Defender (aka Harvey's) 777

[Richard Man]

If anything, you are just showing how much details can be extracted using the scanner and digital workflow, but we won't talk about that in APUG!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Heh, the point is those shadow areas are IN THE SHADE. One can bring up the shadow any number of degrees, and in this particular case, it would not matter if Xtol is used!!! So using that (my) image as an example of 777 shadow behavior is incorrect, IMHO.

Sorry, man. Didn't mean to pick on your photograph which is otherwise just fine. I am a strong advocate that full shadow detail is highly overrated. In fact I often feel that completely blocked out shadows can nicely anchor a photograph and make it more effective.
I'm only speaking from a technical point of view, that an interesting character of 777 is that I have to give almost a full stop more exposure than other developers I have used, in order to get similar shadow detail. Perhaps foolishly I thought your photograph was a good example of that, and again, with that I did not mean to lower the photographic value of your picture at all.

Sorry again if I was inappropriate.

I was out walking with my camera the other day, and I ran a couple of rolls of Fortepan film through the camera. The example below is Fortepan 200, which I had to expose at EI 60 to get any shadow detail at all, in direct sunlight, at about 2PM in the US Midwest.
We can use that as an example instead.

 

[Richard Man]

Not a problem.

I found 777 to be similar with 2-bath Pyrocat-HD in that regard: they both give "middle-exposed" negatives a fairly wide range to work with. IMHO, the strength of 2-bath Pyrocat is that way it is almost linear curve, giving a wide range to work with (especially for digital post) and 777 is excellent in how it handles highlight. It just cannot be beat in that regard, IMHO. I would rate it 1/2 stop under but that's fairly minor for digital-post workers, especially since LF shutters are not known for their super accurate shutter speeds anyway.

For "box-speed" or higher, definitely XTOL or Diafine is more reliable.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Not a problem.

I found 777 to be similar with 2-bath Pyrocat-HD in that regard: they both give "middle-exposed" negatives a fairly wide range to work with. IMHO, the strength of 2-bath Pyrocat is that way it is almost linear curve, giving a wide range to work with (especially for digital post) and 777 is excellent in how it handles highlight. It just cannot be beat in that regard, IMHO. I would rate it 1/2 stop under but that's fairly minor for digital-post workers, especially since LF shutters are not known for their super accurate shutter speeds anyway.

For "box-speed" or higher, definitely XTOL or Diafine is more reliable.

I'm also amazed by how well 777 handles highlights, but also how incredibly well defined the mid-tones are. That the shadows are a bit compressed is mostly a benefit to my tastes, especially when the prints are churned out the blacks are never weak, always strong, even if they lack a bit of detail. The strong black is so important to me.

I love this developer, and now that I have established that I want to continue working with HP5+ and Tri-X for most of my work, and Acros for landscapes, I'm pretty much set on a good course. We will see how long it lasts.

 

[removed account4]

LONG LIVE BLUEGRASS!
LONG LIVE HARVEY'S PANTHERMIC 777!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

LONG LIVE BLUEGRASS!
LONG LIVE HARVEY'S PANTHERMIC 777!

I agree. I'm very grateful that they are producing it again.

 

[Trask]

I was out walking with my camera the other day, and I ran a couple of rolls of Fortepan film through the camera. The example below is Fortepan 200, which I had to expose at EI 60 to get any shadow detail at all, in direct sunlight, at about 2PM in the US Midwest.
We can use that as an example instead.

Look at that sky in your photograph -- what a shade of grey. Unfiltered?

 

[JW PHOTO]

Look at that sky in your photograph -- what a shade of grey. Unfiltered?

If that's unfiltered then the sky held up really well. I'd guess a No.8 light yellow filter as I know what Mid-west 2:00 pm sunlight is like, but if I'm wrong on the filter then this developer is special. JohnW

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I did not use any filter. Just a shade, and paying careful attention to where the sun was.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I did not use any filter. Just a shade, and paying careful attention to where the sun was.

That's pretty good then. If you down-rated to EI 60 then I'd say this developer holds the upper zones very well and doesn't let them go blank. I do know the angle you shoot at does make some difference, but I'd say this combo works very well indeed. Except for the speed loss of course. Michael R says it isn't special and he might be right, but it is different that's for sure. JohnW

 

[JW PHOTO]

Is it?

I don't know for sure since I've never used it, but I have a feeling you're going to tell me it's not. I guess I'll decide whether it's different or not when and if I try it myself. I'm pretty happy with what I'm using at the moment, but might try it on some high contrast winter scene later and see what happens. When I do that I think I'll mix up some Germain's Finegrain from scratch just to compare the two, but I have way to much on my plate at the moment to be playing with a new developer. John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

I haven't used it either. But I've seen no evidence it does anything any other extra fine grain solvent developer doesn't, so it is always worth challenging things.

Michael,
I'm a little like you in that I like to try things out for myself to see if they are really worth the effort or if they are what somebody says they are. I guess I'm a doubting Thomas, but I don't doubt this Thomas and he seems to like it very much. I'll know when and if I try it myself. John W

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You can probably achieve similar highlight control with other developers, but the tone curve would probably look different.

If you think about my particular example, you can see from the shadows that the sun is from slightly behind me, and this wall is facing South, so the sun is also slightly to the West (afternoon). The lens is pointing basically to the bluest sky you can find mid day, and the brick wall is a light yellow color.
To me the way I aligned myself and how the light fell has a lot more to do with the results than the developer. Has I carried a yellow filter the effect would have been stronger, due to the scene containing mostly yellow, blue, and gray area. In retrospect it would have been exciting to see what that would have brought.

I can say that there's something about how this developer treats highlights. It's almost impossible to block them up at normal developing times, even in high contrast scenes, and then the negatives print with such ease it's almost amusing. The mid-tones have a very sweet array of tones that makes the developer particularly well suited to portraiture, but I have used it for absolutely everything for more than a month now, and I can't fault it as long as I give enough exposure.

Makes life very easy for a darkroom worker. The grain isn't much finer than D76, it isn't particularly sharp, and it does tend to pretty rapidly drop shadow details. But the negatives do print extremely well, and with very little darkroom manipulation. That makes it worthwhile to me to source this stuff and continue to use it, because I am interested in minimizing darkroom waste, where it costs a bit more time to find the stuff, but I make it back at the printing stage.

 

[c6h6o3]

The mid-tones have a very sweet array of tones that makes the developer particularly well suited to portraiture

I like to call them "glowing grays" and I don't get them without tremendous effort from any other developer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'd like to report back that I have now lived with this developer for a couple of months, and it has been a joy.

I am using the stock developer to replenish a two liter working solution, at a rate of 2oz per 120/135-36 film (equivalent). All my film is developed in stainless steel daylight tanks, and I've nailed down normal developing times for my staple films Tri-X and Ilford HP5+.
I've also used it with a number of other films, just out of curiosity: Fomapan 100, Fuji Neopan Acros, Fuji Neopan 400 and 1600, Kodak TMax 400, Ilford Pan-F+, Ilford FP4+, Ilford Delta 3200, Fortepan 100 and 200, and Photo Warehouse 100.
I can say that I like the results with all of these films, except Ilford Pan-F+, and I'm on the fence regarding Fuji Acros. The Photo Warehouse film has those backing paper offset marks on the emulsion that renders it useless, which is no fault of the developer. Both Pan-F+ and Fuji Acros seem to fare better in standard D76 stock, or even TMax.

What I like is how the negatives print. Somehow the midtones seem to just fall into place nicely without too much darkroom gymnastics. The highlights also carry very convincing highlights that makes the feeling of light feel real, as if being there viewing it with my own eyes. Those appear to be the real strengths of the developer.

Another advantage I have discovered is that it appears to harden the emulsion. Remember this was formulated in the 1930s in order to cope with high heat in photography studios. These were the days where emulsion could melt off the film base at 75 degrees, but somehow Harvey formulated a developer that was safe to 90 degrees.
Well, to test my theory I developed two rolls of Fomapan 100 in 120 format, one in D76 stock, and the other in 777. When I hang my films to dry I use Sprint wetting agent, which has a recommendation to remove all excess liquid on the film before hanging to dry. I have done this for about eight years with a windshield wiper blade, and the only film to date that has suffered damage has been Fomapan and Efke emulsions, which sometimes would show scratches on the emulsion side.
After the two films were developed, I went through my normal process with washing, wetting agent, remove excess wetting agent with the wiper blade, and hang to dry. Scan to check. The D76 developed film had scratches, and the 777 one did not. It's a very small sample of empirical evidence, but nothing I'd use to statistically try to prove anything. It is what it is.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw that out there. I'm very impressed with the product and intend to continue using it for as long as I can.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Thomas your report is very much appreciated.
I have some Harveys due, shipped to the UK by a friend.
On a practical level the replenishment puzzles me. My 5 reel tank holds around 1800mls, so I would replenish by 250ml if all reels loaded. I would have just over 2litres of solution. What do I do with the 250mls approx I have in excess of the next tank fill? Is is it dumped, or collected because after 7 replenishes I would have enough replenished solution for another tank!!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas your report is very much appreciated.
I have some Harveys due, shipped to the UK by a friend.
On a practical level the replenishment puzzles me. My 5 reel tank holds around 1800mls, so I would replenish by 250ml if all reels loaded. I would have just over 2litres of solution. What do I do with the 250mls approx I have in excess of the next tank fill? Is is it dumped, or collected because after 7 replenishes I would have enough replenished solution for another tank!!

Replenishment is easy.

First you have to season the developer. I used some scrap 5x7 film I had laying around that was hopelessly fogged. Seven sheets of 5x7 film was enough to season the developer. You could use 3 or 4 old rolls of 120 or 135-36 to do the same.


Then, replenish after each developing cycle; here's my example:

I keep a bottle called 'Working Solution', which has 2 liters of solution. I keep other bottles with stock developer, called 'Stock Solution'.

If I develop one film, I pour enough chemistry into my developing tank to accomplish that task. When I'm done developing, before I pour the used working solution back into the 'Working Solution' bottle, I first pour 2 ounces of stock solution into the Working Solution bottle. Then I pour in as much of the used developer as I can, until there is no more room and the bottle is full. Discard the rest.

Repeat until you run out of stock solution for replenishment.

The above method works well, but really there was a dedicated replenishing solution. If you don't use the dedicated replenishing solution eventually enough developing byproducts will accumulate in the working solution that you will have to either start over, or dump a significant portion. It's how it goes.
I've been meaning to order the dedicated replenisher, but ran out of photography budget for a while.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Thank you Thomas. Looking forward to this legendary developer if only to say i have used it.

 

[Chris Livsey]

A bump for this thread, unless another has been started?
The KennyE blog

http://adfasi.blogspot.co.uk/

has a reproduction of an interview given by Harold Harvey discussing Defender 777 in Popular Photography May 1938. An interesting point he (Harvey himself) makes is that 777 was the series formula number running 770 to 780 and not a propotion of the ingredients which many sources quote, especially when interpreting/deducing the formula.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The following from the above mentioned article is of interest. According to history, Harold Harvey stated that it took him 8 to 10 months to design his formula for 777 and two years of testing. He had various other friends and associates, that assisted him in his development of the now well known 777 developers. So anyone dreaming of whipping up their own developer formula should consider just what is involved in the process. Harvey had enough honesty to do the work. I have my doubts about some of the concoctions touted on the web.

 

[buzz94]

Sorry for bumping this old thread but it's the most recent one on this subject and I didn't want to start a new one. So anyway, my question is this: is there any way to get your hands on this developer if you live in Europe? I recently learned about it through the well known unblinkingeye.com article and I've been very eager to try it out. Problem is, BPI only seem to ship to the US and the PF version is not actually 777. Are there any other distributers that can ship this overseas?

 

[Chris Livsey]

I am UK based and obtained mine via a friend in Canada. No help I know directly but you could ask around for friends of friends etc the UK Post Office didn't object and the Canadian Postal service is notorious for its rules and for sticking to them and was also happy. It isn't that heavy, I had one US gallon package, 30+ rolls to date and not half way through my replenisher using 1500mls ish in a five reel Paterson.(using 30mls /roll "top up".
BTW welcome, interesting first post. if you think this thread is old you want to some that are revived.

 

[Richard Man]

For small onesie and twosie, I would be happy to help an APUG out. I sent some Diafine to Turkey for an APUGger last year since "real companies" charge too much for Express shipping. So send me a PM or email to richard at richardmanphoto.com if interested.

This is the last thing I developed in 777, a couple days ago:

(4x5 with the legendary PS945)

 

[c6h6o3]

Update: My original post was from June of last year. I have not been photographing much lately for various reasons, but I went down to the Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens last weekend and shot a couple rolls of HP5+ with the Hasselbad and made a 5x7 negative, also HP5+. I was torn between developing the rollfilm in my Pyrocat HD, which is pretty old (a year and a half or so - it's the liquids from Bostick and Sullivan) or the new 777 that Bluegrass sent me last year. I don't have any Potassium Carbonate or I would've mixed up a fresh batch of Pyrocat. On the theory that the Harvey's would last longer I chose it and developed a roll at 70°F using my standard semi-stand regimen for HP5+; namely, 36 minutes with 1 minute vigorous agitation at the beginning and 10 seconds agitation at 12 and 24 minutes.

The negatives are perfect! The seasoned batch has been sitting unused in my basement for 15 months and yields the same results it did last June. I'm using the old 777 which I had mixed up last June for the test as replenisher and it's getting rather funky looking, but still seems potent as well. I haven't printed the negatives but I've developed so many hundreds of them in this soup that I can tell they'll print beautifully.

Kudos to Bluegrass. If anything this developer is an improvement over the old stuff....

 

[Richard Man]

Hmm... semi-stand eh? I am photographing A LOT in the last year+, but they are all C-41! So the jug of 777 sits unused :-/