Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,966   Posts: 1,523,361   Online: 1190
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rhine valley
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    107
    Never the less, 777 formula from unblinkingeye works great for me on HP5+. I used N,N-Diethyl-Phenylendiamin-Sulfat from Merck in that formula, it is a fine slightly off-white powder. Just the Glycine is very expensive....

    Thru the years I used a fake formula of Calbe A 49, which turned to be a fake formula of May&Baker Promicrol and it still works well with 400 speed films, using
    6 g N,N-Diethyl-Phenylendiamin, 1.2 g Glycine, 100 g Na-sulfite, 12 g Na-Carbonat
    The combination Phenylendiamin/Glycin seems to reduce grainsize on old style emulsions to improve resolution.
    Colour? We can always use an airbrush later...

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,525
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    I certainly want to avoid raining on anyone's parade, but I feel compelled to point out that BPI says that the 777 formula posted on Ed Buffaloe's website is wrong. BPI's price is pretty dear (although again, to be fair, you get years worth of developer in a 4 gallon case, which costs <$60 including shipping), but I consider 400TMax developed in 777 to be the closest thing we'll find to the Photographic Philosopher's Stone.

    Over the years I've tried D-76 (who hasn't?), HC110, Microdol-X, TMax RS (which is really just D-76 with a different label), D-23, DK-50, FG-7, Rodinal, PMK, ABC pyro, Pyrocat HD, Windisch Catechol, FX-1, FX-2, TFX-2, TD-3 for Tech Pan, WD2D, WD2D+ and Rollo Pyro. I consider 777 an unfair advantage over any of them, when used with 400TMax, the best B&W film manufactured today.

    If you want to effortlessly make negatives which will easily produce glowing prints, BPI's product represents the better part of valor. Do yourself a favor and don't screw around. I don't know if the BPI formula is the original Defender 777 or not, but it's so good that I don't really care. In any case, since it's still available and according to BPI in constantly heavy demand, why experiment? They'll continue to manufacture it as long as we continue to buy it.
    Nobody's parade is being rained on. I suspect neither formula is the exact duplicate of 777. I have no reason to believe Bluegrasse's is any better or worse than what I am going to do. If you add up the amount spent on PF's chemicals to make 7 litres of 777, it's more than the 4 gallon commercial version.

    But... it's what I am going to try. Why experiment? Cause that's what I do.

    I have used about half the developers you have listed, and like most of them.

    Some of us do things the hard way because we like it that way. The formula given is very close to other old glycin based formulas so it must be close to something that might work. We might just have to call it Buffaloe's 777.

    tim in san jose

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530

    Dupont defender.

    I have a booklet published in 1946 by Dupont called "Dupont defender formula book" while it does not have the formula for 777 it does have a p-phenylene diamine/glycin formula called defender 5-D. If anybody wants it I will post it here.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    I have a booklet published in 1946 by Dupont called "Dupont defender formula book" while it does not have the formula for 777 it does have a p-phenylene diamine/glycin formula called defender 5-D. If anybody wants it I will post it here.
    Please post the Defender 5-D formula, Jorge. I'll add it to my collection.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Gere goes:

    Water (125 ºF/52 ºC) 750 ml
    Sodium Sulfite desiccated (I suppose this means anhydorus) 90 gr
    p-phenylene diamine base (Not hydrochloride) 10 gr
    Glycin 2 gr
    add water to make 1 liter.

    dissolve in this order, ppda and glycin are hard to dissolve so start with warm water as stated

    Fine grain developer

    use full strenght. exposure requires about 50% to 100% additional exposure to keep shadow detail.

    For a gamma of 0.7 develop for 25 to 30 minutes at 68 ºF with ocasional agitation.

    Of course if you want the formula used by Bluegrass you can look it up here..

    http://www.nationalacademyofphotogra.../misc-dev.html

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Thanks for the formula, Jorge.

    BTW, the URL you gave for the "Bluegrass" Formula gets you to:

    1. The Bluegrass website where you can email them about buying their developer (which they say does not contain Glycine and is definitly not the same as Ed Buffaloe's 777.
    2. The Unblinking Eye site where you can read the article "Remembering 777" by Fred De Van with additional comments by Ted Kaufman, Larry Price and Ed Buffaloe. This article contains the formula for Ed Buffaloe's 777.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson
    Thanks for the formula, Jorge.

    BTW, the URL you gave for the "Bluegrass" Formula gets you to:

    1. The Bluegrass website where you can email them about buying their developer (which they say does not contain Glycine and is definitly not the same as Ed Buffaloe's 777.
    2. The Unblinking Eye site where you can read the article "Remembering 777" by Fred De Van with additional comments by Ted Kaufman, Larry Price and Ed Buffaloe. This article contains the formula for Ed Buffaloe's 777.
    It is actually Harvey's 777 formula the one used by Fred and Ed in his site. At the time of the article I was helping Ted develop a Glycin/PPD developer and this is the reason he got involved in this article, but he seems to have disappear.

    If I remember correctly Fred De Van mentioned in a photo.net thread that he had worked with someone who had developed or figured out the Defender formula, but I could be wrong, it has been a couple of years since then. From what I remember 777 did have glycin as an active ingredient, of course Dupont never released the formula, so it is anybodies guess whether the Bluegrass formula is really the original 777 or just another formulation much like Harvey's 777.

  8. #18
    garryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    542
    Images
    2
    I remember at the time of the thread if the caller ,to Bluegrass, said Glycine or Glycin.
    They are different chemicals. I also wonderer how one individual would go through 4 gallons of developer. They produce for commerical clients and are obviously thinking in terms of deep tanks. It will be interesting to see your results. BTW, have you seen the (PDF) file of an original 777 instructions sheet posted on web?

    http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Ha...77RefChart.pdf
    "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by garryl
    I remember at the time of the thread if the caller ,to Bluegrass, said Glycine or Glycin.
    They are different chemicals. I also wonderer how one individual would go through 4 gallons of developer. They produce for commerical clients and are obviously thinking in terms of deep tanks. It will be interesting to see your results. BTW, have you seen the (PDF) file of an original 777 instructions sheet posted on web?

    http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Ha...77RefChart.pdf
    Well, now I am confused. The booklet shows the developer as Harvey's panthermic 777 developer, which is the same name of the formula used in Ed's site. Yet, Bluegrass say it is not the original formula.....yet, Fred De Van is a very experienced photographer who actually used the original 777 developer and recommends the formula in Ed's site......somebody has to be fibbing here...

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by garryl
    I remember at the time of the thread if the caller ,to Bluegrass, said Glycine or Glycin. They are different chemicals.
    Yes, I picked up on that to. Unfortunately, photographic Glycin is often spelled (or misspelled) Glycine. If the substance really is Glycine (the medical stuff), it will not work as a reducing agent.

    Is Bluegrass being that sneaky? Nahh - well maybe not.

    I recently tested some suspected Glycin of uncertain orgin in a Glycin only developer recipe (Agfa 8) and found that it indeed behaved like Glycin. Then just to be double sure, I ran a sample through the mass spectrometer. Glycin!
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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