Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,705   Posts: 1,482,776   Online: 1038
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: 777

  1. #21
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3 View Post
    I keep hoping that demand for 777 will dwindle to such an extent that Bluegrass will give up making it and release the formula. I don't know why they guard it so jealously. They can't be making any money out of it.

    Having said that, let me make a standing offer to anyone qualified to make a chemical analysis of it that I will contribute a gallon of 777 to that effort. I have both unmixed powders and a seasoned gallon of liquid.

    AND...called them again last week, spoke to Laura, she said she would check with the higher powers, after she told me two months ago that they were entering production again, she said she would call me right back...and of course she didn't. Just sell me one kit, Jim!

  2. #22
    PDH
    PDH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    448
    Is Photogapher's Formulary's 777 the same as 777 from Bluefire? I have used Formulary's clone of Edwal 12 and Bluefire's 777 but liked Edwal much better. I kept a tank of Edwal 12 going for 4 or 5 years before moving on use my existing stock of develoeprs but plan to return to Edwal 12 as soon as clean out my old stock. I used gloves and mask when using both developers, never exeprianced any reactions.

  3. #23
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,985
    Images
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by PDH View Post
    Is Photogapher's Formulary's 777 the same as 777 from Bluefire? I have used Formulary's clone of Edwal 12 and Bluefire's 777 but liked Edwal much better. I kept a tank of Edwal 12 going for 4 or 5 years before moving on use my existing stock of develoeprs but plan to return to Edwal 12 as soon as clean out my old stock. I used gloves and mask when using both developers, never exeprianced any reactions.
    Dr Lowe published his formula for Developer 12.

    Panthermic 777 formula has not been published, as far as I know, so there's no way of telling if they are the same. But, I seem to remember someone simply weighing the two kits, coming up with rather different weights, indicating they are actually fairly dissimilar in their composition.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #24
    dr5chrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    439
    Images
    12
    ISGO in LA was known for using this developer at their lab back when i 1st started in the 80s.

    As I know it, it had a dedicated following, a love/hate developer.
    It is not a small-take developer, and is very difficult to use.

    dw

  5. #25
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,137
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by dr5chrome View Post
    ISGO in LA was known for using this developer at their lab back when i 1st started in the 80s.

    As I know it, it had a dedicated following, a love/hate developer.
    It is not a small-take developer, and is very difficult to use.

    dw
    It's not difficult to use but once you figure out what works for you, don't change anything. You must be completely consistent with it. I use it in trays. You don't have to have a deep tank. I do, however, use the entire gallon when developing 8x10s and I do no more than 2 at a time. It likes a lot of solution per sq. in. of film area.

    @MaximusM3: I want to keep what I have (around 3 gallons worth of powders) as I don't know for sure that Bluegrass will make any more. However, I know someone who has some (and replenisher, too). I will be seeing this person in a couple of weeks so I will ask if he'll part with a gallon. I'll let you know.

    Where are you located?
    Jim

  6. #26
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    755
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3 View Post
    It's not difficult to use but once you figure out what works for you, don't change anything. You must be completely consistent with it. I use it in trays. You don't have to have a deep tank. I do, however, use the entire gallon when developing 8x10s and I do no more than 2 at a time. It likes a lot of solution per sq. in. of film area.

    @MaximusM3: I want to keep what I have (around 3 gallons worth of powders) as I don't know for sure that Bluegrass will make any more. However, I know someone who has some (and replenisher, too). I will be seeing this person in a couple of weeks so I will ask if he'll part with a gallon. I'll let you know.

    Where are you located?
    Thanks, Jim, if not too much trouble. I'm in NY. I will keep pestering Bluegrass until they either make it, or tell me to go to hell.

    Max

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,527
    The question that must be asked about 777 and other "fossil" developers containing PPD or OPD. If they are so good then why don't more people use them. People are not beating a path to BPI's door. The answer is that these formulas are unnecessary with modern fine grain films. Indeed they can cause dichroic fog with some emulsions. Often the market place is the best arbiter of what is good and what is not.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 03-16-2012 at 11:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  8. #28
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,985
    Images
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    The question that must be asked about 777 and other "fossil" developers containing PPD or OPD. If they are so good then why don't more people use them. People are not beating a path to BPI's door. The answer is that these formulas are unnecessary with modern fine grain films. Indeed they can cause dichroic fog with some emulsions. Often the market place is the best arbiter of what is good and what is not.
    The reason for using a developer like Edwal 12 is because of the tonality it renders. It was designed for flat Midwestern light, and gives a real intensity to the highlights that I haven't seen in other developers. Technically incorrect with a crooked tone curve (very strong s-curve), but very beautiful prints. I haven't been able to replicate it with other developers.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #29
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,985
    Images
    279
    I should add that Edwal 10 (without PPD) yields an almost identical tonality, but with far coarser grain.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,018
    I agree. There are good reasons for using many of these developers, but they have fallen out of favor because of the loss in film speed and a reputation for low sharpness. Both of these detriments seem to be overblown. I've used a couple of CD2 based developers that have less extreme effects on the curve than Edwal 12 but still give the lovely gradation and tonality mentioned above. The negatives seem generally very easy to print. CD2 is a more powerful developing agent than PPD, so there is really very little speed loss and the sharpness is comparable to D-23. I've also tried DuPont 5-D (one of the Sease formulas) when I had fresh glycin, and it proved similar - good prints (not quite as nice), little loss of speed, good enough sharpness.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin