Getting Closer to a Panthermic 777 developer

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

KennyE
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Getting Closer to a Panthermic 777 developer

Postby KennyE » Mon Nov 04, 2013 11:26 am

I have been working with this formula for years now, and I called DuPont last week, and got no where with one of its personnel. So I started going through all of my materials on Defender, DuPont, and Harvey's 777 film developer products. Then I came across the two product reviews on Panthermic 777. One by Leica and the other by Focus Magazine. Then I went over two other reviews, both by Harold Harvey himself. And one of the things that I missed was the temperature control statement he made.

Then it hit me. In the 1920's to 1940, there were no new fine grain developer agents being sold on the market or other chemicals that could be used for temperature control, than what we know today.

In Ed Lowe's book, it shows a picture of a negative that used Panthermic 777 in its development. And I have a negative picture of Cachet AB-55 Panthermic Developer. And they look almost the same. But test of AB-55 shows the use of Sodium Sulfate.

So I have altered the formula below to use sodium sulfate, to bring the temperature control up to 90 degrees. I am including CD3, to replace Paraphenylenediamine. CD3 was invented in 1939 and was not available for sale by Kodak. Because it was one of their secrets in their color development projects. So it was not available to Harold Harvey to use.

I developed a roll of 35 mm and got good negatives at 89 degrees of development.

Glycin, CD3, Pyro Developer # 1 Very Fine Grain

Chemical Amount Units
Water (125°F/52°C) 750 ml
Sodium sulfite (dessic) 100.0 g
Pyro 5.0 g
Color Developer 3: 5.0 g
Borax 4.0 g
Glycin 7.0 g
Sodium Sulfate 30.0 g
Cold water to make 1000 ml

Still, pre-age the developer, to get better results. Instructions are listed in a previous post.


Thank You


KennyE
Last edited by KennyE on Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:15 am, edited 3 times in total.


Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Getting Closer to a Panthermic 777 developer

Postby Ornello » Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:09 pm

The idea behind 777 developer, if I recall correctly, was to give similar contrast over a wide range of temperatures, thus making development time less critical.

I found this quite easily:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html

KennyE
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Getting Closer to a Panthermic 777 developer

Postby KennyE » Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:12 am

Ornello:

I have visited the Unblinkingeye site on many occasions, and I have read and re-read its contents. They speak about their experience, nothing relating to their over all studies.

They have adopted Germaine Morris formula as Harvey 777.

The Germaine formula is being sold by Photographer Formula, also as Harvey 777. And Flickr has a post of it. All are using Germaine's formula. Which is damn good.

Thank You

KennyE

Ornello
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: Getting Closer to a Panthermic 777 developer

Postby Ornello » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:36 am

KennyE wrote:Ornello:

I have visited the Unblinkingeye site on many occasions, and I have read and re-read its contents. They speak about their experience, nothing relating to their over all studies.

They have adopted Germaine Morris formula as Harvey 777.

The Germaine formula is being sold by Photographer Formula, also as Harvey 777. And Flickr has a post of it. All are using Germaine's formula. Which is damn good.

Thank You

KennyE
There is something called the Watkins factor, which is the change in activity of a developing agent with temperature. Different agents vary in their response to temperature. Panthermic 777 was supposed to be less critical in temperature. That's all I recall about it.

KennyE
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 6:49 am
Location: Waterford, Michigan USA

Re: Getting Closer to a Panthermic 777 developer

Postby KennyE » Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:13 am

What you stated is true, yet the Watkins factors for developing agents is all over the place, depending on which book and information you chose to believe or embrace.

If you go by the Watkins factor in TM11-662, that was used by the US Military in the 1930's to the 1950's, then you have one standard. But if you use the Watkins standards use by Europeans and those in the Handbook of Photography 1939, then you have another standard or ranges.

I stop looking at standards. One of the reasons is our water supply system. Standards for water purity in Washington State, is different from those of Michigan. Due to the number of people, industry, ground water, soil seepage, and a host of other factors. Thou there are is a starting point. Even those are adjusted to suit the needs and requirements of the issue.

I conduct my tests and set my standards to what is before me. And go on from there.

Photography is some times like an automotive engine, where every engine will idol at a different point in time. Close, but no cigar.

Thank You


KennyE


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests