesitate to go shoot a job with it right now.

No, wait. No, I wouldn't. Let me get a couple dozen rolls through it over a month... then it can go to work. But if it stays consistent with what it's doing, I think it can unpack its bags.

Lee: I started with my normal time for Xtol 1+2 for TMY, with agitation 5 seconds every 5th minute. I'm twisting and inverting.

I want to share what's going on with this stuff because Harvey was a well respected writer and photographer back in the '30s and '40s. And since this has been around for a long time, it has an aura, and a lot of.... umm, aura.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is sort of a D25 kind of developer, getting an activity boost from the PPD. If you've used much D23 or D76, there's something familiar to it. I know this is all intuitve but that's the most accurate way for me to share data.

If you've got some experience and aren't thrown off by having to get a strange developer to give good results in a hurry, I'd say AT THIS POINT that it's worth trying.

If you're still on the learning curve, work with D76 for a hundred rolls or so, and then this won't be too weird.

My best guess as to what's in it ? Umm, PPD, Sulfite... some stuff from the bottom of a Froot Loops box and goodness knows what else. That's good enough for me.

Now to settle down and do some reliable testing.

df

Paul Howell · May 10, 2006

I tested both 777 and an Edwal 12 clone. I agree they are not very similar at all. I liked E12 better than 777 with HP5, but 777 was very nice with TriX. I have not attempted Tmax in either so I will be intrested in your final read.

df cardwell · May 10, 2006

Yes, no matter how you cut it, E12 is an N+1 ~ N+2 developer. And lovely. This is different.

df

Lachlan Young · May 10, 2006

df cardwell said:
well, test strip #2 looks promising

10% less development time, and the developer had been 'ripened'

densities are right in the target range for my diffusion enlarger

the grain is much finer ( not soft )

no significant loss of shadow speed, and the highlights are a little lower, indicating a slight shoulder ... way out around .... XII or XIII. There's no glycin in this stuff.

The point of this first roll is to see what the stuff WANTS to do, and design an adequate test to get the most from it. But I wouldn't hesitate to go shoot a job with it right now.

No, wait. No, I wouldn't. Let me get a couple dozen rolls through it over a month... then it can go to work. But if it stays consistent with what it's doing, I think it can unpack its bags.

Lee: I started with my normal time for Xtol 1+2 for TMY, with agitation 5 seconds every 5th minute. I'm twisting and inverting.

I want to share what's going on with this stuff because Harvey was a well respected writer and photographer back in the '30s and '40s. And since this has been around for a long time, it has an aura, and a lot of.... umm, aura.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is sort of a D25 kind of developer, getting an activity boost from the PPD. If you've used much D23 or D76, there's something familiar to it. I know this is all intuitve but that's the most accurate way for me to share data.

If you've got some experience and aren't thrown off by having to get a strange developer to give good results in a hurry, I'd say AT THIS POINT that it's worth trying.

If you're still on the learning curve, work with D76 for a hundred rolls or so, and then this won't be too weird.

My best guess as to what's in it ? Umm, PPD, Sulfite... some stuff from the bottom of a Froot Loops box and goodness knows what else. That's good enough for me.

Now to settle down and do some reliable testing.

df

There are probably at least some similarities with Calbe A49 and FX10 - both of these use ppd derivatives (CD2) to achieve their results of fine grain and full film speed. FX10 has, IIRC, a high sulfite level - at least 100g/litre - enough to be classed as a solvent developer. A49, is very interesting - when mixed up to stock solution it has a life span of only a few weeks. It can be used as stock or 1+1 or 1+2 - I will be trying this sometime over the next few weeks on some HP5+.

Have fun and good luck,

Lachlan

P.S. please do not expect curves for A49 + HP5+ - I go by what the final prints look like!

P.P.S. I think I have found a replacement for Aculux 2 - it is called Fotospeed FD10 - fine grain, sharp, and smooth. Probably not available outside of Europe.

Gerald Koch · May 10, 2006

df cardwell said:
There's no glycin in this stuff.
...
I wouldn't be surprised if this is sort of a D25 kind of developer, getting an activity boost from the PPD.

Short of doing a qualitative analysis, I don't don't know how you can make these statements.

df cardwell said:
My best guess as to what's in it ? Umm, PPD, Sulfite... some stuff from the bottom of a Froot Loops box and goodness knows what else.

PPD, when used as the sole developing agent, causes severe speed loss. To compensate for this there must be some other more active developing agent present. You certainly are not going to get an activity boost from PPD, quite the contrary. The traditional choice to gain activity in a PPD developer was Metol.

Lachlan Young · May 10, 2006

Gerald Koch said:
PPD, when used as the sole developing agent, causes severe speed loss. To compensate for this there must be some other more active developing agent present. You certainly are not going to get an activity boost from PPD, quite the contrary. The traditional choice to gain activity in a PPD developer was Metol.

I'm sure there is an extreme finegrain developer called Sease no.3 that causes at least 1.5 stops of speed loss but has very fine grain. FX10 and its derivatives apparently DO NOT suffer from this speed loss but ARE slightly grainier. FX 10 uses Hydroquinone, CD2, Sulfite, Borax and boric acid. I do not think there are many differences between FX10 and A49 - both have similar capacities and ingredients - any difference there is is probably in the level of concentration. Have just looked up Sease No.3 - it contains sulfite, ppd base and glycin - more glycin = less speed loss and higher levels of grain.

Hope this helps,

Lachlan

df cardwell · May 10, 2006

Gerald Koch said:
Short of doing a qualitative analysis, I don't don't know how you can make these statements.

My statement had to do with what I would, or would not, consider surprising.
That involves less than you might think.

Gerald Koch said:
PPD, when used as the sole developing agent, causes severe speed loss. To compensate for this there must be some other more active developing agent present. You certainly are not going to get an activity boost from PPD, quite the contrary. The traditional choice to gain activity in a PPD developer was Metol.

Perhaps I wrote that badly. You are absolutely correct. PPD was used by Lowe, and others, to increase the activity of a given developer without increasing the pH. Crawley speculated on this. It was the presence of PPD that allowed Glycin to function at all in the Sease series. PPD did little actual reduction, it was no more than an innocent bystander. There must be a science word for that, but I don't want to try to remember.

So, I'm pretty certain there is PPD in this stuff because I've used it for a couple decades and it's pretty distinctive, and it was all by itself in a little bag with a purple stained label.

From it's behaviour, there has to be another developing agent... as you say, PPD can't account for this activity. It isn't glycin, for two reasons: 1.) it also is pretty distinctive in appearance and how it does, or doesn't, go into solutions, and 2). it doesn't behave like any developer I've ever used that contains glycin.

And that, I agree, is about as far as I can go without performing a qualitative analysis. But I CAN make an anecdotal comparison.

As a matter of fact I will. 777 seems to be like a buffered D76 with finer/sharper grain and more speed.

Whatever was around in 1936-ish to have inspired Harvey ?

So. What is it ? I have no idea. How does it work ? Pretty darn well. What is it LIKE ? Well, we've done that. Back to the dark.

df

Lachlan Young · May 10, 2006

df cardwell said:
As a matter of fact I will. 777 seems to be like a buffered D76 with finer/sharper grain and more speed.

Whatever was around in 1936-ish to have inspired Harvey ?

df

Maybe it is buffered D76 with the addition of ppd?
A modified version of Ansco 47 perhaps?
Defender 5 D perhaps? - with ppd

I don't know - anyone got some photo lab indexes from that period?
Has 777 been modified from when it was created? If it hasn't, thenit is possibly quite a simple formula with little to go wrong in it.

What can we say that is almost certainly in it? PPD obviously, Sodium Sulphite in some quantity almost certainly, and some Metol and Hydroquinone to keep the speed up? Borax too? FX10 is probably not too wide of the mark.

Lachlan

df cardwell · May 10, 2006

The third, and final, shows a constant density and slightly less apparent grain structure. Love those developer by-products. I'm using a rough-and-deady replenishment system, simply topping up the developer afterward. But I use a graduate and everything !

I'm content I have a starting place for a proper investigation of a worthwhile developer.

To save anybody that wants to try this stuff, I'm shooting TMY at 400, and processing it at 68 degrees for 18 - 20 minutes, with agitation for 15 seconds at the beginning, and 5 seconds every 5th minute thereafter. No promises that it's perfect, just a place to start.

df

Lachlan Young · May 10, 2006

df cardwell said:
To save anybody that wants to try this stuff, I'm shooting TMY at 400, and processing it at 68 degrees for 18 - 20 minutes, with agitation for 15 seconds at the beginning, and 5 seconds every 5th minute thereafter .df

There must be something in 777 that is NOT glycin that is preventing bromide streaking but what is I am not sure. Any ideas?

Thanks,

Lachlan

P.S. I would get some 777 if only it wasn't so b****y heavy to ship - I seem to remember 3lbs of dry chemicals to make 2 gallons would cost $22 to ship to the UK - that is excluding customs charges etc etc (a fellow Appuger offered me some)

Gerald Koch · May 10, 2006

The Sease series is interesting, all the developers use the same amount of ppd and sulfite. The amount of Glycin varies. Sease #1 causes the most speed loss since it contains only ppd. Sease #4 causes the least speed loss but produces the most grain. Formulas #2 and #3 are intermediate.

The entire progression is

Speed loss #1 > #2 > #3 > #4
Graininess #1 < #2 < #3 < #4
Glycin (g/l) 0 1 6 12

Lachlan Young · May 10, 2006

Gerald Koch said:
The Sease series is interesting, all the developers use the same amount of ppd and sulfite. The amount of Glycin varies. Sease #1 causes the most speed loss since it contains only ppd. Sease #4 causes the least speed loss but produces the most grain. Formulas #2 and #3 are intermediate.

The entire progression is

Speed loss #1 > #2 > #3 > #4
Graininess #1 < #2 < #3 < #4
Glycin (g/l) 0 1 6 10

Could you post the formulae please?

Thanks,

Lachlan

df cardwell · May 10, 2006

Lachlan Young said:
Maybe it is buffered D76 with the addition of ppd?
A modified version of Ansco 47 perhaps?
Defender 5 D perhaps? - with ppd

I don't know - anyone got some photo lab indexes from that period?
Has 777 been modified from when it was created? If it hasn't, thenit is possibly quite a simple formula with little to go wrong in it.

What can we say that is almost certainly in it? PPD obviously, Sodium Sulphite in some quantity almost certainly, and some Metol and Hydroquinone to keep the speed up? Borax too? FX10 is probably not too wide of the mark.

Lachlan

Lachlan

It's a witch's brew. It has never been published. It has, like so many enthusiast developers of the time, a lot of stuff in it: 156 grams of stuff per liter. The difference is it is one of the few that worked, and this worked well enough to be produced for quite sometime, until Defender stopped, and Best Photo Industries picked it up. BPI.

Over the years, BPI has moved into a succession of things, and it stands for Bluegrass Packaging. Kentucky, therefore Bluegrass. Packaging, because they make packaging materials. The 777 is just an afterthought, but it is all profit: they have the formula, the mixing machine, and they are their own source for packaging.

There really is a LOT of stuff in this developer. What I really suspect is in there, I'm not telling. The point is, it works nicely.

Oh, yes. Bromide streaking is hard to detect on 35mm film. My agitation pattern may be poor, or not, for 120. Just a place to start.

df

Gerald Koch · May 10, 2006

FX-10 uses CD-2 (one of the color developing agents) and hydroquinone. The color developing agents (mostly substituted ppd's) are said to produce less allergic reactions than the parent PPD. This explains their use in such fine grain developers as FX-10, A-49, and Emofin.

PPD has a distinctive odor. Glycin has a limited solubility in sulfite solutions and tends to form an opalescent suspension when an attempt is made to dissolve too much.

Getting to know Harvey's 777

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency