Wow, thanks for the link, Richard! I’ve read of Kenny’s work, but never seen any formulas. They look like a lot of trouble to mix up, and are certainly not Germain Fine Grain. Hope someone had tried them, but I’m nuts enough to take a whack at it sometime...What do chemists and long time photographers say about the KennyE 777 formulas?
http://adfasi.blogspot.com/2013/09/hello.html
Superb shadow detail, linear mid tones and glowing highlights are fancy phrases, but a characteristic curve plot would be actually helpful. Note, that the "superb shadow detail" legend came up decades before Phenidone was universally available, and when then current film had the toe of a Triceratops.The legends of 777 include, but are not based on reports of ultra fine grain, but more over glowing highlights, superb shadow detail, and linear midtones. The last three of the four attributes get my attention, as most developers can’t manage all four. D-23 in some variants comes close, as does D-76.
Thank you for the link, Murray! I was too tired to look it up and insert it last night.
I gave the scanner a proper funeral (we have property on the far side of Absolutely Nowhere, and are allowed a burn pit), and had a lovely cremation. An Epson is going to replace it.
I built a headphone amp and a theremin using tubes last year; I love them, but finding sockets, testers, covers, and whatnot is like chasing meteorite fragments for fun and profit. Without fun nor profit. I’ll stick with my film negatives and let Epson do the walking.
What do chemists and long time photographers say about the KennyE 777 formulas?
http://adfasi.blogspot.com/2013/09/hello.html
Not really worth wasting time on. Perceptol or Microdol-X type developers are intended to do the same thing better & with less nasty chemistry. You're better off spending your time on getting processes under control rather than looking for silver bullets that were largely rendered irrelevant by Richard Henn's work that led to Microdol.
Well, personally I use Xtol on Jobo so my processes are pretty well under control. However, since this is Yet Another Thread on 777 and I saw that no one else has mentioned KennyE's work, I thought I would bring it up and see what people say.
Besides, at another 5 pages and counting, and many other threads over the years, so now the summary is "forget about 777, just use Microdol"? Life is so simple!
E6 FD contains about 1 g/l KSCN or NaSCN, but is at the same time not an ultra fine grain speed losing sharpness sacrificing developer. Quite to the contrary, it's a very active B&W developer for full speed and very good sharpness.
Adding a solvent can, but doesn't necessarily create fine grain.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/microdol-microdol-x-differences.39367/#post-562870
Don Cardwell was optimistic that it could be done, nobody tried it AFAIK.
Are there reasons to believe, that 777 is a particular fine grain formula? Pixophrenic listed its unique selling proposition in post 14 in this thread, and ultra fine grain wasn't one of them. If one declares 777 pure magic, then certainly none will find a proper substitute for it. Reality may be different. Speaking for myself here, temperature independent processing and long term tank life alone is not enough of an argument to buy into a developer.
what if there were a formula that "walks and talks" like 777, but it is not "authentic", is there any interest in it?
The whole story reminds me of the endless threads about Microdol-X, the horrible tragedy its discontinuation caused and the lack of public formula. Hundreds of pages were filled with outlandish speculation about its magical ingredients.
Then PE posted the whole set of ingredients, and nobody ever mentioned Microdol-X and its magic ever again. AFAICT nobody ever bothered mixing the full formula. I expect very similar results when the full Harvey 777 formula is ever released to the public.
I am sorry, you can't be right with this. "Competition is busy synthesizing unnecessary chemistry"?? Competition had a much better idea than Microdol-X in substituted o-aminophenols, for example. I think this developer was called "Orthomicrol". The reason they were killed was not necessarily economical, it could be political too. And as film emulsions changed, the chemical elegance of Microdol-X went down the drain. BTW, Haist vol 1 chapter 8 on fine-grain developing opens with the following phrase: "By far the greatest factor in the graininess problem is the character of the film emulsion itself".It's called Perceptol or Microdol-X. <snip> Given the potential economic significance of this, it would be not unreasonable to keep it confidential, especially when your competition is busy spending money synthesising unnecessary chemistry.
.
I am sorry, you can't be right with this. "Competition is busy synthesizing unnecessary chemistry"?? Competition had a much better idea than Microdol-X in substituted o-aminophenols, for example. I think this developer was called "Orthomicrol". The reason they were killed was not necessarily economical, it could be political too. And as film emulsions changed, the chemical elegance of Microdol-X went down the drain. BTW, Haist vol 1 chapter 8 on fine-grain developing opens with the following phrase: "By far the greatest factor in the graininess problem is the character of the film emulsion itself".
What you are telling sounds interesting, perhaps you could give a published reference? Were you one of the participants? Anyway, you would agree that in a corporate structure, such as Kodak or Ilford, some people do the R&D and others make decisions as to where the company would go, and those are not necessarily always in agreement. It is pointless to see chemical or economical reasoning in this. Speaking of Haist, he reiterated the message of how important it was to go for the least toxic ingredients, as he mentioned that large numbers of untrained (in chemistry) people were entering photographic processing. So, suppose someone's developer contains p-aminophenol, p-phenylendiamine and hydroquinone, each necessary to its unique properties. This kind of composition is totally in disagreement with the low toxicity trend. However, you can also envisage some propaganda moves to discredit certain chemicals in favor of others. If you ever had a look into what women all over the world stick onto their scalp when they dye their hair, you would know what I mean. BTW, "low toxicity" does not mean you can be careless around developers containing phenidone and derivatives.The reality is that Kodak was working on substituted PPD's and many other chemicals of that sort throughout this time, mainly for colour films - indeed, Photo Engineer (aka Ron Mowrey) who was one of the peer reviewers of Haist's book, is named in the relevant patent as one of the inventors of CD-6 as used in K-14. That Kodak chose not to use these developing agents in BW developers suggests that they felt there was no good reason to do so - likely because they increasingly knew how developers & iodide placement in the grain structures could be made to interact & thus how to build an emulsion that could maximise sharpness relative to graininess. Haist is an extremely interesting read, but it is also interesting what he left out (commercial sensitivity I imagine) about the subsequent grain growth & sensitising technologies that were deep in R&D at the time he was writing.
As to HEAP of Promicrol & Atomal fame (I assume that's what you're referring to), I think they were trying to find ways to get the same speed boosting effect as Ilford's new PQ developers without paying Ilford for phenidone. In the long term all the big players went down the phenidone (and its evolutions) route for various reasons, most likely the speed boosting & low toxicity.
Don't forget that in the pre-1960 film speed world, 777 & Microdol were not seen as speed losing developers, D-76 was recommended for pushing & the new developers with phenidone or HEAP seen as sending film speeds through the roof without giving impossibly dense highlights from excessive pushing.
Perhaps and explanation to this consistent omission is similar to the one of K. Mees, writing in the intro to the "Theory of Photographic Process": "A book on the theory of photography should contain a chapter on emulsion-making <snip>. The author's knowledge of this subject has been acquired in confidence, however, and he is not entitled to publish the material with the frankness which alone wold justify any publication."Yes - and this is one of the more important aspects of the way the interaction between solvent in the developer & iodide placement in the emulsion can be exploited for the purposes you describe. Rather more baffling to me is the way that people writing about ultra fine grain BW developer formulae seem intent on denying the last 75 years of R&D into developer & emulsion relationships.
IMO, strictly personal, they all look like a consistent mocking of Robert Lyon patent US 2397676. I hoped that Haist would enlighten me in that respect, but the corresponding section is very terse. However, as a chemist I can say that co-crystallization of certain developing agents together (a la "meritol" or "hydramine") is only important if the product is to be sold as a powder in a bottle with a fancy name, similarly to Kodalk. Otherwise, KennyE recipes will develop film that is for sure. whether the result will be worth the effort is another problem entirely.What do chemists and long time photographers say about the KennyE 777 formulas?
http://adfasi.blogspot.com/2013/09/hello.html
Kenny E , formula 777b says only that his formula is a variation of what he was given as Harvey's 777 and also does not state if he refers to before or after "Harvey changed his formula"
A developer called Harvey's 777 was in use well before Lyon's 1946 patent.
Neither casts much light on the matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?