Harvey's 777

[Harry Lime]

I'm about to take the plunge and try Harvey's 777. I recently purchased two packs from the Frugal Photographer and before I get started with it I had a few questions, that perhaps someone here can answer.


Storage. I thinking about getting two 2 gallon tanks with floating lids.
One for the active developer and the second for the replenisher.

http://tinyurl.com/d69op


Any hints about mixing this stuff? It appears that one of the components is quite toxic, so I will use rubber gloves.

How about replenishing? I've only ever used one-shot developers, so any information would be appreciated.

I shoot Tri-X@400 in 135 (and some 120) 90% of the time. Does anyone have any experience with this combination?

Can you push process Tri-X to 800 or 1600 in 777?

Is 777 closer to XTOL or D76? Someone told me it's similar to Pyro...
This may be a difficult question to answer, since the formula is secret, but perhaps someone can speak from experience.

Considering the advances that have been made in the past decades (XTOL etc.), is 777 still worth the effort? I know there is no such thing as a magic bullet in photography, but 777 sure sounds intriguing.

How about development temperature? I read somewhere that it works best at 75F. How about room temperature (68F)?

777 is supposed to be very sensitive to agitation. Anyone care to share?

How about the ripening process? How does this work?

I have read that 777 should be used in large quantities. I have a 1000 ml tank that I was going to use to develop no more than 2 rolls at a time in. How do you folks deal with 4 rolls at a time? Do you use an 8 roll tank for 4 rolls? I sometimes shoot 10 rolls or more at a time on an assignment, so I need to find an efficient method to process large batches.

I would appreciate any other comments or experiences anyone can share, regarding this developer. If anyone has any examples they would like to share, that would be great.


Thanks,

Harry Lime

 

[df cardwell]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Harvey's 777 is functionally VERY SIMILAR to Edwal 12, whose chemist, Dr. Edmund L. Lowe, belived in full documentation. While the proportions are somewhat different, like D23 is to D76, what you can say about using one is true for the other. Take a look at the link to an extract from Lowe's book, " What You Want to Know About Developers, Fine Grain and Otherwise". He details how you use the developer as a 1 shot, or as a replenishment developer. He details the critical step of 'seasoning' if you are to replenish.

The classic notion of 'fine grain' is regular, sharp, and unclumpy grain. This is a fine grain developer by that notion, do not expect a soft, solvent image.

Also, the normal gamma, or contrast index, of the day was higher than is normal today. Allow the negative to develop fully, and use a softer than Dektol developer to print your pictures.

The magic behind this type of developer, PPD, contributes little to development of the image. Rather it energized Glycin which normally will not function at this low pH. The long and faithful highlights characterize this developer is common to glycin developers. The metol in the formula was introduced by Lowe ( and copied by Harvey ) to increase density in the low values. His mechanism was used later by Crawley in FX2, Wimberley, Hutchings, and Sandy King.

The developer will stain anything it touches. So, don't use Granny's Tea Towels. No need to be paranoid, just don't drink it.

It is excellent, either as Edwal 12 or 777. Use D76 starting times, and don't be obsessive about 2005 densitometry methods for determing speed point, CI, etc. It's a great 1938 developer.

.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Welcome Harry.

Here is very comprehensive article on 777 posted at Unblinkingeye if you have not yet seen it:http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I'm about to take the plunge and try Harvey's 777. I recently purchased two packs from the Frugal Photographer and before I get started with it I had a few questions, that perhaps someone here can answer.


Storage. I thinking about getting two 2 gallon tanks with floating lids.
One for the active developer and the second for the replenisher.

http://tinyurl.com/d69op


Any hints about mixing this stuff? It appears that one of the components is quite toxic, so I will use rubber gloves.

How about replenishing? I've only ever used one-shot developers, so any information would be appreciated.

I shoot Tri-X@400 in 135 (and some 120) 90% of the time. Does anyone have any experience with this combination?

Can you push process Tri-X to 800 or 1600 in 777?

Is 777 closer to XTOL or D76? Someone told me it's similar to Pyro...
This may be a difficult question to answer, since the formula is secret, but perhaps someone can speak from experience.

Considering the advances that have been made in the past decades (XTOL etc.), is 777 still worth the effort? I know there is no such thing as a magic bullet in photography, but 777 sure sounds intriguing.

How about development temperature? I read somewhere that it works best at 75F. How about room temperature (68F)?

777 is supposed to be very sensitive to agitation. Anyone care to share?

How about the ripening process? How does this work?

I have read that 777 should be used in large quantities. I have a 1000 ml tank that I was going to use to develop no more than 2 rolls at a time in. How do you folks deal with 4 rolls at a time? Do you use an 8 roll tank for 4 rolls? I sometimes shoot 10 rolls or more at a time on an assignment, so I need to find an efficient method to process large batches.

I would appreciate any other comments or experiences anyone can share, regarding this developer. If anyone has any examples they would like to share, that would be great.


Thanks,

Harry Lime

I have no direct experience with this developer - but it sounds to me like a classic Magic Bullet. I haven't tested it because I won't buy a developer that has no MSDS. I can not find an MSDS for 777 published by Frugal Photographer or by Bluegrass Packaging.

Frugal Photographer sells the 777 product distributed (and presumably manufactured) by BlueGrass Packaging. According to Apug member John Jnanian, Bluegrass denies that their 777 contains any Glycin - they also say the formula is completely different from the 777 formula published on the Unblinking Eye site.

 

[c6h6o3]

Bluegrass denies that their 777 contains any Glycin - they also say the formula is completely different from the 777 formula published on the Unblinking Eye site.

Did they really say "Our formula does not contain any glycin" or did they just refuse to confirm that it does? If the former, then I think they're lying. I've used a lot of glycin developers and they all have a unique look which is just not there without it.

I have not been able to pry a single word out of Bluegrass as to what's in it. Do I care? Fred De Van had the best answer to that question:

"None of us had any interest in making it ourselves, but what was in it was a constant question. The differences in performance in small tanks and the way agitation changed the result always led to the question as to why (when there was time to think of such otherwise unimportant things--we knew how to use it right)."

I figure that if it was good enough for Henri Cartier-Bresson (who insisted on its use) then it's good enough for me.

 

[Bill Mitchell]

There were a couple of pages devoted to using 777 in the early post-war (1947?)Leica Manual. (Sorry I can't give details, but I just moved and all my books are still in boxes.)

 

[Colin Graham]

Harry Lime...the name makes me think of zither music and Orson Welles walking down a Berlin alley...

 

[df cardwell]

df,

thanks for the link, and commentary. Reading that the glycin in Edwal 12 can be adjusted between 2 and 10 grams/liter, it's not much of a stretch to see a formula containing 7g ea. of glycin,metol and p-phenylenediamine, which might be called 777, and behave much like Edwal 12.



Do you have this info as well?

Jay

Yes ! Also available in the Photo Lab Index, both Edwal 12 and 777.

I love going through Lowe's writing. You can trace the Sease formulas ( PPD and Glycin ) to Lowe's ( add Metol ). And When Lowe published, he shared all the techniques and variations, even down to using thiocyanate, and how to doctor the dose to avoid fog. It'll have to be snowing pretty hard before I take that one on ! There are always going to be inventive, rigourous and clear-headed folks in photography, and Lowe is really inspiring.

 

[Harry Lime]

Harry Lime...the name makes me think of zither music and Orson Welles walking down a Berlin alley...

That would be Vienna, mein Freund.
;-)


Harry Lime

 

[removed account4]

According to Apug member John Jnanian, Bluegrass denies that their 777 contains any Glycin - they also say the formula is completely different from the 777 formula published on the Unblinking Eye site.

this is true - i called and asked them directly if this developer contains glycin, and they told me that it does not. they also told me they have read the formula published on the unblinking eye website and the person i spoke with giggled and said they were "way off" ... i also asked this person what she had to do with the "777" - she said she was the person who mixed up, packaged it, and sent it out to customers who wanted it.

not sure if she was joking with me, if she was, i fell for it

- john

 

[Colin Graham]

That would be Vienna, mein Freund.
;-)


Harry Lime

Vienna, of course! I thought Berlin sounded wrong. Thanks

 

[Harry Lime]

Thanks everyone for your input. I ordered the two tanks this morning and hope to mix up my first batch as soon as they get here.


Cheers,

Harry Lime

 

[c6h6o3]

Thanks everyone for your input. I ordered the two tanks this morning and hope to mix up my first batch as soon as they get here.


Cheers,

Harry Lime

PM me and I'll give you some tips on mixing it, which I do a little differently than the method in the packaged instructions.

 

[Gerald Koch]

777 contains paraphenylenediamine which can cause severe dermatitis. Be sure to wear nitrile (not latex) rubber gloves when working with it. I've had a reaction to a color developing agent (a substituted paraphenylenediamine) and it is VERY unpleasant! Intense itching for 2 weeks and blisters the size of peas.

 

[Harry Lime]

>

777 contains paraphenylenediamine which can cause >severe dermatitis. Be sure to wear nitrile (not latex) rubber gloves when >working with it. I've had a reaction to a color developing agent (a substituted >paraphenylenediamine) and it is VERY unpleasant! Intense itching for 2 weeks >and blisters the size of peas.

Thanks for the heads up.

Now, here is a question for thsoe who actually use this stuff. Is this developer really worth all of the extra trouble? It's more toxic than the average soup, needs to be used at 75F etc.

I'm not expecting a miracle, but what is the incentive, advantage or look it delivers, that makes it worthwhile?

What motivated me to give it a try was it's implied ability to deliver delicate highlights and a very long tonal scale, along with fine grain and a unique glow.



Thanks

Harry Lime

 

[Gerald Koch]

Published photographs made with this developer look very, very nice and do seem to have a certain glow. But I'm not sure that this couldn't be done with another developer.

 

[df cardwell]

It does not need to be used at 75 degrees

Glycin's signature is a long, unblocked curve which makes infinite highlights possible, in other words, glow

There are a few glycin developers, they share this characteristic

The fine grain, and note it is the CLASSIC fine grain: small, distinct, and regular as opposed to both clumpy grain and mushy grain, is a result of the very low pH the developer works at. This is possible due to the energizing effect of PPD on Glycin.

D23 works at a similar pH, but the grain is quite mushy my comparison.

PPD + Glycin, used in the replenishment method, with intermittent agitation, makes a unique landscape of local contrast. Crawley has written a great deal about this, Troop acknowledges it in his Cookbook. Yet Crawley acknowledges that it is "Speculative Sensitometry", meaning the process is very complex and while it is dependable and pleasing, hard to explain with 100% certainty is going on.

I disagree it is more toxic than an average soup. But I don't drink Rodinal, don't develop color in my bare hands, and I wipe up spills.

Most developers common today are very similar and were made to be used in a similar fashion, and to meet today's fashion in sensitometric standards. To get results different from D-76, you don't try D23, HC110, or even Xtol. Get away from a high sulfite developer and you can get different results. But to get the most from a film and developer combination, you have to use it correctly.

Glycin/PPD developers want to make a higher density negative than we assume is natural and correct. If you are willing to see what happens, than you may very well be overjoyed with the results. If you are terrified of letting your densitometer know you are cheating on it, maybe you better not.

My experience and taste convince me there is more 'magic' in this type of developer than in Pyro. But I'm not much of a follower.

.

 

[jim appleyard]

Published photographs made with this developer look very, very nice and do seem to have a certain glow. But I'm not sure that this couldn't be done with another developer.

Agreed. I think we tend to forget sometimes that there is also lighting and composition that go into the making of a good photo.

 

[c6h6o3]

It does not need to be used at 75 degrees

It does need, however, to be used at at least 72 degrees F or it will dump the shadows unmercifully. 75 - 78 degrees is optimal. I've used it at 82 degrees with splendid results, but the difference between 72 and 70 degrees is the difference between fine negatives and throwaways.

 

[MMfoto]

For God's sake. All this speculation is killing me. Can anyone identify a "bit" of Glycin under a microscope. Or is there a test that can be run to determine if there is indeed Glycin in 777?

 

[df cardwell]

It does need, however, to be used at at least 72 degrees F or it will dump the shadows unmercifully. 75 - 78 degrees is optimal. I've used it at 82 degrees with splendid results, but the difference between 72 and 70 degrees is the difference between fine negatives and throwaways.

OK, you have my attention. How do your results compare to the old 777 time temp tables ?

What are you using, the BPI stuff, or the Germain/Unblinking eye formula ?

And, I've never really known what people meant by this, what do you mean by 'dumping' ?

 

[c6h6o3]

OK, you have my attention. How do your results compare to the old 777 time temp tables ?

What are you using, the BPI stuff, or the Germain/Unblinking eye formula ?

And, I've never really known what people meant by this, what do you mean by 'dumping' ?

I don't know what the old 777 time temp tables are. I just experiment until I get negatives which print beautifully.

I use the BPI stuff.

Dumping means shadows that you metered for Zone III become essentially fog+base. In the case of 777 shadow density just falls off a cliff below 72 degrees.

 

[c6h6o3]

For God's sake. All this speculation is killing me. Can anyone identify a "bit" of Glycin under a microscope. Or is there a test that can be run to determine if there is indeed Glycin in 777?

The only way BPI would ever convince me it's not in there is to let me watch them make a batch without it and then let me develop my negatives in that batch to verify that the same qualities are present.

 

[df cardwell]

I don't know what the old 777 time temp tables are. I just experiment until I get negatives which print beautifully.

I use the BPI stuff.

Dumping means shadows that you metered for Zone III become essentially fog+base. In the case of 777 shadow density just falls off a cliff below 72 degrees.

OK, this is interesting. Harold Harvey's articles from the late '30s, the contrast / temp tables from Defender, and data published as late as 1970 in the Photo-Lab Index by Best Photo Industries ( now, Bluegrass Packaging Industries ) all stress the 'panthermic' qualities of 777: predictable speed and contrast from 65 to 90 degrees.

Here's a link to Unblinking Eye's 777 table for Tri X: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/C02/c02.html

If the current BPI stuff loses shadow density below 72 degrees, it doesn't meet Harvey's original criteria. Has it been changed ?

What developers go inactive at 72 degrees ?

.

 

[Harry Lime]

So, how do you guys heat your 777 to 75F?

waterbath?
Aquarium heater?

Anyone?

Harry Lime