[QUOTE=jpazzz;1495237]Hello Everybody,
>Champlin 16 was intended to be used 1 to 9 with water or, preferably, a 10% sodium sulphite solution. Mike, does that take care of your concerns?
Yes, at that dilution things start to make some more sense. The added sulfite stock can act as a restrainer, the HQ down to 5g/l, and the TEA would be keeping the pH in HQ's active range.

>I would be tempted to go back to 777 except that I probably won't be developing enough film to keep it viable.
>I know the Unblinking Eye thread on 777; in fact, the Instructions/time and temperature sheets that are posted there were my contribution to the discussion.
>At that time, I didn't have a scanner, so one of the college secretaries scanned it for me.
> I've always wondered why I wasn't given credit...Oh well, I wasn't one of the chosen few.

I am pleased that you initialted the post, and honoured to have met you, however albeit online.

>Mike, may I ask how you modified the 777 formula (Germain's if I remember correctly) given on the Unblinking Eye site?

Sorry, I was posting from memory, and forgot the every day developing agent metol. I do remenber explicitly sourcing ppd and glycin for mixing this up. It is Germains I have experimented happily with.
I have no leads on commercial sources of the 'real 777'

>I'm off for four days... with the volumes from The Complete Photographer on developer formulation, involving Harold Harvey that is the best thing I've ever read on the subject.
I have an old set of photographic encyclopedias from the mid 60's that has some Harvey articles in it. Not quite prescriptive enough to know what you get, but to understand why things go one way or the other as I recall.