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