Defender (aka Harvey's) 777

Pat Erson · Jul 2, 2014

"Cartier-Bresson was a staunch enthusiast and heavy user of 777, and I think was largely responsible for its adoption by Magnum's lab in Paris"

I think that's a highly questionable claim. HCB had a complete disdain for tech problems, he wouldn't even bother to check the light before making a picture.
As long as his films came back from the lab quickly so he could examine his contact-sheets, that was enough for him.

Lastly I don't hink there ever was a "Magnum's lab in Paris". There wasn' t one rue Christine in the 80's and there wasn't one passage Piver in the 90's. There was one at the current location of Magnum Paris : two V35 and an Ilford auto printer was all there was there...

Truth is each protographer manages to get their films processed by whatever means he likes. Picto or Publimod used to be two labs the Magnum people used to rely on. D76 or Tmax dev is the norm there.

Trask · Jul 2, 2014

Ellen,

Thanks for entering into dialogue with us here on APUG. May I suggest you make another posting to which you have attached the instructions for the mixing and use of 777, so that those who want to understand more about using it straight, or as a one-shot, or as a replenished developer. This might help us here better understand how we might integrate 777 into our development practices, which might result in increased sales of your product.

Harold33 · Jul 2, 2014

Nobody knows the 'original' formula and nobody knows the formula currently on sale.
50 years ago, nobody used the Bluegrass version and today, nobody uses 50 years old films.
To compare something, we need to know what is compared. So, what are we talking about ?

ambaker · Jul 2, 2014

Seems to me the question should be, do you like the results you get with the developer on the film you are using? If the answer is yes, then use it.

If the answer is no, does it matter if is is made with moon beams and unicorn tears?

Richard Man · Jul 2, 2014

It does this. I stopped and switched to Xtol and divided Pyrocat for a few years, but it's probably time to "go back."

Gerald C Koch · Jul 3, 2014

Trask said:
Ellen,

May I suggest you make another posting to which you have attached the instructions for the mixing and use of 777, so that those who want to understand more about using it straight, or as a one-shot, or as a replenished developer.

The article which appeared on the unblinkingeye site and others that I have read say that this developer works best as a deep tank developer in a replenished system. You need to run film through it on a regular basis. Also mentioned was that the developer needs to be "seasoned" before use to yield the best results. So I would say not for the occasional user and not as a one shot.

For anyone not familiar with the term "season" it means to run some scrap film through the developer to take the hot edge off it and produce more consistent results. The term is often used when discussing other replenished developers like D-76.

removed account4 · Jul 3, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
The article which appeared on the unblinkingeye site and others that I have read say that this developer works best as a deep tank developer in a replenished system. You need to run film through it on a regular basis. Also mentioned was that the developer needs to be "seasoned" before use to yield the best results. So I would say not for the occasional user and not as a one shot.

For anyone not familiar with the term "season" it means to run some scrap film through the developer to take the hot edge off it and produce more consistent results. The term is often used when discussing other replenished developers like D-76.

and then when you replace the tank after 300-500 films ...
you mix new, and remove all but 1/4 or 1/3 of the tank
and your old developer will automatically season the new ..
worked like a charm with dk50(replenished-deep tanks)

c6h6o3 · Jul 7, 2014

Gerald C Koch said:
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.

If the negatives print the same, all other variables being equal, there's no difference to me. I only care what kind of photographs I can make with it. I need to work with it a little more to really be sure, because I'm rusty from not having photographed much for the past year, but it looks initially that the old and the new produce the same results. Any other comparison is irrelevant.

c6h6o3 · Jul 7, 2014

Pat Erson said:
"Cartier-Bresson was a staunch enthusiast and heavy user of 777, and I think was largely responsible for its adoption by Magnum's lab in Paris"

I think that's a highly questionable claim. HCB had a complete disdain for tech problems, he wouldn't even bother to check the light before making a picture.
As long as his films came back from the lab quickly so he could examine his contact-sheets, that was enough for him.

Lastly I don't hink there ever was a "Magnum's lab in Paris". There wasn' t one rue Christine in the 80's and there wasn't one passage Piver in the 90's. There was one at the current location of Magnum Paris : two V35 and an Ilford auto printer was all there was there...

Truth is each protographer manages to get their films processed by whatever means he likes. Picto or Publimod used to be two labs the Magnum people used to rely on. D76 or Tmax dev is the norm there.

Whatever. I never knew any of those guys, but Fred did. I was merely parroting his article.

#1 Son · Jul 14, 2014

A lot of you heard about the guy called KennyE. Over the holiday, I went by his place here in Michigan, The guy is a great photographer. And his darkroom and lab is something to die for. But he stated that Harvey's formulas are all different. The one he sold to Defender, included three formulas, which they (Defender) produced only one. When DuPont purchase Defender, they changed it and produce their improved version. Because DuPont wanted to protect their name, and want to ensure that developer was good. But DuPont did not feel that 777 was all that great. Which is why they did not push it hard on the market.

But Harvey re-purchase the rights to 777, when DuPont went heavy into X-Ray research, in the mid 1950's.

KennyE stated and showed me that DuPont's version of 777 is better. Which is the one that is on his blog. The version he calls Easy 777, is one of the formulas that Defender never used.

Chlorohydroquinone (Adurol), is one of the developing agents. Very expensive. He gave 25 grams of it. Because the supplier that I contacted would not sell it to me, unless I had a business license.

In one room in KennyE's basement, he have all this stuff cataloged. Even on his computer, and his bookshelves. He purchase 250 pounds of Kodak paperwork from a guy in Canada, when Kodak closed their companies there. The guy was going to sell it for pennies and KennyE stated he paid him a dollar per pound. He has one of the pallets in his garage, going through the papers.

I ask him if he had the formula for FG7, and he said yes and that when there was time, he would go through his stuff and email it to me. He stated that it was (adurol) with PPD and Glycin, and Edwal favorite TSP.

KennyE has hundreds of old developers. And I ask him what does he do with them. And he stated that he gives them to the local college to break down the formulas for him.

He is a nice guy, KennyE.

#1 Son

Richard Man · Jul 14, 2014

Excellent! I talked to Kenny from time to time. I meant to try one of his formulas at some point, but now I just purchase some "new" Harvey 777 from Bluegrass, so it may take a while before I can get around to it...

Christiaan Phleger · Jul 16, 2014

interested in seeing KennyE blog, do you have a link?

removed account4 · Jul 16, 2014

#1 Son said:
A lot of you heard about the guy called KennyE. Over the holiday, I went by his place here in Michigan, The guy is a great photographer. And his darkroom and lab is something to die for. But he stated that Harvey's formulas are all different. The one he sold to Defender, included three formulas, which they (Defender) produced only one. When DuPont purchase Defender, they changed it and produce their improved version. Because DuPont wanted to protect their name, and want to ensure that developer was good. But DuPont did not feel that 777 was all that great. Which is why they did not push it hard on the market.

But Harvey re-purchase the rights to 777, when DuPont went heavy into X-Ray research, in the mid 1950's.

KennyE stated and showed me that DuPont's version of 777 is better. Which is the one that is on his blog. The version he calls Easy 777, is one of the formulas that Defender never used.

Chlorohydroquinone (Adurol), is one of the developing agents. Very expensive. He gave 25 grams of it. Because the supplier that I contacted would not sell it to me, unless I had a business license.

In one room in KennyE's basement, he have all this stuff cataloged. Even on his computer, and his bookshelves. He purchase 250 pounds of Kodak paperwork from a guy in Canada, when Kodak closed their companies there. The guy was going to sell it for pennies and KennyE stated he paid him a dollar per pound. He has one of the pallets in his garage, going through the papers.

I ask him if he had the formula for FG7, and he said yes and that when there was time, he would go through his stuff and email it to me. He stated that it was (adurol) with PPD and Glycin, and Edwal favorite TSP.

KennyE has hundreds of old developers. And I ask him what does he do with them. And he stated that he gives them to the local college to break down the formulas for him.

He is a nice guy, KennyE.

#1 Son

he and i emailed a while ago ..
it turns out one of the things that is done to darkroom chemistry / developer
is that it is heated / cooked or something similar, which changes properties of the component
ingredients .. he claimed this was one of the things that was done with the bluegrass chemistry
( i think ? ) and others which sometimes have magical properties ...

wow a pallet of paperwork ...
thats a lot of reading

Fred Sun · Jul 16, 2014

That process sounds similar to the one in the patent filed by Du Pont in 1941 for Crystalline ternary addition compounds US 2368255 A where pyrocatechol/hydroquinone, paraaminophenol, and ortho-phenylenediamine are dissolved and heated to be recrystallised as a single compound.

(1st post, long time lurker)

jnanian said:
he and i emailed a while ago ..
it turns out one of the things that is done to darkroom chemistry / developer
is that it is heated / cooked or something similar, which changes properties of the component
ingredients .. he claimed this was one of the things that was done with the bluegrass chemistry
( i think ? ) and others which sometimes have magical properties ...

wow a pallet of paperwork ...
thats a lot of reading

c6h6o3 · Jul 17, 2014

#1 Son said:
KennyE stated and showed me that DuPont's version of 777 is better. Which is the one that is on his blog.

He is a nice guy, KennyE.

#1 Son

Please post the url to his blog.

c6h6o3 · Jul 17, 2014

Never Mind

Harry Lime · Jul 17, 2014

Pat Erson said:
"Cartier-Bresson was a staunch enthusiast and heavy user of 777, and I think was largely responsible for its adoption by Magnum's lab in Paris"

I think that's a highly questionable claim. HCB had a complete disdain for tech problems, he wouldn't even bother to check the light before making a picture.
As long as his films came back from the lab quickly so he could examine his contact-sheets, that was enough for him.
.

I think old Henri was a lot more tech savvy than he let on. I once read this interview with him and he was asked about the low contrast nature of this prints and the answer that he gave could not have come from someone who was technically ignorant. He was no Ansel Adams in the tech department, but he certainly had a solid understanding of how things worked and what he needed to get the results he wanted.

HCB presenting himself as a layman goes back to his roots in surrealism and other movements of that time period. Many artist were proclaiming themselves 'amateurs', not professionals. It was a reaction against the rigidity of the art world, that still held true to the classical canon and was seen as a bunch of 'professional' paint-by-the-numbers bourgeois by HCB and his contemporaries.

Pat Erson · Jul 17, 2014

Well he certainly made ONE tech oriented decision : that was to expose his TRI-X at 200. But it happened after his friend and former printer Pierre Gassmann suggested it (to go with HCB's preference for gray prints). That was in the 60's iirc.

jgjbowen · Jul 17, 2014

Great thread

#1 Son · Jul 17, 2014

Fred Sun said:
That process sounds similar to the one in the patent filed by Du Pont in 1941 for Crystalline ternary addition compounds US 2368255 A where pyrocatechol/hydroquinone, paraaminophenol, and ortho-phenylenediamine are dissolved and heated to be recrystallised as a single compound.

(1st post, long time lurker)

Hey, Fred..., I think you are right, because KennyE stated that. He stated that DuPont purchase Defender for two reasons and both of those reasons was for the war effort.

DuPont and the government thought that 777, could be used for aerial photography. Because Defender was pushing it as a wonder developer. But it turned out to be too complicated for the soldiers to use and maintain in a war environment. And DuPont needed a paper company and the government was going to need photo paper and lots of it.

KennyE stated that DuPont changed the formula and modified it, and refined it to reduce the problems in mixing and preparing the developer. And they got the formula to work just fine. But the government did a survey and discovered most of the soldiers in the photo service had experience with Kodak products and very few knew of Defender products, thought they had heard of Defender papers. So the government went with Kodak, since Ansco was shut down due its connections with AFGA.

KennyE told me that DuPont did not make the complete switch over, from Defender to DuPont, until after the war. And that DuPont only push their 777 line of developers for 8 years, until Harvey re-purchased the rights to use 777, in the mid 1950's. As Harvey Panthermic 777.

KennyE told me that the DuPont USPTO, is only the basic, to obtain the main base developer. For there are other element to the formula.

Maybe the next time that I am down that way, I will get him to talk about it. But it got to be fast, because I think he is ill. Heart problem I think.

#1 Son

#1 Son · Jul 17, 2014

Oh yes, I returned from Auto Zone, only to see the UPS truck stop at my door, and give me my package from BlueGrass. Yes!!!!!!!!! Two gallons of Panthermic 777! Cost $54.67.

OK, now what do I do?

#1 Son

Richard Man · Jul 17, 2014

You mix it up according the instructions, "waste" a few sheets or rolls to season it - although my experience is that even unseasoned, it looks good - and shoot shoot shoot!

#1 Son · Jul 18, 2014

Ok, dido, we will give it a try. Only right after I use all the other stuff up first. Right. I mean after all, I don't want waste the accufine and others that I have in my d-room.

#1 Son

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 18, 2014

c6h6o3 said:
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.

Looks a lot like Edwal 12, actually, which is sold as 'Developer 12' by Photographers' Formulary.

Paul Howell · Jul 18, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Looks a lot like Edwal 12, actually, which is sold as 'Developer 12' by Photographers' Formulary.

I have used 777 and use Edwal 12 and MCM 100, Edwal 12 results in very differnt negatives than 777.

Defender (aka Harvey's) 777

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency