Henri Cartier-Bresson

L

LeicaVirgin1

Established
Local time
3:10 PM
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
102
Greetings Tom...

I read that the late Henri Cartier-Bresson used a developer known as 777?

I know the aircraft of the same name; but never heard of this developer until now.

He believed it was so superior to anything else out there; that he convinced the majority of the staff at MAGNUM to follow suit with 777 and most, as I understand did.

They say it has a "pearlessence" to the skin tones as well as a sort of glow.
He mentioned that it allowed his negatives to be printed with an extended range of the greyscale.

Your thoughts?

LV1
 
Harvey's 777. Still made, very hard to get. Photographers Formulary version is not the same.
 
kdemas, can you point to why
Photographers Formulary version
isn't the same ? The tech notes
from the Formulary website points to
the unblinkingeye.com article.
 
HCB did not process his own film nor make his own prints BUT was extremely particular and understood the processes thoroughly. It is fully consistent with his approach that he would care enough and know enough to specify film developers, printing papers, etc.
 
I still have an un-opened package of Harvey's 777 - and one day I will mix it up. I have used it long time ago - and, yes, if your exposures are more or less spot on - it does give a remarkable "lustre" to the print. But, just like most film and developers - it takes a while to "shoot yourself" in to it.
I dont know how well the 777 would do with modern, thin emulsion films. I remember that it was pretty good with Verichrome Pan in 120 and I also tried it with TriX 320. Seemed to last forever too!
 
I've read somewere that in his later years HCB used TriX rated at 200 ASA wich was developed in Microdol X.

Earlier he used Ilford HPS and a film by Dupont. Maybe these were developed with Harvey's 777.

Erik.
 
Tom A said:
I still have an un-opened package of Harvey's 777 - and one day I will mix it up. I have used it long time ago - and, yes, if your exposures are more or less spot on - it does give a remarkable "lustre" to the print. But, just like most film and developers - it takes a while to "shoot yourself" in to it.
I dont know how well the 777 would do with modern, thin emulsion films. I remember that it was pretty good with Verichrome Pan in 120 and I also tried it with TriX 320. Seemed to last forever too!
Click to expand...


Sounds like a good match for Bergger film.
 
Tri-x isn't the same film today that it was in the 60-70's. Kodak did a fairly major reformulation seven or eight years ago. IMO its not nearly as good and doesn't respond the same to development that the early emulsions did.

I went to Atlantas High Museum last year for a major HCB exhibition. On display were several prints made by HCB himself. I would assume he ran his film in the early days but may not have. I can say his printing skills were very poor. They were some of the worst looking prints I've ever seen from a professional. The tech who printed his images did some very nice prints from his negs.

Chasing developer and films that were popular thirty years ago won't yield the same results. Pretty much every emulsion today has changed over the decades.
 
HCB's film went to one lab in paris, unless he was specifically on a commercial assignment, say for Life Magazine, which had its own legendary lab. In those cases he might have submitted the film directly to the magazine. Mostly though everything went to this one lab in paris; they knew him and his sensibilities intimately and one must admit that while the vision was unquestionably his (and I consider him among the three or four greatest photographers I've studied), the achievement of his prints, what we look at, owes a good deal to these other nameless individuals who worked with his film and oversaw his professional life. (Eugene Smith comes to mind as the opposite, he was considered something of a magician in the lab and could get images from negatives that to you or me would yield only mush; he trained others to do it his way but oversaw the process pretty closely. At Life, of course, he didn't have to do his own if he didn't want to.)

Anyway I've often thought that the Cartier-Bresson program was the greatest deal a photographer could have: you shoot and shoot and shoot, the film periodically gets packed up and put on a plane and after that you hardly have to think about it anymore. Once in a while a long session looking at contact sheets and proof prints et voilá -- les photos.
 
x-ray said:
Tri-x isn't the same film today that it was in the 60-70's. Kodak did a fairly major reformulation seven or eight years ago. IMO its not nearly as good and doesn't respond the same to development that the early emulsions did.
Click to expand...

I think it was in 2002 or 2003. I agree the new stuff is nowhere near as good, but it is finer grain and better for scanning. Shortly after the change in formulation, I changed to HP5+ which is more like the "old" tri-x.
 
When the "new" TriX came out (2002/2003?) I did a test with both the old and new in various developers (D76/Rodinal/Microdol etc). There are some differences in the mid tones - but i did not find them significant enough to change times or dilutions. It is still one of the most forgiving emulsions around. Biggest change was in the base - dried a bit flatter and less base-fog.
 
LV1, the developer you are referring to is made by Bluegrass packaging (tel: 502-425-6442).
The are the only one to have the original recipe and therefore the only one to sell it. I recently contacted them for an order but they have some difficulty getting one of the component...

Hope this help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom