Harvey's

Roger Pellegrini · Mar 6, 2016

Magnum used is extensively and thousands of rolls of 35mm shot the Cartier Bresson, et. al. were developed using it.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 6, 2016

Roger Pellegrini said:
Magnum used is extensively and thousands of rolls of 35mm shot the Cartier Bresson, et. al. were developed using it.

That was then this is now. Films have changed immensely since Magnum was active. Then too so has our knowledge of the process itself.

BTW, HCB was a perfectly awful practitioner of the photographic process. All the darkroom grunts hated him and his unprintable negatives. Seems he never bothered to change the exposure setting on his camera once it was set.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 6, 2016

ColColt said:
This doesn't sound like the developer for folks who only process on or two rolls at a time. However, from all I've read, the labs for Eisenstaedt and Cartier-Bresson used 777 pretty much exclusively and of course both of them only used the Leica.

Actually, that is precisely what I've been doing for a couple of years now. 35mm and 6x6 film, in small tank, with replenished actual 777 developer, using the correct replenisher. It is an amazingly durable and long lasting developer. The negatives are about as sharp as what I get from a normal solvent developer like D76, but with more mid-tone separation. The developer is a dream to work with, especially when shooting in medium to high contrast lighting situations. In low contrast I'd recommend something like Edwal 12 or Ilfotec DD-X due to the tonality that results from 777.

Believe it or not, 777 was not designed to look a certain way. The primary objective was to solve a difficult problem of heat. Many studios in the day did not have air conditioning, and in the United States summers get very hot, to the point where emulsion could easily melt off its substrate. This developer is called 'panthermic' because it works well in a range of temperatures up to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, don't let anybody tell you you can't have good results with this developer and roll film, and that you need to have deep tanks. It's a superb product outside of that realm, but you really do need to get both the developer to start your batch, and then buy the replenisher too, both from Bluegrass.

Pardon the focusing error in the square portrait below. My fault, not the developer.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 6, 2016

Here's one more example, probably more in the type of lighting where 777 excels, with strong directional light.

Roger Pellegrini · Apr 3, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
That was then this is now. Films have changed immensely since Magnum was active. Then too so has our knowledge of the process itself.

BTW, HCB was a perfectly awful practitioner of the photographic process. All the darkroom grunts hated him and his unprintable negatives. Seems he never bothered to change the exposure setting on his camera once it was set.

I am still using Plus-X from my freezer. As for Cartier Bresson, hated or not, he pretty much proves the point that content trumps technique every time.

ColColt · Apr 3, 2016

I've never figured the hoopla about HCB. I have two of his books, "The Decisive Moment", which was a disappointment as to the photographs and the quality of the printing, and "The Modern Century"-a much better book and a lot less for the price.

His photographs never did invoke much emotion like W. Eugene Smith's photos to me and few left an lasting impressions, unlike Smith's did.

I need to get in touch with Bluegrass and find out when or if you can obtain some of the 777 developer. I'm all for trying it.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 3, 2016

ColColt said:
I've never figured the hoopla about HCB. I have two of his books, "The Decisive Moment", which was a disappointment as to the photographs and the quality of the printing, and "The Modern Century"-a much better book and a lot less for the price.

His photographs never did invoke much emotion like W. Eugene Smith's photos to me and few left an lasting impressions, unlike Smith's did.

I need to get in touch with Bluegrass and find out when or if you can obtain some of the 777 developer. I'm all for trying it.

Be prepared to shell out the bucks for 777 and the replenisher. That is if you can even get it. They mix up this stuff at irregular intervals.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 3, 2016

Roger Pellegrini said:
Magnum used is extensively and thousands of rolls of 35mm shot the Cartier Bresson, et. al. were developed using it.

As for Magnum using 777 for everything even 35 mm remember they were not concerned about quality only getting something for newsprint. As Lisette Model also a Magnum photographer once said. "Darling if you think my prints look bad you should see my negatives."

Arklatexian · Apr 4, 2016

ParkerSmithPhoto said:
Is there a way to pay a lab to sample and reverse engineer a developer formula? It would be wonderful to reveal and publish some of these older, proprietary formulas, like 777 and Diafine.

A old friend of mine with a PhD in chemistry and I were discussing pinacryptal (sp) yellow when this same question was asked. His answer was that there were two answers. A quantative analysis and a qualitative analysis. The qualitative could probably be done quite reasonably but that would only tell you what chemicals were used. The other analysis, quantative, which would tell you how much of each chemical would be needed , would be vastly more expensive due to all of the tests that would be required. The discussion ended right there. That has been a long time ago. Possibly things have changed since then.....Regards!

Gerald C Koch · Apr 4, 2016

Yes and no. Many inorganic qualitative tests are easy to do and are often taught as part of freshman chemistry. For example the halogen ions chloride, bromide and iodide can be identified by adding a solution of silver nitrate and noting the color of the precipitate. However others may require expensive equipment to perform. Actually the same can be said of quantitative analysis. However hiring a company to do quantitative analysis will always be expensive.

oldtimermetoo said:
A old friend of mine with a PhD in chemistry and I were discussing pinacryptal (sp) yellow when this same question was asked. His answer was that there were two answers. A quantative analysis and a qualitative analysis. The qualitative could probably be done quite reasonably but that would only tell you what chemicals were used. The other analysis, quantative, which would tell you how much of each chemical would be needed , would be vastly more expensive due to all of the tests that would be required. The discussion ended right there. That has been a long time ago. Possibly things have changed since then.....Regards!

Yes and no. Many inorganic qualitative tests are easy to do and are often taught as part of freshman chemistry. For example the halogen ions chloride, bromide and iodide can be identified by adding a solution of silver nitrate and noting the color of the precipitate. However others may require expensive equipment to perform. Actually the same can be said of quantitative analysis. However hiring a company to do quantitative analysis will always be expensive.

The identification of organic compounds is a bit more involved however the Pierre Glafkides books on photographic chemistry have a chapter on identifying the common developing agents with simple spot tests. However if more than one developing agent is present then things become more complicated.

Patrick Robert James · Apr 4, 2016

Edwal 10 is a good alternative to 777 that you can mix yourself. It gives more of the Glycin "bump" than 777, but you can vary the amount of Glycin.

I used Bluegrass 777 a bunch about a decade ago and I liked it, but I don't think in hindsight it is that extraordinary of a developer. It is different from regular developers, but the expense and effort of using it doesn't seem to be worth it to me unless you shoot a lot of film and use it the way it was designed. I shoot/develop in spurts, so I decided not to use it anymore. Edwal 10 on the other hand is easy to mix and can be replenished if you have a lot of film to develop, or it can be used one shot.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 12, 2016

Patrick Robert James said:
Edwal 10 is a good alternative to 777 that you can mix yourself. It gives more of the Glycin "bump" than 777, but you can vary the amount of Glycin.

I used Bluegrass 777 a bunch about a decade ago and I liked it, but I don't think in hindsight it is that extraordinary of a developer. It is different from regular developers, but the expense and effort of using it doesn't seem to be worth it to me unless you shoot a lot of film and use it the way it was designed. I shoot/develop in spurts, so I decided not to use it anymore. Edwal 10 on the other hand is easy to mix and can be replenished if you have a lot of film to develop, or it can be used one shot.

That's a good summary, really. 777 is difficult to obtain, and not straightforward to use, but regarding interval of developing - I need to disagree a little bit.
I've had my replenished solution sit for two months, adding about 100ml every two weeks for good measure. Used it the other day for a couple of rolls of 35mm Tri-X and it worked just like usual. So, irregular development in a small tank using the miniature format - and the negs are superb.

What I particularly like about 777 is:
1. Mid-tones are really well defined. Makes printing very easy.
2. Highlights are almost impossible to block up, and they are stunningly beautiful.
3. It appears to harden the emulsion, making development of softer emulsions like Foma a lot less scary.
4. Cost is really good. You have to buy gallon kits, but a gallon kit lasts a LONG time and is about 20 dollars. I use 70ml per roll, so I get 3800/70 = 54 rolls out of it.

What I dislike about 777:
1. Loss of film speed. Prepare to shoot all films about a stop below normal EI.
2. Difficulty to obtain.

All said, it's a nice developer, which DOES have a different look to almost all other developers I've tried. After I run out of the remaining 4 gallon kits I own, I'm going to start using Pyrocat again, alongside Edwal 12 for those gloomy days.

NJH · Apr 12, 2016

Interesting. I always wondered if one could get that long mid-tones into white without any blocked highlights look with developers like A49 or dilute Perceptol or dilute Microphen.

ColColt · Apr 12, 2016

I've had better luck with blocked highlights with HP-5 and HC-110 Dil H than any other combination. Maybe I've been fortunate in that respect.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 13, 2016

ColColt said:
I've had better luck with blocked highlights with HP-5 and HC-110 Dil H than any other combination. Maybe I've been fortunate in that respect.

HC-110 produces a tone curve that is quite different to 777, with an upswept curve with extremely fine separation in the highlights. HP5+ also doesn't build contrast as well as say FP4+ or TMax 400, which tend to expand and expand, but HP5+ kind of stops at a certain point.
So I think your experience is a combination of your technique with HC-110 and HP5+.

I use HP5+ quite a bit, and when using it with 777 it really can present a flat negative if the lighting conditions are low contrast. So for that type of lighting I recommend using a different developer. 777, especially in combination with HP5, does not expand well, is my experience.
Where 777 really sings is when used in medium to (especially) high contrast situations, where the resulting tonality of HP5+ (still a bit flatter), Tri-X, TMax, Delta, Foma, and so on ends up being incredibly beautiful in the tonal separation of the midtones, while the highlights acquire a beautiful intensity, but they never really block up unless you act totally recklessly.

But again, even though 777 acts slightly differently to other developers, there isn't really any true magic to it. Technique (as you have shown yourself) really is 100 times more important than the materials we use, as long as they meet some form of minimum requirements.

ColColt · Apr 13, 2016

I'd love to try it but don't want to spend a fortune for a gallon of it when I may not like the results for some reason.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 17, 2016

ColColt said:
I'd love to try it but don't want to spend a fortune for a gallon of it when I may not like the results for some reason.

Definitely understood. It's about twice the price of Xtol, so not cheap. The thing is, you need to season something like a half gallon before you can start in earnest, but then once replenishing starts, it's dirt cheap. It's a nice developer that brings something slightly unique, but as always - there are no silver bullets out there.

ColColt · Apr 18, 2016

I think I'll stick to my traditional developers, ID-11, HC-110 and Rodinal.

Patrick Robert James · Apr 18, 2016

Thomas Bertilsson said:
That's a good summary, really. 777 is difficult to obtain, and not straightforward to use, but regarding interval of developing - I need to disagree a little bit.
I've had my replenished solution sit for two months, adding about 100ml every two weeks for good measure. Used it the other day for a couple of rolls of 35mm Tri-X and it worked just like usual. So, irregular development in a small tank using the miniature format - and the negs are superb.
......
All said, it's a nice developer, which DOES have a different look to almost all other developers I've tried. After I run out of the remaining 4 gallon kits I own, I'm going to start using Pyrocat again, alongside Edwal 12 for those gloomy days.

I don't doubt that it worked for you Thomas, but I am talking a sometimes 6 month gap. I didn't trust it after that length of time. If it was easy to get and wasn't expensive I would still use it. I liked it, especially for skin tones, but the hassle was too much.

You should give Edwal 10 a whirl if you haven't already. It seems like we appreciate the same developers as we have discussed a bit in the past. Edwal 10 is basically Edwal 12 without the PPD. The result is the grain is not as fine, but the contrast doesn't get out of control. Edwal 10 is more an all purpose developer with the nice glycin bump.

After all these years of messing around, my favorite developers are Rodinal (I use something close to Gainer's EZ formula), Pyrocat-PC, and the Edwals (10/12).

ColColt · Apr 18, 2016

I felt Edwal's FG-7 was a decent developer but like a lot of things I liked, it's gone as well. I'd like to try it with the "newer" Tri-X of today.

Jon Buffington · Apr 18, 2016

I've got a bottle of fg-7 unopened and know where 3 more unopened bottles are. Been waiting to test the bottle out. Maybe this weekend I will roll a short 12 frame roll from a bulk roll I have. Bought an old bottle of hc-110 from the same place for pennies and the developer works as it should. Ended up buying another bottle of it and some diafine and acufine. All new old stock.

If your interested in one of these old bottles of fg-7, I may just pick up the other 3 bottles this Saturday.

ColColt · Apr 18, 2016

I wonder if it's any good? I don't know the keeping properties.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 18, 2016

HC-110 and Rodinal keep for a VERY long time even when opened. However the rodinal (note use of lower case) not made by Agfa do not keep as long. This may be due to the cheap bottles that they are sold in.

Jon Buffington · Apr 19, 2016

ColColt said:
I wonder if it's any good? I don't know the keeping properties.

I wonder that as well. I guess the only way to find out is to open it up and use it. It was unopened so I can hope for the best.

ColColt · Apr 19, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
HC-110 and Rodinal keep for a VERY long time even when opened. However the rodinal (note use of lower case) not made by Agfa do not keep as long. This may be due to the cheap bottles that they are sold in.

You're referring to the ones you get from Freestyle?

Harvey's

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency