The cult of Harvey's 777

[telenous]

As it happens often on internet, one thing lead to another and I found myself reading about this developer, Harvey's 777, which many photographers of old, including mythical names like Cartier-Bresson and Smith, wouldn't do without.

So, first, I was eager to read a bit more about it from old users. And then I was wondering whether it 'd make sense today to go the extra length to buy some of this and whether it offers any tangible benefits with todays films in comparison to some other excellent developers out there.

Bill - I am posting this thread in your section, because as I was reading one of the precious few webpages on Harvey's, your name cropped up as someone who has a wealth of experience with it. If it doesn't belong here would the mods please move it to the relevant section accordingly.

Thanks in advance,
Alkis

 

[David Goldfarb]

I know there's at least one guy on apug.org who uses it, and it is still being made in Kentucky. There are a variety of speculations about the formula, but it's proprietary and is still a secret.

It had a reputation as a very forgiving tank developer that lasted a long time once it was seasoned. To keep it seasoned, new developer was always added to a partially filled tank of old developer, rather than replacing the whole tank at once.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Ha!, like making sourdough bread.

 

[Bill Pierce]

As it happens often on internet, one thing lead to another and I found myself reading about this developer, Harvey's 777, which many photographers of old, including mythical names like Cartier-Bresson and Smith, wouldn't do without.

So, first, I was eager to read a bit more about it from old users. And then I was wondering whether it 'd make sense today to go the extra length to buy some of this and whether it offers any tangible benefits with todays films in comparison to some other excellent developers out there.

Bill - I am posting this thread in your section, because as I was reading one of the precious few webpages on Harvey's, your name cropped up as someone who has a wealth of experience with it. If it doesn't belong here would the mods please move it to the relevant section accordingly.

Thanks in advance,
Alkis

Harvey's was, as described, a good tank developer. And there certainly were contests to see who could have the oldest, foulest 3 1/2 gallon deep tank of it.

But it was formulated at a time when films were grainier and had lower acutance. If the formula hasn't changed from the old days, it's probably not the best choice for all around use.

To take advantage of the higher definition and finer grain of today's films, you probably want a fairly low solvent developer. Even full strength D-76 my be a touch on the solvent side unless you do enough film to make a replenished deep tank an advantage.

Developers simply aren't as important with today's films as they used to be. Either a standard developer like 76 diluted 1:1(reducing the solvency) or a full one-shot might be more effective in terms of consistency, cost and the mix of fine-grain and high-definition - especially if you don't frequently process large volumes of film, need the big deep tank and can go with a one-shot.

Bill

 

[Harry Lime]

A friend of mine had a tank of it for a while. As Bill says, there really is no magic bullet as far as developers goes and 777 may not be ideal for modern films. But, there is something about the signature of prints made from 777 negs, that is very recognizable, once you know what to look for. In the Tri-X examples that I have seen there is a certain glow, pearliness or blooming. The midrange seems to go on for ever and highlights are soft and delicate. It's hard to describe, but it's there and very beautiful. I wonder if this effect develops as the soup ages and more and more silver is apparently re-plated on to the neg. I read somewhere that this effect may also have to do with glycerin being a component. Take a look on apug.org

I still have two bags of 777 in a storage locker back home. You can get it from Bluegrass in Kentucky or through the Frugal Photographer website. There was a long article about it on the Unblinking Eye site along with a recipe, but apparently this is not the one for genuine 777.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Here's further info on using 777 - tracked down thanks to Harry's lead...


http://www.frugalphotographer.com/Publications/777-instructions.pdf

 

[Cale Arthur]

I noticed recently that Photo Formulary has Harvey's "Defender" 777 available. Haven't a clue if it's the same recipe as the 777 made by Bluegrass, but the PF description is lifted directly from the Fred De Van article on unblinkingeye.com (that article is linked here).

I'll admit that i've been curious about 777, but have been too busy enjoying Rodinal lately to try it. 🙂

--c--

 

[Harry Lime]

I noticed recently that Photo Formulary has Harvey's "Defender" 777 available. Haven't a clue if it's the same recipe as the 777 made by Bluegrass, but the PF description is lifted directly from the Fred De Van article on unblinkingeye.com (that article is linked here).

I'll admit that i've been curious about 777, but have been too busy enjoying Rodinal lately to try it. 🙂

--c--

In that case it's probably not the real 777. There was a lot of talk on the net about the formula posted on Unblinking Eye and the consensus was that it's not the real deal.

The 777 formula is still secret. I'm not sure if Bluegrass is the original manufacturer, inventor or if they simply took over production from someone else. In any case it's been around a while and apparently was in use at LIFE, Magnum and other places.

 

[telenous]

Bill, all, thanks very much for your replies.

No doubt, part of the appeal for me is the secrecy surrounding this developer. And another (greater) part, the photos illustrating its strengths. Stories about it in some of the aforementioned webpages detail how users would have an edge over competitors just by using it. While long trial-and-error sessions would help determine details for developing time and agitation regime with new films.

Here's a link to the Unblinking Eye article 'Remembering 777', for those who want to read a bit more:

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

The two photos provided by Fred De Van are excellent, surely a testament to the photographer first and foremost, but then also the developer of course.

All that said, I think I will forego buying some for now - importing chemical powder in the UK may have complications with the customs - unless I find myself in the US (may happen soon). Meanwhile, if someone has photos made with 777, please do post, I 'm sure they will be a great addition to this thread.

 

[Trius]

Bill: I'm "not posting" here anymore (and I only check in to read about once a week), but I can't resist asking on this one...

I don't/can't deny what you say about 777 not being optimum for modern emulsions, but I also can't help but think that it would be a blast to use it for Tri-X in sheet sizes, and maybe some of the "old style" films from Foma, Bergger, etc. Heck, even new TMY-2 in 4x5 or larger could be really interesting.

AFAIK, Bluegrass bought the rights to the formula, they are not the original manufacturer. And they don't list the price on their website, you have to call and talk to them. From what I have heard, it's not cheap. Anyone actually know how much it costs to get a batch started?

 

[jbh]

I concur with Bill that special developers may not be as effective or show the expected effects with modern films; indeed modern films are somewhat, shall we say, developer-resistant.
We can make them slightly grainier or slightly finer-grained, and we can bend the curve shape in slightly various ways but we can't really make any radical departures without encountering other serious drawbacks; I doubt any of us, me included, could really pick out prints made from TX in D-76 1:3 or Rodinal 1:50 w/sodium sulfite. Maybe 30 years ago we could, but not now. But even back then it was an exercise in navel-gazing; the picture was everything. A great, perhaps newsworthy subject is what counts, not what you develop it in.
Go shoot good pictures.

-jbh-

 

[Bill Pierce]

Bill: I don't/can't deny what you say about 777 not being optimum for modern emulsions, but I also can't help but think that it would be a blast to use it for Tri-X in sheet sizes, and maybe some of the "old style" films from Foma, Bergger, etc. Heck, even new TMY-2 in 4x5 or larger could be really interesting.

AFAIK, Bluegrass bought the rights to the formula, they are not the original manufacturer. And they don't list the price on their website, you have to call and talk to them. From what I have heard, it's not cheap. Anyone actually know how much it costs to get a batch started?

Today's sheet films range from the old fashioned to the modern emulsions. Therefore, it's a little hard to make a general statement about the importance of developer choice. In general, the larger the format, the less the grain/acutance qualities of a developer have any effect on the final print, unless you make a really big print. Then developer choice can make a real difference. In the past, developers that had an effect on the tonal range (pyro, two-bath, e.t.c.) had been a big part of the search for the "killer" neg. I don't know how much of an effect they would have on the more modern sheet films.

I would think all the time you would put into determining a development time, exposure rating, e.t.c. with 777 would result in a pretty good negative. So would the same effort put into D-76 rather than just following the manufacturer's guide lines.

The "old fashioned" films in 35mm, I imagine, would show a greater difference between 777 and 76 and Rodinal 1:50. I think it would be fun to experiment with them - but slightly less useful than it was in a day when all we had was old fashioned films. Do you think we'll produce a slight spike in Bluegrass profits?

Bill

 

[David Goldfarb]

I think films are still tweakable by developer choice. Delta 400 at 200 in Perceptol is smoother than it is at 400 in D-76 (1+1), but it's faster in D-76 at the expense of grain. PMK seems better at masking grain than ABC pyro, but I like the highlights I get with ABC, so I use ABC for larger formats and PMK for smaller formats, if I use pyro. The solvent developer vs. acutance developer differences still hold, but with today's finer grained films, it might make sense to use an acutance developer with a faster film than one would have in the past, because the results would have been too grainy with the older films.

Another attraction of staining developers for large format is the possibility of the dual-use neg. If the stain has greater UV density than visible light density, and you calibrate it right, some people claim you can get a neg that's printable in both silver and alt-processes that use UV light sources. I'm not usually trying to do that, but I've got some negs that seem to work for silver and albumen, and maybe it's a pyro thing.

On the other hand, modern films from the major manufacturers have harder emulsions and are more resistant to problems like dichroic fog, so they might hold up better to unusual treatments like monobath processing (which is usually highly alkaline and prone to dichroic fog and excessive emulsion softening). I've been experimenting with this, and it's not too bad--

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=87393&ppuser=4194

I think paper emulsions have gotten harder to tweak. Some old style papers like Efke Emaks will respond well to amidol, waterbath, two-bath developers, warmtone developers, toning, and such, but Ilford MGIV FB can seem impervious to chemical manipulation, presumably because it is designed to give very consistent results under a wide range of conditions.