Has anyone purchased "ORIGINAL Harvey's Panthermic 777" from Bluegrass Packing Industries?
If so, can you give me an idea of the price? Scant little information on their website... http://www.bluegrasspackaging.com/index.php/ct-menu-item-9
I've wrote Bluegrass and they said me for the moment they are not able to supply it, they have put my name on a list and they will write me when is available. The only price I know is the one from Photographrers Formulary http://stores.photoformulary.com/harveys-defender-777/.Has anyone purchased "ORIGINAL Harvey's Panthermic 777" from Bluegrass Packing Industries?
If so, can you give me an idea of the price? Scant little information on their website... http://www.bluegrasspackaging.com/index.php/ct-menu-item-9
Thank you, I would like as well test Edwal 12 and MCM 100, but maybe I'll start with a trial with http://stores.photoformulary.com/harveys-defender-777/From what I understand no one knows for sure if the PF 777 is the same as Blue Grass's formula, but going back 777 when it was sold by Defender then Blue Grass I have always read that is was designed to used in large tanks, never had a clear reason why. I tired 777 that I got from Blue Grass and later the Frugal Photographer who told me he got his from Blue Grass as well. I used a standard Peterson 2 roll tank with 2 rolls, no problems. I also developed 4 rolls of 120 in a Unicolor drum with motor base, used a lot less developer than a standard tank, worked just fine. I switched from 777 to Edwal 12, then to MCM 100, no issues with tank size.
Thank you John!luisrq
777 is a deep tank developer, and was primarily used for developing sheets of black and white film. You can use a gallon tupperware container if you want, it doesn't need to be only hard rubber tanks. You don't need to put your rolls of 35mm film in a film cage either, instead you can unbend a coathanger so it is long, put 2 loops at the bottom to keep the reels on, and develop your rolls of film that way. 777 works best when it is seasoned, like most developers of that time period, so like the article says you need to run a bunch of film through it to tame it, and when it comes time to mix a new batch, leave about 1/3 of the seasoned developer in your tank to mellow the new batch. You can also just keep the developer in a jug and just pour it back in the jug but that is a pain in the neck.
Have fun ( and good luck ) !
John
If it's a secret formula we don't know if it's the same as PF sells or not. I recall that PF got a sample 0f Blue Grass's version and analyzed it to develop their version. But no one is taking. What I would like to try is Edwal 20, no one seems to know what Gardal is, my guess it's maybe Catechol.
If BGP is not going to produce 777 wonder if they would release their formula. Folks hold on to trade secrets long after they have any value. I wrote the the current owner of Edwal asking if they still had notes or formulas and let me know what Gardal is. At the time they were still making FG7, did send me an email saying that it remains a propriety compound, maybe thought anyone making a clone of Edwal 20 would be in direct competition with FG7.
I have recently reed this interesting article https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html, Fred de Van says that using the Germain Fine Grain Formula, I understand it is equivalent to Harvey's 777 or the 777 supplied by Photographers Formulary, you must use a tank larger than you need by at least 100% filling the space with empty reels. I do not understand what is the reason for such recommendation. Any opinions? Thank you!
I have recently reed this interesting article https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html, Fred de Van says that using the Germain Fine Grain Formula, I understand it is equivalent to Harvey's 777 or the 777 supplied by Photographers Formulary, you must use a tank larger than you need by at least 100% filling the space with empty reels. I do not understand what is the reason for such recommendation. Any opinions? Thank you!
I really appreciate your comments and thank you for your help. Actually I'm mainly using D-23 at 1:1 with Ilford FP4 E.I. 100, I'm very happy with it it works very well on the highlights and the shadows giving smooth tones and a nice gradation, maybe it not achieve certain more dramatics effects, with HP5 rated at 400 I think it woks better in stock solution than at 1:1, however I think it is not the best developer for HP5, I think D-76 work better on it. Of course I love the tones achieved aby Eugene Smith and Cartier Bresson, but I ask myself if we can compare the actual films and developers with those from the 50's, I don't think the old formulas we are discussing perform the same manner as on the old films and as Lachian says if we use a modern developer we can't see a diference .... I don't know.... The thing is that I would like experiment it. Thank you!Many differences between each of the formulae you list above - as you'll see if you read that article thoroughly. And functionally speaking, Perceptol or Microdol-X type developers seem to have been formulated to do the same thing with less trouble.
I buy the stuff from Blue Grass from time to time. In fact, I have a few bottles of working solution right now. When it works well, it works brilliantly. Generally though, I use XTol.
No problem using it with Jobo.
Anyone that has used the Bluegrass 777 will tell you that it isn't Germaine's 777 which is what PF is selling as Defender 777.
Edwal 12 is really close to Germaine's 777. It is a good developer, especially if you use it replenished. Not the same tonality as Bluegrass 777.
I think the "special" tonal properties are due mostly to Glycin. If you use another developer with Glycin in it you will see similarities. Both Germaine's and Edwal 12 have Glycin and PPD.
If you don't want to mess with PPD, you can mix Edwal 10 which is a simple Metol/Glycin developer that has great tonality. The grain is coarser though since there is no PPD in it.
One developer I haven't used yet is Edwal 20 or Super 20. I have the formula for it, but I don't really want to spend over $50 just on Glycin and PPD. It replaces Metol with P-Aminophenol. I am a sucker for PAP. Love my Rodinal. Used to love Pyrocat-P but I grew weary of the problems with Catechol so I went back to PMK.
If Bluegrass was smart, they would license the formula to Photographer's Formulary. Can't profit off of a product that doesn't exist...
Anyone that has used the Bluegrass 777 will tell you that it isn't Germaine's 777 which is what PF is selling as Defender 777.
Edwal 12 is really close to Germaine's 777. It is a good developer, especially if you use it replenished. Not the same tonality as Bluegrass 777.
I think the "special" tonal properties are due mostly to Glycin. If you use another developer with Glycin in it you will see similarities. Both Germaine's and Edwal 12 have Glycin and PPD.
If you don't want to mess with PPD, you can mix Edwal 10 which is a simple Metol/Glycin developer that has great tonality. The grain is coarser though since there is no PPD in it.
One developer I haven't used yet is Edwal 20 or Super 20. I have the formula for it, but I don't really want to spend over $50 just on Glycin and PPD. It replaces Metol with P-Aminophenol. I am a sucker for PAP. Love my Rodinal. Used to love Pyrocat-P but I grew weary of the problems with Catechol so I went back to PMK.
If Bluegrass was smart, they would license the formula to Photographer's Formulary. Can't profit off of a product that doesn't exist...
That is interesting. Seems the Jobo would be totally antithetical to the agitation requirements. Still apply the reduction in time like for other developers?
I really appreciate your comments and thank you for your help. Actually I'm mainly using D-23 at 1:1 with Ilford FP4 E.I. 100, I'm very happy with it it works very well on the highlights and the shadows giving smooth tones and a nice gradation, maybe it not achieve certain more dramatics effects, with HP5 rated at 400 I think it woks better in stock solution than at 1:1, however I think it is not the best developer for HP5, I think D-76 work better on it. Of course I love the tones achieved aby Eugene Smith and Cartier Bresson, but I ask myself if we can compare the actual films and developers with those from the 50's, I don't think the old formulas we are discussing perform the same manner as on the old films and as Lachian says if we use a modern developer we can't see a diference .... I don't know.... The thing is that I would like experiment it. Thank you!
Very nice. I can see why you like it.Nah, 777 needs "consistent agitation routine", Jobo is very consistent ;-) I don't keep track which negs I normally develop with 777, and I use it for everything from 35mm to 4x5, but this image from over 10 years ago, was the first one (35mm) that made me say, "yea, that developer seems magical"
Great image Richard! I think I'll wait a response from Bluegrass meanwhile I'll continue with D-23 and D-76, thanks!Nah, 777 needs "consistent agitation routine", Jobo is very consistent ;-) I don't keep track which negs I normally develop with 777, and I use it for everything from 35mm to 4x5, but this image from over 10 years ago, was the first one (35mm) that made me say, "yea, that developer seems magical"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?