Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The smaller packet of darker chemicals must be Part A. The larger bag just looks like sulfite to me. I dissolved the darker chemicals in water somewhat over 120 (I pegged my photographic themometer, but the needle was slowing down as it reached its limit). I just microwaved some distilled water for a few minutes. In retrospect, it might be a better idea to start with 120F water, try to dissolve the stuff, and then microwave it a bit if you cannot get it to completely dissolve. Organic compounds are notoriously heat labile, so I would be conservative in using heat to dissolve it. This is about the only photographic formula that doesn't tell you to put a pinch of sulfite in the developer before mixing, so I assume that the smaller bag has at least a little sulfite in it to prevent oxidation of the developing agent. I suspect that 777 is not nearly as magical as its legend would make it. It would have to really show me a benefit over other readily-available developers to make me decided to keep ordering it from Canada and experimenting to find good developing times. You may have noticed that www.digitaltruth.com has only a handful of films listed for 777. The instructions that come with 777 list only seven films (Kodak and Ilford). Jeffery Smith New Orleans, LA http://www.400tx.com http://400tx.blogspot.com/ -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Richard Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 3:26 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Jeffery PAW 24 AND 777 developer - my initial results Hey Jeff, thanks for being retro trail blazer. My package of 777 should be here at some point, so the most important question: which one is Part A, and did you use hot boiling water or 140 degree water :-)?!! Also, your blog says: "the formula for 777 is a closely guarded secret, but Ed Buffaloe feels that it is a fine grain developer of known composition containing 7g metol, 7g, paraphenylene diamine, and 7g glycin, along with 70g sodium sulfite and 700 ml water. That's a temp." If you read through other comments, this is known as the "Germaine formula" and supposedly BPI denies that this is the same thing and that Harvey's 777 does NOT contain glycin. Nothing short of a spectro analysis or a break-in to the BPI office will tell for sure, unless someone locates Harvey's descendents? :-) Good work! At 08:51 AM 6/24/2006, Jeffery Smith wrote: >Last week, I shot a roll of HP5+ with the intent to try a newly-mixed >batch of 777 developer. The results (3 images) are on my blog if anyone >is interested. One report is just an overview of what is generally >known about the developer. The second report is a few images I scanned. >I expect the developer to be a bit better with use. The "unripened" >fresh stuff really attacks the film with gusto. A few weeks and a few >rolls of film should tame it a bit > >http://400tx.blogspot.com/ > >I guess Chris will be my PAW for this week. > >http://www.400tx.com/2006-24.html > // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com) _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information