Harvey's 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

[MMfoto]

"Shadow dumping"

Maybe this is obvious, but I believe the meaning of "Panthermic" here is that the contrast curve is not affected over a range of temp's when the time of development is adjusted accordingly, as apposed to a developer where the linear adjustment of time breaks down over an extended range of temperature. Not "Panthermic" as in Diafine where temperature does not affect speed or contrast and you develop the film for the same length of time over a wide range of temperatures. So could the problem with the "shadow dumping" be simply underdeveloped due to not correcting for time? Again, not trying to insult anyones intelligence.

[df cardwell]

"Shadow dumping"

Maybe this is obvious, but I believe the meaning of "Panthermic" here is that the contrast curve is not affected over a range of temp's when the time of development is adjusted accordingly, as apposed to a developer where the linear adjustment of time breaks down over an extended range of temperature. Not "Panthermic" as in Diafine where temperature does not affect speed or contrast and you develop the film for the same length of time over a wide range of temperatures. So could the problem with the "shadow dumping" be simply underdeveloped due to not correcting for time? Again, not trying to insult anyones intelligence.

You've picked up the gist of the puzzle. Here's an old time/contrast chart:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/C02/c02.html

[Tom Hoskinson]

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?

A microscope won't do it.
when I did it (I reported it in an old APUG thread) I used Mass Spectroscopy

[Harry Lime]

Hello Jay -

I'm shooting 135 and 120.

I plan on storing the 777 soup in a 2 gallon storage tank, with a floating lid, snap on lid and spigot. I toying with the idea of half submerging a glass aquarium heater in the soup,, that can be tuned on to heat the developer to 75F when needed. The actual developing will be done in a 4 or 6 reel tank, which I will use 2-3 rolls in, with as much developer as I can fit.

[Gerald Koch]

"777 has a giveaway smell--nice but very distinctive."

I think the smell that is refered to is that of the ppd which is described in some texts as pleasant. Catechol has a "medicinal" smell. AFAIK, glycin is odorless as is hydroquinone.

There are qualitative chemical tests for developing agents. One involves the color generated with ferric chloride. However, before testing one must remove any other developing agents which can mask the result. I believe that there is a chapter in P. Glafkides, Photographic Chemistry, Vol 1, describing how to identify the common developing agents.