Defender (aka Harvey's) 777

c6h6o3 · Jun 30, 2014

Bluegrass Packaging contacted me a few weeks ago and asked if I would evaluate a test batch of 777 developer. It's been unavailable for so long because some of the ingredients have become unavailable and they had to make some substitutions. They now have everything they need to make it and sent me a package of the new developer.

I had a couple gallons worth of powders from the old 777, so I mixed up fresh gallons of both the old and the new. Then I went out and shot some negatives on TMY and HP5+ (six 4x5 holders of TMY2 and 1 8x10 holder of HP5+). For each picture I made two exposures, one on each side of the holder. Then I developed one side of each holder in old 777 and the other side in the new. Same temperature, same time, same agitation for each development session.

After printing some of them I can honestly say that I really can't tell the difference. the new developer lacks the characteristic smell that the old stuff had and it doesn't change color like the old did, but the negatives seem to print the same. I told them I'd buy some as soon as they put a price on it.

I you're interested in purchasing some of this unique developer, contact Ellen Waddle at ellen@blugrasspackaging.com. She says they'll need a week or so to actually mix it up.

Paul Howell · Jun 30, 2014

c6h6o3 said:
Bluegrass Packaging contacted me a few weeks ago and asked if I would evaluate a test batch of 777

After printing some of them I can honestly say that I really can't tell the difference. the new developer lacks the characteristic smell that the old stuff had and it doesn't change color like the old did, but the negatives seem to print the same. I told them I'd buy some as soon as they put a price on it.

Seems like they replaced p- phenylenediamine, wounder with what and if it will have the keeping property or needs to be "aged" like the old 777. My Edwal 12 tank is now 2 years old, my MCM 100 just under a year old.

Trask · Jun 30, 2014

Maybe this is an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin comment, but if Bluegrass had to replace some unobtainable chemicals with others, doesn't that mean it's not 777 any longer? It may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but if the formula has changed then it's just a bizarro duck. OK, if the prints are same maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm kind of concerned about how we use our descriptors on APUG.

I, for one, would like to try 777, so perhaps I'll order some.

Tom1956 · Jun 30, 2014

Yeah, that's what I though too. I'm still selling Dr. Feelgood's Magic D-23 Elixer, even though elon is no longer obtainable. So I've substituted coffee and vitamin C, so we're still selling D-23.

JW PHOTO · Jun 30, 2014

Yes, I wonder about replenishment and shelf life. Maybe they decided to go with something a little milder on us humans than PPD? But what would that be and still give the same results. I'm not buying into it for a while at least. I want to know all the pros and cons first. Besides, I'm pretty happy with my developers at the moment and don't need to be messing around. Maybe this winter might be different and a good time to check out Edwal 12, Germain's and 777 all at one time. JW

Tom1956 · Jun 30, 2014

Photography is SUPPOSED to be poisonous. That's why it should be practiced by us professionals. If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. We offer it to the common man on a free but limited basis. They press the button and we do the rest.

Paul Howell · Jun 30, 2014

Tom1956 said:
Photography is SUPPOSED to be poisonous. That's why it should be practiced by us professionals. If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. We offer it to the common man on a free but limited basis. They press the button and we do the rest.

My wife calls my darkroom a toxic waste dump. I still have some of the old bad negative intensifer I keep hidden from EPA.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 30, 2014

I hesitate to second trask's point knowing the small but loyal following 777 has. BUT by reformulating the developer it's not 777 anymore. It's something else.

Harold33 · Jun 30, 2014

If it does the same without being the same, it's the demonstration that there is nothing special with this developer.

removed account4 · Jun 30, 2014

Harold33 said:
If it does the same without being the same, it's the demonstration that there is nothing special with this developer.

not sure i would go that far
harvey's was / is a magical developer that
others have tried to emulate for decades with utter failure.

if they had to substitute because something was unobtainable
and use something else instead, more power to them !
while i don't use 777 i understand why it is there
and i am excited for those who DO use it because it has
been gone for ages ...

by saying there is nothing special about the developer is like suggesting it is like d76 or rodinal or some run of the mill developer
that does not give same magical qualities that d777 was known for ...

great job jim i am excited for you getting to use this new-stuff !
john

Richard Man · Jun 30, 2014

There are a few "Kenny 777" formulas. I have not tried any yet. It's on the list of things to do. Supposedly they have similar properties and one of them supposedly uses essentially the same ingredients.

Ken Nadvornick · Jun 30, 2014

Harold33 said:
If it does the same without being the same, it's the demonstration that there is nothing special with this developer.

An absolutely impeccable use of reasoning and critical thinking.

Ken

JLP · Jun 30, 2014

Thank you for the update Jim.
My current 1 gallon jug is 2 1/2 year old and still going strong. I contacted Bluegrass a few months ago to see if they would run another batch if there was enough interest and that now seems to be the case.
I am like others curious about the keeping properties with the new formula but would be willing to buy some if it does become available. I do think they need to rename it since it is no longer Harvey's formula.
I have enough of the old stuff to last a couple of decades unless it goes bad in powder form.

JW PHOTO · Jul 1, 2014

JLP said:
Thank you for the update Jim.
My current 1 gallon jug is 2 1/2 year old and still going strong. I contacted Bluegrass a few months ago to see if they would run another batch if there was enough interest and that now seems to be the case.
I am like others curious about the keeping properties with the new formula but would be willing to buy some if it does become available. I do think they need to rename it since it is no longer Harvey's formula.
I have enough of the old stuff to last a couple of decades unless it goes bad in powder form.

Yes on the keeping properties and maybe somebody could ask Bluegrass this very question. I truly doubt that their answer anything but, "Well, it should replenish and keep just as well as the original 777". Of course I'm also sure they haven't "time tested" it yet either. I think I'll wait for others to do that before I give it a run. Maybe they could rename it Harvey's 777+............err maybe Harvey's 777-! Still seems like an interesting developer. JW

Rudeofus · Jul 1, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
I hesitate to second trask's point knowing the small but loyal following 777 has. BUT by reformulating the developer it's not 777 anymore. It's something else.

Isn't this common industry practice? You can buy "Promicrol" from Champion which has nothing to do with the original formula. You can't package D-76 in one bag either unless you change the formula like Kodak did. And then let's not forget the whole Rodinal saga. And Tri-X while we are at it ...

I'd say Harold33 pinned it down nicely: apparently there is no pixie dust involved, and the results obtained with Harvey 777 can be obtained with other compounds and some effort.

@Tom1956: in case you can no longer find Elon, you can substitute 100 pennyweights of Elon with 5.4857 ounces of Metol.

Gerald C Koch · Jul 1, 2014

Rudeofus said:
Isn't this common industry practice? You can buy "Promicrol" from Champion which has nothing to do with the original formula. You can't package D-76 in one bag either unless you change the formula like Kodak did. And then let's not forget the whole Rodinal saga.

Sadly this does happen. While the new formulation may seem to work the same there are other factors such as shelf life, capacity, .... A minor alteration necessitated by a change in packaging like D-76 is different from the replacement of one or more of the developing agents in a formula. With the elimination of the developing agent Atomal, Promicrol is no longer the original formula neither is the Agfa developer Atomal.

Harold33 · Jul 1, 2014

jnanian said:
(...) harvey's was / is a magical developer (...)
by saying there is nothing special about the developer is like suggesting it is like d76 (..)

No, it just demonstrates that 777 is a developer among others in his category, just like D-76 is another developer among others in his category.
The proof is now given that you can duplicate Harveys' results with something else than the original formula, just as you can duplicate D-76 results with any classical solvent developer.

eclarke · Jul 1, 2014

Ach..the search for 777 led me to Germain's finegrain..my number one go to developer.

Trask · Jul 2, 2014

Actually, now that I think about it, if Bluegrass cannot obtain certain chemicals to make "original" 777, wouldn't it be nice if they revealed the formula so we tinkerers could poke at it? Maybe what's unobtainable on a corporate level is in fact practical for an individual needing only small quantities. Unlikely to happen, I know.

Harveys777 · Jul 2, 2014

Harvey's 777

Hello everyone,
It's Bluegrass Packaging, the maker of Harvey's 777!

I see in your posts that you are wondering about the comparison between the 777 we are making now with the 777 we produced a while back. Excellent question! The reason for the delay in production was that my usual supplier no longer had the chemicals available due to extreme price increases. It took time to find new suppliers and even then I couldn't find the exact same coarseness of a couple of the chemicals. I spent a ton of time making sure that the CAS numbers, purity, etc. are all the same. Since I am not as wise in the ways of developing as you folks, I was worried that the coarseness might present an issue but I'm glad that it hasn't!

We are in production. If you are interested in ordering, the price is $57.50 (+ shipping) for a case with 4 one-gallon mixes or $18.75 (+ shipping) for 1 one-gallon mix. Please e-mail my office with your address and they will calculate shipping and let you know the final cost. Unfortunately, I am not able to ship overseas.

Thanks for your patience and a special thanks to Jim for giving it such a thorough test run!

Ellen
orders@bluegrasspackaging.com

c6h6o3 · Jul 2, 2014

Trask said:
Maybe this is an angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin comment, but if Bluegrass had to replace some unobtainable chemicals with others, doesn't that mean it's not 777 any longer? It may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but if the formula has changed then it's just a bizarro duck. OK, if the prints are same maybe it doesn't matter, but I'm kind of concerned about how we use our descriptors on APUG.

I, for one, would like to try 777, so perhaps I'll order some.

I'm willing to use bizarro duck or duck billed Godzilla if the negatives print to my liking. So far they do.

madgardener · Jul 2, 2014

Harveys777 said:
Hello everyone,
It's Bluegrass Packaging, the maker of Harvey's 777!

I see in your posts that you are wondering about the comparison between the 777 we are making now with the 777 we produced a while back. Excellent question! The reason for the delay in production was that my usual supplier no longer had the chemicals available due to extreme price increases. It took time to find new suppliers and even then I couldn't find the exact same coarseness of a couple of the chemicals. I spent a ton of time making sure that the CAS numbers, purity, etc. are all the same. Since I am not as wise in the ways of developing as you folks, I was worried that the coarseness might present an issue but I'm glad that it hasn't!

<snip>
Thanks for your patience and a special thanks to Jim for giving it such a thorough test run!

Ellen
orders@bluegrasspackaging.com

What's the difference with your developer and all the others? Specifically say, HC-110 or the various flavors of D-76?

IS it easier,harder, the same to use? Speed,grain, etc?? This thread is the first I have heard of this developer.

c6h6o3 · Jul 2, 2014

madgardener said:
What's the difference with your developer and all the others? Specifically say, HC-110 or the various flavors of D-76?

IS it easier,harder, the same to use? Speed,grain, etc?? This thread is the first I have heard of this developer.

Photographic materials are tools. Different ones do different things.

For most of my large format work I use ABC pyro. For some things, particulary interior architectural shots and rollfilm, I develop using Steve Sherman's semi-stand method in Pyrocat-HD.

However, for portraits I always use 777. It imparts a unique quality to skin tones that I have never gotten with any other developer. Maybe you can. The attachment is an example.

This negative from which this print was made is TMY, tray developed in 777. I don't use TMax anymore, but I seem to get just as good a result with HP5+ as long as I don't overdevelop.

There's nothing magical about 777, but it is unique. Different tools for different fools, I always say.

c6h6o3 · Jul 2, 2014

madgardener said:
What's the difference with your developer and all the others? Specifically say, HC-110 or the various flavors of D-76?

IS it easier,harder, the same to use? Speed,grain, etc?? This thread is the first I have heard of this developer.

To answer you questions:

It's very slow working, which gives me very tight control. The negative for the print I posted above was developed for 16 minutes in 72°F 777. It's fine grained but not as acute as pyro based developers.

It's almost impossible to overdevelop TMax negatives in 777, but the TMax characteristic curve is straight as a die out to a density of almost 3.0. HP5+ has a much more pronounced shoulder so you want to make sure you don't blow the highlights through over development. I develop my HP5+ large format negatives by inspection for that reason.

If you replenish it, 777 will last for years. Cartier-Bresson insisted on its use at Magnum and W. Eugene Smith used it as well. Here is Fred Devan's article about it from Unblinkingeye.

Gerald C Koch · Jul 2, 2014

the new developer lacks the characteristic smell that the old stuff had and it doesn't change color like the old did

I'm confused. One user quoted above says the new and old developers are different but Bluegrass says not. Personally I would trust my nose. For a course in qualitative organic analysis we were allowed to use smell as one of the three required tests to prove our conclusion.

Defender (aka Harvey's) 777

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency