Harvey's 777 Developer Tank

[luisrq]

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!

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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

 

[Kino]

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

 

[luisrq]

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

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/.

 

[luisrq]

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, 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/

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

Thank you John!

 

[removed account4]

You're welcome

BTW the version that PF sells is NOT the same thing as what BGP sells. It is a "secret formula" and when I have contacted BGP and asked about it, they would laugh and say "that website article" ( at unblinking eye ) "isn't even close". There is one person there at BGP who makes and packages it, and for years they were not able to get some of the ingredients because they were hard to source, I hope this time around it takes less than 5-10 years for them to make some more .

John

 

[Paul Howell]

I found 777 rather soft for my taste, Edwal 12 is good in low contrast lighting, very easy to blow out the highlight, it main use was for copy work. I found that MCM 100 (Miniature Camera Magazine) to have the best balance of tone, (contrast) and grain. At $60 a gallon I had stopped using it, but could not find another developer that suited my taste and works as well with Ultrafine 100 and 400. I use the replenishment regiment recommended for 777, had my last MCM and Edwal 12 tanks going for over 3 years. Regret tossing my last tank of MCM 100 out now I have to start over. BTW, all of the p-phenylenediamine developers are toxic, use gloves, apron, and safety glasses, keep out the reach of children and pets. Development times are on the long side, most medium speed films are around 13 to 14 minutes, fast films in the 18 to 19 minutes range at 70 degrees. If developing sheet film in a large tank I would add a another minute.

BTW the version that PF sells is NOT the same thing as what BGP sells. It is a "secret formula" and when I have contacted BGP and asked about it, they would laugh and say "that website article" ( at unblinking eye ) "isn't even close".

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

Hi Paul
I never heard they analyzed it &c I heard they just started carrying their own version because it was in the article and they were asked to be an alternative because BGP hadn't made it in years and people wanted to try it. i guess we'll never know
happy developing !
john

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Kino]

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.

Unfortunately, I don't see BGP releasing the formula at any time period. It will probably just vanish with the formula holder when he or she dies.

In that regard, if they can't make it and sell it, they should just stop advertising it. If your claim to fame is a developer you can't or won't compound for sale, then I really don't see the point...

Probably best to just get on with trying the Photographer's Formulary version or other clone formulas you can find online.

 

[Kino]

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!

Read the article again; it states "Lifting the film out of contact with the solution is the preferred methodology for all agitation", thus the need for 100% more empty space above the reel with film in it. Gentle inversion would satisfy this requirement...

 

[Lachlan Young]

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!

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.

 

[Richard Man]

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.

 

[luisrq]

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 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!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

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...

 

[Kino]

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.

That is interesting. Seems the Jobo would be totally antithetical to the agitation requirements. Still apply the reduction in time like for other developers?

 

[luisrq]

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...

 

[Paul Howell]

When I used 777 from BGP I never lifted out of the tank to agitate, well maybe, do not recall if I ever developed 4X5 in it. Decades ago when I processed a lot of film at once I did use large tanks for roll film, I have steel T rods to lift but I never lifted all the way out of the tank.

 

[Richard Man]

That is interesting. Seems the Jobo would be totally antithetical to the agitation requirements. Still apply the reduction in time like for other developers?

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"

 

[Lachlan Young]

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!

To cut a long story very short, D-23, D-25, Microdol & Microdol-X were the outcomes of Kodak's rather more rigorous research into the same aspects of fine grain developers that had led to Edwal 10 & 12, Harvey's 777 etc a few years earlier. Remember too that much of the myth of 777 predates the arrival of much more sophisticated emulsion technology from the early-mid 50's onwards which benefitted from much greater knowledge about the placement of iodide etc in the grain structure. Most of the 'magic' is about a systemic approach to lighting conditions, exposure, processing & printing, not the film developer. You're going to struggle to improve on D-23's qualities.

 

[Kino]

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"

Very nice. I can see why you like it.

 

[luisrq]

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!

 

[Harry Lime]

Here’s some info

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

 

[Richard Man]

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.