Organoleptic properties of Harvey's 777 type developers

[Rudeofus]

Frankly, Rudeofus, I do not understand what you are trying to achieve here. We were talking about sodium sulfite quality then and now. Do you have doubts that it has vastly improved in 60+ years?

I am quite sure that Sodium Sulfite can be made to higher purity standards today, but I am not convinced that it has any effect on buffering. I also don't think that the differences in Sodium Sulfite quality gave Lowe substantially different results from what you mix today.

Do you think it wrong to "desclassify" it after so many years? Especially as it is no longer available for purchase? What if it contained an idea worth using today in other formulas?

The owner of this formula can do anything with this formula including burying it forever, there is absolutely no obligation to publish anything. Given the rather luke warm reaction when Microdol-X's ingredient list was published (after dozens of threads with hundreds of pages of "rah rah we need the complete ingredient list because Microdol-X is unique"), I would not expect blue grass to fall over themselves to get the formula out there.

 

[Pixophrenic]

I am quite sure that Sodium Sulfite can be made to higher purity standards today, but I am not convinced that it has any effect on buffering. I also don't think that the differences in Sodium Sulfite quality gave Lowe substantially different results from what you mix today.

The owner of this formula can do anything with this formula including burying it forever, there is absolutely no obligation to publish anything. Given the rather luke warm reaction when Microdol-X's ingredient list was published (after dozens of threads with hundreds of pages of "rah rah we need the complete ingredient list because Microdol-X is unique"), I would not expect blue grass to fall over themselves to get the formula out there.

I mean no offense, but at this point I am leaning toward a supposition that this formula is some kind of snake oil in the field of developers, which does not contradict the fact that it is interesting, and not only historically. Disclosing it would just reveal this fact and what a disappointment it would be! I never implied that Bluegrass is obligated to publish it, but I do think that this and many other formulas of the past should not be buried forever, because they will be lost. I previously discussed Jean Fage developer, which as I understand was in the public domain from the start. Probably published in a language that nobody in this group understands. After some experiments with it I am convinced that it was an interesting chemical idea, but only for its time and for a couple of decades afterwards, and is of limited utility today. Just as two-bath film development in general. But the principle and its formulas should not be forgotten altogether. So my current view on the 777 is as follows:

water..........................................750 ml
Sodium sulfite,technical grade......90 g
Eastman Kodak Elon...................5-8 g
p-phenylenediamine......................up to 10 g*)
Glycin.........................................at least 0.5 g
volume made to 1 Liter

Processing should be done strictly at 24 degree Celsius or above, time determined by test clips, preferably after one completely fogged dummy film has been developed in a liter.
*) The amount of the last two components sets the keeping properties, and is up to the user. Their amount introduces small, and for most users imperceptible differences in the way highlights are separated, so it is up the user, having also in mind that it is a trade-off between storage time and that subtle, almost imperceptible negative character. Finally, agitation.
Another variable that is totally up to the user. So, you see the beauty of this formula is that it is as individual as it can get in a developer. Mostly, though, it is just plain old D-23. But it's my opinion, man, no obligation of any kind.

 

[Pixophrenic]

I don't think they're afraid of anything, I'd assume they don't exist.

The actual users?

 

[Pixophrenic]

i had some given to me but never mixed it, i shipped it to a friend. i think the powder was off white but sorry
i don't remember, it was in a bag so i don't know what it smelled like.
<snip>
you could always offer to BUY the formula from them.
and then post what the formula actually is
(instead of hopeful rumors, and hearsay formulae )

Yes, they all kept their secrets and some went out of business just the same, and their secrets were lost forever. But, as I maintain in another post, the secret is that there is no secret. Just my opinion, anyway.

 

[Anon Ymous]

The actual users?

Exactly. 777 isn't really talked about here, never been. Sure, you'll find the rare thread if you search, but it certainly is one of the least used developers. Perhaps the least used commercialy available developer.

PS Some say that using three developing agents is a bit of a joke.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, they all kept their secrets and some went out of business just the same, and their secrets were lost forever. But, as I maintain in another post, the secret is that there is no secret. Just my opinion, anyway.

not sure that is isn't a secret
its a non published secret formula,
with hard to get ingredients ..
hard enough to source that they had to find
someone to supply them with componants when their
usual source stopped providing it.
if it was made with glycin, they could have gotten all of the ingredients
from the photographers formulary, they are the last place to make it..
sure, some kept their secrets and they are gone forever, that is what secrets are ... secrets..

glad you came up with something that works for you !

since you are so good at this, can you next figure out the ingredients and recipe for
GAF UNIVERSAL DEVELOPER ?

it came in a red can to make 5 gallons worth at once, it lasted at least 30years in adverse conditions
( extreme cold extreme heat + didn't clump up in the can )
looked straw colored ( i don't remember the smell ) and at about 20-30years old ..
the powder was between whiteish and light tan.
the only thing on the can was probably mix with 3.75 gallons of water and top off to 5 gallons
( or something like that )
and
for prints 1:1, 1:2 2 minutes
for films 1:6 6minutes 68ºF
i've been attempting to find the formula since about 1997-8 with no luck
and just decided to use ansco 130 instead ... works OK but works best at 72ºF because of the glycin

thanks in advance for your help !

PS
i know GAF was ansco and before that agfa ansco and before that agfa
and the numbering of their developers didn't carry over from one company name change
to the next and i have PLI references and even historic recipes that have been mailed to me
and none of them are the GAF UNIVERSAL recipe ...

 

[Rudeofus]

I am quite impressed, that someone who has not even seen a batch of Harvey's 777 can post a rough formula from "pure research" and even dares to judge its merit ("the secret is that there is no secret"). I guess it's postings like this which help me regain some humbleness ...

 

[Pixophrenic]

Exactly. 777 isn't really talked about here, never been. Sure, you'll find the rare thread if you search, but it certainly is one of the least used developers. Perhaps the least used commercialy available developer.

PS Some say that using three developing agents is a bit of a joke.

I still find it strange that no one could tell me the color of commercial 777, just as in the case of Jean Fage developer no one could point to a publication. As for three developing agents in a formula, PE is the one who said it was an indication of a "bad design". With all due respect, I disagree. Apart from the supposition that in 777/Edwal 12 the two additional developing agents do not perform as such, in the case of Jean Fage developer the story is entirely different. I think Crawley was well aware of the fact that turning an MQ developer into a PQ developer gains something but also loses something. You can sense in his articles that he was sort of dismissive of phenidone, then a relative novelty. IMO, he treated it as a <supplement> to his MQ formulas. Today, some current SPUR offerings contain 4 developing agents, and they all make sense (to me, anyway). Of course, in most cases this is superfluous, and possibly could be solved by other means, but definitely not a joke.

 

[Pixophrenic]

I am quite impressed, that someone who has not even seen a batch of Harvey's 777 can post a rough formula from "pure research" and even dares to judge its merit ("the secret is that there is no secret"). I guess it's postings like this which help me regain some humbleness ...

So, what would be your explanation that nobody budges to tell how it looks and smells? The wonderful Wizard of Oz is actually a...?

 

[removed account4]

So, what would be your explanation that nobody budges to tell how it looks and smells? The wonderful Wizard of Oz is actually a...?

there were 2-3 people i know from here who used it, and no longer participate here
if you do a deep search and look for the developer name
you will see the 3 people who used it mention what it looks like / looked like.
so what you are asking for here and now, well
its kind of hard when people don't use it... and prbably most people here have never heard of it .

 

[Pixophrenic]

there were 2-3 people i know from here who used it, and no longer participate here
if you do a deep search and look for the developer name
you will see the 3 people who used it mention what it looks like / looked like.
so what you are asking for here and now, well
its kind of hard when people don't use it... and prbably most people here have never heard of it .

With all due respect, you seem to contradict yourself. You asked earlier why I couldn't just a) buy it, b) enjoy it. Answer to it: I have no use for a gallon of it, just like I have no use for a gallon of Xtol. B) I am going to experience Edwal 12 after it sits for a while. So far it is looking awfully good, no change in color or smell since preparation a few days ago. Regardless of the outcome of me experiencing it, I am not going to use it again. Perhaps, if I really really like it, I might think of finding a substitute for PPD, but I am not sure. Then again, there is Edwal 10. BTW, you sound to me awfully close to be an insider to the 777 business. Trying to draw me away from the nest, sort of.

 

[Pixophrenic]

not sure that is isn't a secret
its a non published secret formula,
with hard to get ingredients ..
hard enough to source that they had to find
someone to supply them with componants when their
usual source stopped providing it.
if it was made with glycin, they could have gotten all of the ingredients
from the photographers formulary, they are the last place to make it..
sure, some kept their secrets and they are gone forever, that is what secrets are ... secrets..QUOTE]

I do not consider myself a particularly smart chemist, but if they ordered all of the components from PF, this would have been a dead giveaway. Another explanation is that the formula states a particular brand of one or more ingredients. As you have seen, I place some value on that, and that is coming from experience.

 

[removed account4]

With all due respect, you seem to contradict yourself. You asked earlier why I couldn't just a) buy it, b) enjoy it. Answer to it: I have no use for a gallon of it, just like I have no use for a gallon of Xtol. B) I am going to experience Edwal 12 after it sits for a while. So far it is looking awfully good, no change in color or smell since preparation a few days ago. Regardless of the outcome of me experiencing it, I am not going to use it again. Perhaps, if I really really like it, I might think of finding a substitute for PPD, but I am not sure. Then again, there is Edwal 10. BTW, you sound to me awfully close to be an insider to the 777 business. Trying to draw me away from the nest, sort of.

how was it that i contradicted myself ?
i figured realistically there are 3 options:
buy an "order" of the developer ;
buy/offer them $$ for the forumula;
and/or
if you are happy with what you claim is the formula
( or the the UBE version ) use that (if it works for you)

i would also suggest you go to antique shops and rub all the oil oil lamps you can find
in hopes to summon a jin and maybe for 1 of your 3 wishes
ask what the BGP formula is ...
but, well, i think the likelyhood of finding a jin in canada is kind of slim,
from all reports i have read ( and from personal experience ) they tend to like warmer climates.

i guess you found me out, uh huh, i work for BGP and i am sowing confusion and feighk gnus
so people buy their magic bullet instead of inventing their own magic bullets I BGP
==

anyways, when you figure out the recipe for the GAF UNIVERSAL can you PM me
its probably the best developer i have ever used and i was really upset when i ran out ...

 

[Pixophrenic]

<snip>
anyways, when you figure out the recipe for the GAF UNIVERSAL can you PM me
its probably the best developer i have ever used and i was really upset when i ran out ...

Seriously, I will look into this. If I find it interesting, I may just try to do it, but no promises right now.

 

[removed account4]

Seriously, I will look into this. If I find it interesting, I may just try to do it, but no promises right now.

huge thanks !

 

[Pixophrenic]

I am quite sure that Sodium Sulfite can be made to higher purity standards today, but I am not convinced that it has any effect on buffering. I also don't think that the differences in Sodium Sulfite quality gave Lowe substantially different results from what you mix today.

<snip>.

Well, you are of course free to believe that, but as an educational exercise try to get some sulfite, technical grade, and use it to mix D-23. I'll be waiting for your impressions.

 

[Rudeofus]

Would my stash of 4€/kg Sodium Sulfite count as "technical grade" ?

 

[Pixophrenic]

From the price I would say so. Any idea of its vendor? If it comes in a commercial package and does not have any statement about its grade and/or per cent purity, this is close to "technical grade". If someone gave it to you from a barrel, I really can't say.

 

[faberryman]

So the talk has shifted from magic bullets to ripened magic bullets. As usual, no talk about whether the developed images were worth developing.

 

[Pixophrenic]

So the talk has shifted from magic bullets to ripened magic bullets. As usual, no talk about whether the developed images were worth developing.

It is because the actual recent users seem to be in hiding. I am talking to Ellen at BGP, she says they have some in stock, but she did not tell me about the shipping cost yet. Could be prohibitive. Also, my Edwal 12 prep is going to sit for a while, so there are no data yet. What kind of images would you find convincing? Wasn't it clear that IMO this developer is in essence D-23 with unusual keeping properties?

 

[Rudeofus]

As it just so happens, Formulary sells this developer to make 1l working solution. I wonder whether its ingredients are supplied as separate powder chems (which you could weigh individually), since instead of one Formulary provides four separate SDS for this product. Either way, for the low price of US$ 14.95 plus shipping to Canada you could answer all your questions related to this product, and deal a massive blow to all these conspirators in hiding who try to keep this info secret from you.

It may, however, turn out, that Harvey 777 is not magic fairy dust, that it is a normal developer with little to no advantage over TMAX, DD-X or Xtol. In this case you still developed a few rolls of film, and at least put some conspiracy theory to rest before it gets totally out of hand and ends up in a stream of insults to people who just didn't care enough about this developer to follow forum threads about it. All for the price of US$ 14.95 plus shipping !!!one!!!eleven!!1!

 

[removed account4]

As it just so happens, Formulary sells this developer to make 1l working solution.

hey rudeofus
the formulary's kit is the recipe that was mentioned on the unblinking eye
its not the real - deal but the kinda sorts works like the real deal ...
as far as i know, you can only get the real - deal in the great state of kentucky
home of blue grass, not dental floss

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

According to Popular Photography three of the ten world's greatest photographers in 1958 used Harvey's 777.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/38552878@N02/26997463387/in/album-72157668554829308/lightbox/

 

[Anon Ymous]

According to Popular Photography three of the ten world's greatest photographers in 1958 used Harvey's 777.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/38552878@N02/26997463387/in/album-72157668554829308/lightbox/

And in many cases, the photographers didn't develop their films, nor did they print them. Many of them used very accomplished and experienced printers that made far more of a difference than any developer did.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

And in many cases, the photographers didn't develop their films, nor did they print them. Many of them used very accomplished and experienced printers that made far more of a difference than any developer did.

You're right. I still would like to know what was the USP of Harvey's 777 if there was one.

As an aside, four of the great photographers mentioned in the Popular Photography article used DK-50. But as its formula is well-known, it might not generate the same level of excitement as Harvey's 777.