Adox MCC 110 - Paper Follow Up

[kozesluk]

em... TSP = Trisodium phosphate (Na3PO4) ?

 

[Ian Grant]

Tri-Sodium Phosphate, it's an alkali thats been used since the 30's in some developers in place of carbonate or in other cases Borax.

Ian

 

[Ken N]

I just ordered up my second large batch of MCC and PRINT WA developer. This has become my new standard paper. It took me the better part of an entire weekend to calibrate my ZoneMaster II to work with it because the curves are so substantially different than Multigrade IV to be silly. Once recalibrated, it's heavenly to work with.

The biggest advantage I see to MCC is two-fold: Blacks are BLACK! Not some off-blue cast that Ilford Multigrade IV papers have. Secondly, the straight-line section of the tonal response curves are straight! I'm so used to fighting the double-hump in the curves that I ended up split-grade printing most of the time. With MCC, I get perfectly predictable Zones I-IV and have been able to reduce contrast by an entire paper-grade to still get good blacks.

A third advantage to MCC is the fact I get zero gloss differential.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea... It's only marginally more expensive than the alternatives, but my time is more valuable than the price difference.

Ken N

 

[rwboyer]

I just ordered up my second large batch of MCC and PRINT WA developer. This has become my new standard paper. It took me the better part of an entire weekend to calibrate my ZoneMaster II to work with it because the curves are so substantially different than Multigrade IV to be silly. Once recalibrated, it's heavenly to work with.

The biggest advantage I see to MCC is two-fold: Blacks are BLACK! Not some off-blue cast that Ilford Multigrade IV papers have. Secondly, the straight-line section of the tonal response curves are straight! I'm so used to fighting the double-hump in the curves that I ended up split-grade printing most of the time. With MCC, I get perfectly predictable Zones I-IV and have been able to reduce contrast by an entire paper-grade to still get good blacks.

A third advantage to MCC is the fact I get zero gloss differential.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea... It's only marginally more expensive than the alternatives, but my time is more valuable than the price difference.

Ken N

Yep, yep, and more yep - right with you.

Just out of curiosity what MC filters are you using - not that it really matters but...

I have a VC head that is calibrated for Polycontrast, ilford MG, and old agfa paper. I also have a set of real Polycontrast, MG, and Agfa VC filters. There are Adox specs for color heads but was wondering what filter set if any matches up to this paper - I am thinking the Agfa filter set does due to it being an Agfa emulsion?

RB

 

[Mahler_one]

Yesterday I contact printed an 8x10 negative that was a landscape scene of high contrast on both the new Adox MCC and Ilford Multigrade VC FB. I used the standard "split grade printing" technique so well known to many of us here, and the inexpensive and easily mixed Zone vi developer at the standard 1 plus 3, 70-72F. Looking at the prints today ( not toned ), they are very similar. The Ilford paper might represent the scene with slightly brighter highlights and a smidgeon more contrast. However, as well all know, mix the prints up and look at them next week, and it might be hard to tell such similar appearing prints apart. Both prints look fine, and represent the scene as I had intended. My first impressions are that the papers might be very similar in their responses using the Zone vi developer ( similar to Dektol ). More prints will be needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn. I have done BTZS paper tests with the VC MCC and will shortly do so with the Ilford Multigrade VC FB. It will be interesting to see if the curves will be appreciably different when Zone vi developer is used.

I was interested to read about the response of MCC to toning. I tend to tone very selectively, believing that the evidence for Selenium toning and longevity is not as clear as one would suspect from reading various posts and articles. Toning for adding interest and certain qualities to a print are of more interest to me, and the experience of others regarding toning and MCC will certainly be relevant.

Thanks, and many thanks, to Adox for bringing another paper to the market.

 

[rwboyer]

Yesterday I contact printed an 8x10 negative that was a landscape scene of high contrast on both the new Adox MCC and Ilford Multigrade VC FB. I used the standard "split grade printing" technique so well known to many of us here, and the inexpensive and easily mixed Zone vi developer at the standard 1 plus 3, 70-72F. Looking at the prints today ( not toned ), they are very similar. The Ilford paper might represent the scene with slightly brighter highlights and a smidgeon more contrast. However, as well all know, mix the prints up and look at them next week, and it might be hard to tell such similar appearing prints apart. Both prints look fine, and represent the scene as I had intended. My first impressions are that the papers might be very similar in their responses. More prints will be needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn.

I was interested to read about the response of MCC to toning. I tend to tone very selectively, believing that the evidence for Selenium toning and longevity is not as clear as one would suspect from reading various posts and articles. Toning for adding interest and certain qualities to a print are of more interest to me, and the experience of others regarding toning and MCC will certainly be relevant.

Thanks, and many thanks, to Adox for bringing another paper to the market.

Thanks for the comment -

My standard paper has been MG IV for years and with the developers I tested the MCC is completely different - then again I did a strait print with no fiddling around.

The biggest thing is the Zone VI-IX response that I am getting vs MG IV in terms of response at least for prints with grade 2-3 that I have done so far. The other big thing that is purely subjective is that I really like the color better - a lot better.

RB

 

[Ken N]

Yep, yep, and more yep - right with you.

Just out of curiosity what MC filters are you using - not that it really matters but...

RB

I usually use the Ilford under-lens filters. I run a color head so I do occasionally dial in the colors, but usually the under-lens filters work just peachy for me. The only time I really stay away from under-lens is if I'm working a hard-contrast picture where the slight bit of flare and diffusion of the filter causes bleed-over into the highlights. But I've only encountered that twice where it's been a problem.

Ken

 

[rwboyer]

I usually use the Ilford under-lens filters. I run a color head so I do occasionally dial in the colors, but usually the under-lens filters work just peachy for me. The only time I really stay away from under-lens is if I'm working a hard-contrast picture where the slight bit of flare and diffusion of the filter causes bleed-over into the highlights. But I've only encountered that twice where it's been a problem.

Ken

Just as a note - and I do not have the reference in front of me but... I wonder what filter set exactly corresponds to the values spec'd by Adox - I kind of recall that the Agfa filters provided a tick LESS contrast w/ Ilford paper than the Ilford filters like less than 1/2 a grade.

RB

 

[kompressor]

i have bought a batch of AGFA MCC118 from Maco in Germany. Well, i really like this paper for portraits and bromoil. But how does it compare to ADOX MCC110 ?

 

[Rolleiflexible]

MCC 118 -- revival possible?

i have bought a batch of AGFA MCC118 from Maco in Germany. Well, i really like this paper for portraits and bromoil. But how does it compare to ADOX MCC110 ?

MCC 118 is the same emulsion, but on a
warm paper base with a pebbled texture.
I LOVED the color of the paper with this
emulsion, but much disliked the texture.

It's odd that you mention 118 -- I just
wrote to Mirko today to ask whether Adox
might try to do a run of MCC on a warm
paper like the old 118. Both papers used
the same emulsion, so it should be possible
if a suitable paper base can be found, and
if Adox determines there is a demand for
such a paper.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Sanders, if you like 118, then FOMA Variant 123 should be the ticket. So close to be almost indistinguishable between the two. They tone very closely too.

 

[Ken N]

I did a calibration effort this weekend for the RH Designs ZoneMaster II with this paper. The enlarger is an Omega Chromega B Dichroic using Ilford under-the-lens filters. For this specific calibration I didn't use a negative but initial tests show that with Ilford PanF, I encountered no shifting for me to worry about. The enlarger bulb has had moderate use but was unused for the past two years. ZoneMaster II has a new battery installed, but no shifting of exposure readings were noted between fresh battery and old battery.

ADOX MCC 110 processed two minutes in PRINT WA developer 1:11 at 70 degrees. Untoned and microwave dried.

Offset:
Grade 00, -9
Grade 0, -9
Grade 1, -9
Grade 2, -9
Grade 3, -12
Grade 4, -18
Grade 5, -21

Contrast:
Grade 00, 189
Grade 0, 143
Grade 1, 123
Grade 2, 103
Grade 3, 88
Grade 4, 76
Grade 5, 61

In the printed documentation, the R values for filter grades 0-5 are 140, 120, 100, 85, 70 and 55. Those turned out to be very close and in fact, if a person were to heavily tone, I'd say that they are closer than my contrast settings. My offsets are to the nearest 1/4 stop. I'd suggest that these numbers be used ONLY as a starting guide and really only have any bearing to my specific configuration outlined above. I'll be refining the measurements over the next few sessions to get things dialed in closer.

Ken

 

[Mahler_one]

Thanks for the comment -

My standard paper has been MG IV for years and with the developers I tested the MCC is completely different - then again I did a strait print with no fiddling around.

The biggest thing is the Zone VI-IX response that I am getting vs MG IV in terms of response at least for prints with grade 2-3 that I have done so far. The other big thing that is purely subjective is that I really like the color better - a lot better.

RB

Interesting observations, and thanks. With the Zone vi developer there is very little difference in the color of the scene. Obviously the developer must be affecting the paper much more than the Zone vi developer has.

 

[Mahler_one]

I just ordered up my second large batch of MCC and PRINT WA developer. This has become my new standard paper. It took me the better part of an entire weekend to calibrate my ZoneMaster II to work with it because the curves are so substantially different than Multigrade IV to be silly. Once recalibrated, it's heavenly to work with.

The biggest advantage I see to MCC is two-fold: Blacks are BLACK! Not some off-blue cast that Ilford Multigrade IV papers have. Secondly, the straight-line section of the tonal response curves are straight! I'm so used to fighting the double-hump in the curves that I ended up split-grade printing most of the time. With MCC, I get perfectly predictable Zones I-IV and have been able to reduce contrast by an entire paper-grade to still get good blacks.

A third advantage to MCC is the fact I get zero gloss differential.



More interesting still....I have not observed any of the color casts in the shadows that you are alluding to. I wonder what we are doing that is so different so as to yield such different appearing shadow tones? As noted, Zone vi, etc., etc. and I get very deep shadows with very nice highlights. Contact printing, F stop timing, citric acid or water stop bath, non hardening fixer from Formulary or Ilford, etc.,etc. No need so far to go to 130 or LPD for deeper blacks on the Ilford paper in question. Indeed, the blacks are so deep as to be almost "inky". The negatives are often developed by inspection in Pyrocat HD, trays, etc., etc. Those that aren't DBI are carefully developed in DDX based on the BTZS system, and carefully matched so as to easily print on ANSI Grade 2 paper. I have used 130 on Azo and Lodima as a substitute for Amidol, but thus far no problem with the Ilford Multigrade VC FB. I have no answer to account for the off black tones that you appear to be experiencing, but such would obviously be very bothersome. Best of luck with the Adox MCC though...happy that the problem might be solved.

 

[Ken N]

Mahler_one:

I am generally printing 35mm negs so contact printing is out. As to the Zone VI developer, that might be one of the items which helps the Ilford papers get a more neutral coloring. Split-grade printing really helps the Ilford papers, but I didn't see the same need to use it with MCC that I generally do with Ilford. This isn't badmouthing the Multigrade IV papers as they are very good! It's just that I happen to see a specific improvement for MY workflow and negatives with MCC. Had I never tried MCC I would have continued on using Ilford without hesitation and if MCC availability becomes problematic I'll return to using it. In fact, for RC papers, I find Multigrade IV RC Pearl-surface to be without peer!

 

[kompressor]

It's odd that you mention 118 -- I just
wrote to Mirko today to ask whether Adox
might try to do a run of MCC on a warm
paper like the old 118. Both papers used
the same emulsion, so it should be possible
if a suitable paper base can be found, and
if Adox determines there is a demand for
such a paper.

Why write ADOX? Why don't you just buy it fresh from the AGFA Geravert machinery? The paper is back in production on AGFA Geaverts coatingplant. I bought it here: http://macodirect.de/agfa-118br24x3025-p-764.html?language=en

 

[urbatschek]

Re. MCC 118

The paper Maco is selling is just the rest from the big Agfa disaster a few years ago. No fresh paper, just one format.
If you need fresh MCC, you must buy Adox MCC 110 and write to Fotoimpex to revive MCC 118.

Greetings from Germany,

Mirko

 

[kompressor]

you must buy Adox MCC 110 and write to Fotoimpex to revive MCC 118.

Greetings from Germany,

Mirko

Will that say, that MCC118 is within Fotoimpex?

 

[Mahler_one]

Mahler_one:

I am generally printing 35mm negs so contact printing is out. As to the Zone VI developer, that might be one of the items which helps the Ilford papers get a more neutral coloring. Split-grade printing really helps the Ilford papers, but I didn't see the same need to use it with MCC that I generally do with Ilford. This isn't badmouthing the Multigrade IV papers as they are very good! It's just that I happen to see a specific improvement for MY workflow and negatives with MCC. Had I never tried MCC I would have continued on using Ilford without hesitation and if MCC availability becomes problematic I'll return to using it. In fact, for RC papers, I find Multigrade IV RC Pearl-surface to be without peer!

Thanks for the clarifications...appreciated. I agree, of course, that one's individual work-flow and results takes precedence. Obviously the different developer makes an immense difference. I was also trying to understand what you meant by a "double hump" in the Ilford paper....

 

[Jim Noel]

Agree, very nice paper but as long as it is sold in 25 sheet envelopes only i will not buy it.

Good, that leaves more for the rest of us.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Why write ADOX? Why don't you just buy it fresh from the AGFA Geravert machinery? The paper is back in production on AGFA Geaverts coatingplant. I bought it here: http://macodirect.de/agfa-118br24x3025-p-764.html?language=en

Wishful thinking. Where in that page does it
say that Agfa Gevaert has risen from the ashes
to manufacture photographic papers? Agfa
stopped making paper and film in October 2005.
Read the Maco page for what it is: An attempt
to sell the last remaining stocks of the paper.
That's why the page exclaims, in big blue letters:
"ESTPOSTEN - NUR BEGRENZTE STÜCKZAHL
ERHÄLTLICH! Für den baldigen Verbrauch
bestimmt!"

Show me one box of Agfa photo paper "fresh
from the AGFA Gevaert machinery" and I will
give you my Rolleiflex.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Wishful thinking. Where in that page does it
say that Agfa Gevaert has risen from the ashes
to manufacture photographic papers? Agfa
stopped making paper and film in October 2005.
Read the Maco page for what it is: An attempt
to sell the last remaining stocks of the paper.
That's why the page exclaims, in big blue letters:
"ESTPOSTEN - NUR BEGRENZTE STÜCKZAHL
ERHÄLTLICH! Für den baldigen Verbrauch
bestimmt!"

Show me one box of Agfa photo paper "fresh
from the AGFA Gevaert machinery" and I will
give you my Rolleiflex.

Although I'm not saying that any product is "still" manufactured, Agfa/Gevaert is still in business in Belgium, with a coating plant and does produce products, primarily for Aerial imaging and industrial applications, both in color and black and white, film and paper. It was Agfa in Leverkusen, Germany that went belly-up, this was the consumer products division. Agfa Gevaert should have the capability to make any Agfa products if they so wish.

 

[Ian Grant]

Don't forget that the original Agfa plant in Wolfen still coats film too

Ian

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I don't think I'll be sending you my
Rolleiflex any time soon.

There is a huge difference between
coating aerial films and making b&w
photographic papers and Agfa simply
does not have the plant and equipment
to coat fiber paper any longer. That
is the reality and no amount of hoping
will change it.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I don't think I'll be sending you my
Rolleiflex any time soon.

There is a huge difference between
coating aerial films and making b&w
photographic papers and Agfa simply
does not have the plant and equipment
to coat fiber paper any longer. That
is the reality and no amount of hoping
will change it.

It doesn't matter either. If the new MCC is a beautiful paper it is a beautiful paper no matter who/what makes/brands/markets it.