Harvey's 777

[c6h6o3]

I will have to figure out how to store 4 gallons in my little apartment. Wine in a box bladders is one way.

No, you won't. The 4 gallon case consists of 4 1-gallon packages in a box. Each 1 gallon package is further subdivided into bags of powders for the A and B solutions which when in solution you combine to form working 777. I only mix up 1 gallon at a time.

 

[Venchka]

Thank you, thank you! That is a load off of my mind!

I assume you divide the 1 gallon into working stock and replenisher?

Finding 1 or 3 friends to split the 4 gallons would bring the cost down further.

 

[c6h6o3]

Thank you, thank you! That is a load off of my mind!

I assume you divide the 1 gallon into working stock and replenisher?

Finding 1 or 3 friends to split the 4 gallons would bring the cost down further.

No, you mix up another gallon to use as replenisher. But I only replenish every 7 or 8 sheets (or rolls). My replenisher is always oxidized before the developer deteriorates due to the ever increasing percentage of my replenisher jug which is air. 777 is very sensitive to air. Keep the bottles full.

Really, guys, as Fred points out, it's not that expensive because you're not one shotting it.

 

[BILL3075]

Photographer's Formulary

Has anyone using 777 tried PF's version of this developer?
And does anyone know how it compares with the Bluegrass version?

Thanks,
BILL

 

[Venchka]

No, you mix up another gallon to use as replenisher. But I only replenish every 7 or 8 sheets (or rolls). My replenisher is always oxidized before the developer deteriorates due to the ever increasing percentage of my replenisher jug which is air. 777 is very sensitive to air. Keep the bottles full.

Really, guys, as Fred points out, it's not that expensive because you're not one shotting it.

OK, in that case I can fill a wine bladder with replenisher and there won't be any oxidation. Add replenisher when the working container needs topping up. A plan!

 

[Venchka]

Has anyone using 777 tried PF's version of this developer?
And does anyone know how it compares with the Bluegrass version?

Thanks,
BILL

What name does PF use? Where do we look in their catalog?

 

[Venchka]

Found it. Harvey's Defender 777. Substantially more expensive.

 

[Fred De Van]

No, you mix up another gallon to use as replenisher. But I only replenish every 7 or 8 sheets (or rolls). My replenisher is always oxidized before the developer deteriorates due to the ever increasing percentage of my replenisher jug which is air. 777 is very sensitive to air. Keep the bottles full.

Really, guys, as Fred points out, it's not that expensive because you're not one shotting it.

BPI did make a dedicated real repenisher. I know, I still have some.

Ask BPI if they will make a run of pure real repenisher if there is sufficient demand. The use of real replinsher makes 777 even cheaper to use. You add only 3/4 ounce per 80 Sq. In. ( 80 Sq. In = 4 sheets of 4x5, 1 roll of 120, 1 36 exp. 35mm film). Actual replenisher is much more desirable than using fresh developer. You can tell them apart by the color of the labels. One is red the other blue.

777 is definitely NOT!!! sensitive to air. Because of the PPD it does normally discolor, but this has NO effect on its working ability.

It certainly was not a good practice but, many users left 3.5 gallon tanks of the stuff totally uncovered for days with NO ill effect. I would mix up 3 gallons of developer and one gallon of replenisher at a time. Months later it was normal for me to go on a months long trip to the other side of the world, and/or spend months shooting only Kodachrome and the other chrome films. It was common especially in the summer that the 1/4 filled bottle of 777 replenisher to sit unused for months. Over decades of this there was NEVER a problem, and I never heard of anyone else encountering a problem.

A tank with a floating lid may easily end whatever you are experiencing. The lid (with a layer of Saran wrap under it) will follow the level of what you have in it. Adding glass marbles is a heavy way of excluding air but usable, and so is the light weight cure of displacing the air with nitrogen or other inert gas, if using bottles. 777 was the standard developer for thousands of NY studio photographers, and most the legendary iconic fashion images could not have been made without it. There were far more people using it (but for reasons that no longer apply) within the photo community than not. It was seldom advertised, and as such, was transparent and invisable to the mass media hobby magazines. Advertising the stuff made little sense and resulted in a contradiction anyway. It is no exageration for me or many others to state that we changed cars more often than we changed our 777.

A simple solution is to use 3 quart bottles and 2 pint bottles in place of a gallon bottle which will eventually fill with air. Even when you are down to the final dregs of the gallon, you simply use ever smaller bottles. You use it so slowly, even this is not any hassle at all. An emmently simple cure to what seems to be vexing imponderable.

"I only replenish every 7 or 8 sheets (or rolls)"
​

That statement only equates if your sheets are 8x10. Either way, you are replenishing too little especially if you are using 1 gallon or less of developer.


Fred

 

[nworth]

I've seen a number of different formulas for 777, and that may be part of the confusion I see here. One group are simple metol based developers with added sulfates - really very much like D-23 with added sulfate for high temperature processing. These at least conform to the name "Harvey's Panthermic 777." A similar Edwal product was Edwal Themofine. The other group of formulas are based on p-phenylene diamine and also contain metol, glycin, or both. They are pretty much classic superfine grain formulas (but not extreme superfine grain, like pure PPD developers), roughly Sease No. 4 plus metol. Edwal 12 is similar to these. These are very different developers.

 

[c6h6o3]

A plan!

and an excellent one. I've been using half gallon jugs.

How do I get the developer into the bladder once I've emptied it?

 

[c6h6o3]

Has anyone using 777 tried PF's version of this developer?
And does anyone know how it compares with the Bluegrass version?

Thanks,
BILL

At $11.95/liter, 4 gallons from PF will run you $181.64, excluding shipping. This is more than $45.00/gallon. Bluegrass's price is <$60.00 for a 4 gallon case, delivered. That's less than $15.00/gallon. I need more than 1 liter when I tray develop sheet film.

Furthermore, since Bluegrass owns the rights and jealously guards the proprietary formula, one has to wonder if PF's is truly the real deal. If they're repackaging developer obtained from Bluegrass, I suppose that would account for the exorbitant price. If they're not, then what assurances do we have that it's Harvey's formula? Why not just get it straight from the source?

 

[c6h6o3]

BPI did make a dedicated real repenisher. I know, I still have some.

Ask BPI if they will make a run of pure real repenisher if there is sufficient demand. The use of real replinsher makes 777 even cheaper to use. You add only 3/4 ounce per 80 Sq. In. ( 80 Sq. In = 4 sheets of 4x5, 1 roll of 120, 1 36 exp. 35mm film). Actual replenisher is much more desirable than using fresh developer. You can tell them apart by the color of the labels. One is red the other blue.

777 is definitely NOT!!! sensitive to air. Because of the PPD it does normally discolor, but this has NO effect on its working ability.



A simple solution is to use 3 quart bottles and 2 pint bottles in place of a gallon bottle which will eventually fill with air. Even when you are down to the final dregs of the gallon, you simply use ever smaller bottles. You use it so slowly, even this is not any hassle at all. An emmently simple cure to what seems to be vexing imponderable.

"I only replenish every 7 or 8 sheets (or rolls)"
​

That statement only equates if your sheets are 8x10. Either way, you are replenishing too little especially if you are using 1 gallon or less of developer.


Fred

Fred:

They are 8x10 sheets. Now that I look at the replenishment chart again I see that the 6 oz. every 8 sheets with which I've been replenishing my gallon is less than half of what I should be adding, assuming that the area of 1 sheet is roughly equivalent to the surface area of a 120 roll.

Thanks for the tip about the color change. I've been assuming that when the replenisher gets to be the color of black tea it's no good and have then been throwing it out. And thanks for taking the time to contribute to this thread. The insights you provide are rare, since they can only come from years of experience as a successful pro. We dilettante amateurs would never stumble on these things in a thousand years.

Jim Shanesy

 

[Venchka]

Carefully

and an excellent one. I've been using half gallon jugs.

How do I get the developer into the bladder once I've emptied it?

I have only been able to extract the spigot from freshly emptied bladders. When the wine is gone, the spigot comes out with firm but gentle prying with a SS table knife. Flat of the blade worked round and round. It eventually comes out. Rinse and rinse and rinse. I keep Xtol in a bladder in the original box. Works fine.

I have never been able to remove the spigot a second time after the Xtol is gone. I have to drink wine in amounts equal to my Xtol usage.

Thanks to everyone for all of this great information.

 

[Richard Wasserman]

Instead of buying a lot of cheap wine, how about using these? http://www.survivalsolutions.com/store/product41.html

Richard

 

[c6h6o3]

Instead of buying a lot of cheap wine, how about using these? http://www.survivalsolutions.com/store/product41.html

Richard

Unnecessary. All the air does is discolor the solution, not degrade it's reduction properties. See Fred's comments above.

 

[Venchka]

Thanks Richard. Not a bad idea for Xtol and other oxygen attacked developers.

 

[BILL3075]

Just Ordered 777

Just ordered both the developer and the replenisher. Each come in 4-1 gal. packages, the former @$46.75, the latter @ $58.32.

BILL

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, if it's anything like Edwal 12 (available as developer #12 from Photographer's Formulary) you'll be pleased to print your negatives!

I used it for some time, replenished, and it is amazing stuff. I only use Xtol now because the Formulary ran out of PPD and couldn't get it for a while. It's a good substitute, but doesn't have the highlight intensity of the PPD/glycin developer.

 

[Venchka]

Just ordered both the developer and the replenisher. Each come in 4-1 gal. packages, the former @$46.75, the latter @ $58.32.

BILL

Bill,

Thanks for the up to date information! I have started a 777 fund.

 

[fotch]

Just ordered both the developer and the replenisher. Each come in 4-1 gal. packages, the former @$46.75, the latter @ $58.32.

BILL

Sure makes me want to try it out sometime.

 

[mccolalx]

Is 777 particularly light sensitive?
Do I need to keep it in brown plastic containers, or can i keep the working solution in a clear glass jug?

 

[rmolson]

777

777


I recall using the original 777 back in the late 40’s when I was in high school. Course I also used all of Edwals liquid developers at the time 12, 20 and Minicol As a 16 year old and font of all knowledge looking for the magic developer, I don’t remember a thing about the results!!!! However it strikes me that for a small user, one or two rolls every other week , it might not be too practical.

 

[df cardwell]

Well, if it's anything like Edwal 12....

It is not at all like Edwal 12. E-12 is simply a D-76 variation,
and is superior to D-76 in a couple things, and less good in a couple things,
a superb secondary developer.

777 is not anything like D-76: has a higher pH, has less film speed, and wants very much to make negatives with a high Contrast Index. It has its own charm, and is a very fine replenishment developer.

 

[Anscojohn]

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

*******
It was Vienna.

 

[mccolalx]

I've been trying to use 777 recently, and I think that I'm having a problem with it. It seems like, even when I increase recommended times, everything is underdeveloped.
I shot a test roll of HP5+ starting at ASA 320 (incident metered), overexposed +4,+3,+2,+1 and then underexposed -4,-3,-2,-1. I developed for 11 minutes at 73 degrees (the package recommends 11 min at 72-74, but from searching on the internet, i was finding times ranging from 9-15 minutes). I then made prints from the -1, 0, and +1.
All three, with my enlarger lens set at f11, needed heavy contrast filter use to get a useable print.
I am presoaking for 1 minute, so i'm not sure if that is affecting the developer (it never seems to do have a time extending effect when i use other developers).
This seems to be a problem that i have encountered regularly with 777.
I really like the tonality and what it does to the grain structure of the films that I'm using, I just feel that I'm having to use much longer than recommended times for any film that I'm developing.
Any hints/suggestions from frequent 777 users?