Harvey's 777 Developer Tank

[luisrq]

Here’s some info

http://adfasi.blogspot.com/2014/11/harold-leroy-harvey-1899-1971.html

Thank you very much for this great information, I'm really wondering experiment this formula, but after the hot Spanish Summer

 

[luisrq]

I communicated with KennyE a few times and referenced him in this forum when the subject of 777 came up. Photrio forumers seem to be skeptics of his work, and no one, possibly with himself, has tried the formulas extensively.

Hi Richard, I'm happy to meet you here. Let me know please if hyou have already experimented this formula 777? It looks very interesting, but despite other informations I've read, this one don'y contain Glycin.., I 've read that Glycin gives very nmice tones, specially in the highlights.
The other point I would comment is that there is no information about developing times, maybe can I consider similar times as with D-76?. As you know lately I'm using D-23, I like very much it and I've read that it is really improved if used with Glycin.

 

[removed account4]

the best way to figure out development times is by developing by inspection .. you have to use a green safe light.

 

[luisrq]

the best way to figure out development times is by developing by inspection .. you have to use a green safe light.

Thank you, I've never did it, but I can experiment....

 

[Lachlan Young]

I communicated with KennyE a few times and referenced him in this forum when the subject of 777 came up. Photrio forumers seem to be skeptics of his work, and no one, possibly with himself, has tried the formulas extensively.

All I would say is that when Henn etc came up with D-23, Microdol etc, they had access to a level of analytical procedures considerably better than Harvey etc had & likely knew more about the mechanics of 777 etc than most of the inventors of similar developers. That they chose the route they did suggests that for all the mystery ingredients etc, the mechanisms of 777 in use could be replicated considerably more easily by some of the most common photographic chemicals.

 

[removed account4]

Thank you, I've never did it, but I can experiment....

the other way to do it is roll your own rolls of film ( bulk loader ) and roll a few short rolls, bracket expose your shots
and develop each roll at a different time .. the first one at like 8 minutes look at the results, the second one at 30% less the 3rd one 30% more and make up your own times .. the whole act of making photographs is a science experiment anyways, and
in the end most developers are pretty much the same so you are not really reinventing the wheel if you know what i mean.

 

[luisrq]

the other way to do it is roll your own rolls of film ( bulk loader ) and roll a few short rolls, bracket expose your shots
and develop each roll at a different time .. the first one at like 8 minutes look at the results, the second one at 30% less the 3rd one 30% more and make up your own times .. the whole act of making photographs is a science experiment anyways, and
in the end most developers are pretty much the same so you are not really reinventing the wheel if you know what i mean.

Thank you! But in my opinion a + or - 30% would represent more than 1 Stop, I think is too much... To increase or reduce development time for about 1 stop I usualy apply +/- 15%. I would appreciate your opinion, thanks again.

 

[removed account4]

Thank you! But in my opinion a + or - 30% would represent more than 1 Stop, I think is too much... To increase or reduce development time for about 1 stop I usualy apply +/- 15%. I would appreciate your opinion, thanks again.

I've never heard of 15% before. The beauty of photography is that there are no rules, whatever works, works, so try 15% ...
have fun !
john

 

[Kino]

I attempted to call Bluegrass today and got an answering machine; maybe I'll get a return call.

The email address listed in this old thread bounced, so it looks like phone calls are the only way to get in touch with them...

 

[Kino]

Update: Just got a call from Bluegrass and they said they were out of Harvey's 777 and unable to produce anymore at the current time, but said my name was now on a list should the situation change,

The woman (didn't name herself) said that this is due to a certain chemical which can only be purchased in very large quantities and that they are searching for an alternative. Didn't specify alternative chemical or alternative source, but either way, it is currently unavailable.

So, those of you with a working tank of Harvey's 777, count your blessings and pass the D76...

 

[Paul Howell]

I think that has been the story for past 10 years, well maybe not 10 years, but for a very long time. If you like 777 you might want to give MCM 100 a try.

 

[Kino]

I think that has been the story for past 10 years, well maybe not 10 years, but for a very long time. If you like 777 you might want to give MCM 100 a try.

The description in Photographer's Formulary of MCM 100 doesn't sound too much like 777, or am I missing something?

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I would not describe it as compensating, rather semi compensating, not as soft working, grain is sharper, very tight, full speed, (I shoot most ISO films at 80 and 400 at 320) with full range of tones. What is in p-phenylenediamine. I think it's very close to Edwal 20. So your right, MCM 100 not a straight up replacement for 777. Test print, scanned 8X10, work print no burning or dodging.

 

[Kino]

Although I would not describe it as compensating, rather semi compensating, not as soft working, grain is sharper, very tight, full speed, (I shoot most ISO films at 80 and 400 at 320) with full range of tones. What is in p-phenylenediamine. I think it's very close to Edwal 20. So your right, MCM 100 not a straight up replacement for 777. Test print, scanned 8X10, work print no burning or dodging.

OK, thanks for that insight...

 

[Pixophrenic]

I find it odd how these talks about the 777 go 'round and 'round like a merry-go-round, if I may be so blunt. Having tried a number of developers from the 1930s era on modern films (not all of them, mind you), I got convinced that the 777 is a p-aminophenol developer with p-phenilendiamine, not unlike Edwal 20 (Gradol is a salt of PAP, BTW), but with a higher pH and thus faster working. So, how about we start a worldwide poll/crowdtesting, if there are enough users who a) had personal experience with the real 777, and b) are willing to try out the concoction that I think approximates the 777 rather well? Since in 2019 we do not need to be concerned with chemicals hardening the emulsion, it amounts to a few readily available components. And it is toxic, of course.

 

[Paul Howell]

Gradol is a salt of PAP

This is the first reference I've seen that states what Gradol is. Do you have reference, and is this salt of PAP commercially available?

 

[Kino]

I find it odd how these talks about the 777 go 'round and 'round like a merry-go-round, if I may be so blunt. Having tried a number of developers from the 1930s era on modern films (not all of them, mind you), I got convinced that the 777 is a p-aminophenol developer with p-phenilendiamine, not unlike Edwal 20 (Gradol is a salt of PAP, BTW), but with a higher pH and thus faster working. So, how about we start a worldwide poll/crowdtesting, if there are enough users who a) had personal experience with the real 777, and b) are willing to try out the concoction that I think approximates the 777 rather well? Since in 2019 we do not need to be concerned with chemicals hardening the emulsion, it amounts to a few readily available components. And it is toxic, of course.

If the sum total effect of all these toxic chemicals is to keep the emulsion from melting-off of no longer available film stocks, then I will be happy to abandon this entire quest and just pursue other like-type developers.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Gradol is a salt of PAP

This is the first reference I've seen that states what Gradol is. Do you have reference, and is this salt of PAP commercially available?

Indeed, in Edmund Loewe's book "What you want to know about developers..." somewhere there should a mention of this, but I do not have the entire book on hand. On the page copies I do have, developers with Gradol are listed together with PAP-based ones. AFAIK, Gradol is not commercially available today, but PAP base can be used instead.

Gerald C Koch, who unfortunately no longer visits this site, said that Gradol was a hemisulfate salt of PAP, #2 in the thread in 2012 by "oldtimer Jay"
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...actual-production-formula.94358/#post-1255217.
I was able to mix it as outlined in this thread, actually omitting sulfuric acid, and dissolving the three developing agents in the specified sequence in hot (60 C) sulfite solution.

I found it the hard way that for such a developer to work properly, sodium sulfite should be of very high quality and pH needs to be adjusted as specified by Loewe (pH 7.6), while this fact is often omitted in reprinting.

 

[Pixophrenic]

If the sum total effect of all these toxic chemicals is to keep the emulsion from melting-off of no longer available film stocks, then I will be happy to abandon this entire quest and just pursue other like-type developers.

I probably did not make myself clear. There is no need for emulsion hardening components of the original 777, but the image character or "tonality", if you wish, can be obtained by supplementing Rodinal with PPD and lowering pH a bit. It can also be mixed from scratch. Unfortunately, the legendary keeping quality of 777 (and of MCM 100) is solely due to PPD. The mystique surrounding this developer , IMO, is more historically interesting, than it is of much practical use.

 

[Kino]

I probably did not make myself clear. There is no need for emulsion hardening components of the original 777, but the image character or "tonality", if you wish, can be obtained by supplementing Rodinal with PPD and lowering pH a bit. It can also be mixed from scratch. Unfortunately, the legendary keeping quality of 777 (and of MCM 100) is solely due to PPD. The mystique surrounding this developer , IMO, is more historically interesting, than it is of much practical use.

Thanks for the clarification. I hesitate to ask, but just how would you supplement Rodinal with PPD? If the answer is too involved, don't bother, but I am curious.

I sense I am stepping into the deep end of a pool and should just swim back to the shore while I can...

 

[Lachlan Young]

I probably did not make myself clear. There is no need for emulsion hardening components of the original 777, but the image character or "tonality", if you wish, can be obtained by supplementing Rodinal with PPD and lowering pH a bit. It can also be mixed from scratch. Unfortunately, the legendary keeping quality of 777 (and of MCM 100) is solely due to PPD. The mystique surrounding this developer , IMO, is more historically interesting, than it is of much practical use.

Given that you can effectively substitute p-aminophenol with metol, if you correct for the difference in reduction potential etc, and adding the ppd and reducing the pH reduces the grain, you effectively wind up with Microdol, D-25 etc which achieve the same goals without needing to deal with the potential nastiness of PPD.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Given that you can effectively substitute p-aminophenol with metol, if you correct for the difference in reduction potential etc, and adding the ppd and reducing the pH reduces the grain, you effectively wind up with Microdol, D-25 etc which achieve the same goals without needing to deal with the potential nastiness of PPD.

I noticed, Lachlan, that you always try to detract a discussion of how 777 had a long tonal scale into a discussion of grain size. Harvey's developer was not known for its especially small grain. I am wondering, why do you always do that? Furthermore, for metol there is this well-known conundrum that small grain and high sharpness cannot be obtained at the same pH: small grain at pH <8.5, high sharpness at pH 10-11. Therefore, all this historical talk, specifically by Crawley, that you cannot have it all. With metol, indeed you can not. Then again, metol of low quality is likely to contain PPD as an impurity.

 

[Pixophrenic]

Thanks for the clarification. I hesitate to ask, but just how would you supplement Rodinal with PPD? If the answer is too involved, don't bother, but I am curious.

I sense I am stepping into the deep end of a pool and should just swim back to the shore while I can...

Dilute Rodinal as you usually do. You need a microwave to warm up a portion of your diluted Rodinal to about 50 degrees C, using about 1/10 portion of your developer in a pickle jar. Put on gloves and goggles. Dissolve PPD in that and combine with the rest. From this moment onward, also use gloves and goggles during development. This solution you made will keep a long time and can be re-used. If this sounds too involved, don't go there.
P.S. Sorry to be patronizing, but obviously not your kitchen microwave is used here

 

[Kino]

Dilute Rodinal as you usually do. You need a microwave to warm up a portion of your diluted Rodinal to about 50 degrees C, using about 1/10 portion of your developer in a pickle jar. Put on gloves and goggles. Dissolve PPD in that and combine with the rest. From this moment onward, also use gloves and goggles during development. This solution you made will keep a long time and can be re-used. If this sounds too involved, don't go there.
P.S. Sorry to be patronizing, but obviously not your kitchen microwave is used here

Thank you.

 

[Kino]

Just found this in the June 1946 edition of "The Camera" magazine.

Sorry for the Moiré Pattern...