Adox MCC Compared with Agfa MCC

[michael stevens]

My paper of choice is Adox MCC and I've been offered a good deal on a large amount of the Agfa paper that it replicates. I never used the old paper and I'm not sure whether to take up the offer as I know the original version had a slightly less white base. I like the relatively neutral Adox stuff.

How big or subtle a difference would I notice in the finished print? I presume it's not as far off-white as Ilford Warmtone? Any thoughts from people who have used both would be much appreciated as I don't want to end up with a load of paper I don't really like.

 

[sandermarijn]

Frankly I don't see any difference at all between Adox MCC 110 and Agfa MCC 111 in terms of base whiteness. But 1.) I never used the two papers side by side with the same negative, 2.) I'm perhaps not critical enough an observer to spot the difference, 3.) there are other factors that affect the paper's appearance, such as the developer chosen, toning, ageing, etc.

Surely others will have stronger and better-founded opinions on what the exact subtle differences are between Adox MCC 110 and Agfa MCC 111.

BTW, be careful with buying 'old' paper. I once bought two boxes of Agfa MCC 111 only to find both too fogged to be useable.

 

[Oren Grad]

Agfa MCC changed over time. It was originally on a warmish base, though not nearly so warm as the MGFBWT sold at the same time. Later production had a fairly neutral base.

The bigger issue in my mind is the risk that the paper won't be any good. My stocks of Ilford paper hold up essentially forever - I've printed on 10 year old Ilford which is still fine. But my experience with Agfa has been much more problematic. I've had several different types and batches of Agfa paper be fine for a few years, then go really bad virtually overnight. If you can test a few sheets to verify that this particular batch is still good, and you plan to use it up quickly, it may be OK.

 

[kapro]

I still have an old stock of Agfa Fiber MCC111 as well as Adox MCC. The base of Agfa is definitely warmer. I prefer it over Adox but I'm happy it was reincarnated into Adox at least.
All my favorite papers have already disapeared form the market - Agfa MCC, Forte polywarmtone, Forte Bromofort, Forte polygrade...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Based upon printing the same negatives on my supply of both papers the only differences are:

• Adox MCC 110 base whiter than even last production Agfa MCC 111
• Adox MCC 110 requires 0.4 stop less exposure than last production Agfa MCC111

 

[John Austin]

If someone definitely wants to go to Heaven, no waiting, no questions, and a front row seat with harp they will re-introduce Kodak Bromesko and Agfa Record Rapid

Agfa MCC was a very poor replacement for RR - Bromesko was the last paper that seemed to really respond to Amidol development (2.4.diamino phenol dihydrochloride)

I have been told Eurocrats stopped the production of Record Rapid as it used cadmium in the emulsion - However, as this cadmium was used to produce an incredibly beautiful paper it became non-toxic cadmium

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Yes, I think it was the loss of cadmium that caused the degradation of many lovely papers. Add Portriga and to my best guess also Azo to your list, plus others I'm sure. It has also been my impression that some of those papers with cadmium had really great keeping properties, though I don't know if that has any scientific validity.

I did like Agfa MCC and have a bit left. I haven't tried the Adox yet so am glad to hear it is similar. I like the slight warm base of the late production Agfa; the early runs were a bit too warm for my taste as an all around paper.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Sal has it. The Adox is indeed whiter and I had a feeling it was faster too, simply as a speed relative to MGWT (which I used alongside MCC from Agfa).

I would not use Agfa MCC that is five years old as I have heard that late production variants of this paper with no cadmium, or low cadmium, did not keep well. I cannot say how true this is and would suggest you ask for a few sheets as a sample. I did use some that was three years old and it was fine, but cannot claim that as representative.

 

[dpurdy]

I agree with the Grumpy Old Man. I find all this talk of MCC and other papers a bit sad. Even the Portriga I loved in the early 80s was a step down from the older Record Rapid but when they "new and improved" the Portriga in the late 1980s it was so bad I nearly gave up photography, I took up platinum printing instead. Then they lowered the quality again and made the VC version calling it Multi contrast classic. The advantage of not being a grumpy old man like myself and grumpy old man is that you don't have memories of better things to disappoint you with the current things.
Dennis

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Yes, I think it was in the early 80's that cadmium was removed from papers, so it is hard to imagine MCC ever had any. As far as using old paper, it either works or it doesn't. I have some very old paper that is fine, but have had some VC fiber papers go bad quite quickly. My Agfa MCC has been in the fridge since purchase, and my Forte Poly V has been in the freezer. The Forte is fine; I haven't checked the Agfa but suspect it will be fine too.

There were some lovely old papers, and when you look at old prints (I'm thinking 30's/40's) you can't really duplicate the look they had. But still, I think the papers we have today are quite good, just different, so I'm happy. I don't really want to go back to graded papers anyway, which is what most of the great old papers were. Over all, I was as happy with Agfa MCC as any paper I ever used. It is great to see it still alive as Adox MCC.

 

[artonpaper]

The best thing about MCC was that it was a variable contrast paper with an excellent response to changes in the filtration. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Brovira and Portriga, but I don't miss having to make adjustments in my developer when attempting to get a half grade of contrast change. I have yet to use the Adox paper, but I'm eager to try some.

Also, my experience with old Agfa paper is that it ages badly. If you could get a sheet and toss it unexposed into the developer for the usual time, it's quite likely that it will turn gray. If it doesn't I'd still want print an image and see that it's looking good.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...the loss of cadmium that caused the degradation of many lovely papers...also Azo...

According to Photo Engineer here, Azo never contained cadmium. Characteristics of the final Canadian Grade 2 production reportedly differed from earlier batches due to use of a different kettle for manufacture.

It's only been 7 years so far, but I'm unable to detect any differences between prints made on my stash of the last Azo when first received and today, despite storing it at room temperature.

 

[Peter Schrager]

there are still some nice papers...forte was really nice in the semi matte but I found it too late but managed to do a portfolio with it anyway. slavich can be fun and the multi nuance papers have charm
maybe we should be more concerned with the images guys?? you could print on toilet paper if you can print...oh and ilford mgwt is still a great paper...so?? make prints!!! the materials will always change as analogue is not a precise science...water; humidity;developer; energy in the darkroom...I make as many prints from one negative as I can handle in ONE session; usually about 15...
let's all say om and get printing!!
peter

 

[K-G]

I agree with both Tom Stanworth and Artonpaper that the keeping properties of old Agfa MCC were not the best. Last year I developed my final batch of Agfa MCC and it showed signs of fogging. I could use it for working prints but not for exhibition quality prints.
Nowadays I use the ADOX MCC 110 as my main printing paper. Sometimes I can miss that litle extra warmth that the Agfa paper gave with its slightly off-white base but otherwise it's an absolutely superb paper. From what I have read in other places it also has better keeping properties.
Let the old Agfa rest in peace and salute the newborn ADOX.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Mark Crabtree]

According to Photo Engineer here, Azo never contained cadmium. Characteristics of the final Canadian Grade 2 production reportedly differed from earlier batches due to use of a different kettle for manufacture.

It's only been 7 years so far, but I'm unable to detect any differences between prints made on my stash of the last Azo when first received and today, despite storing it at room temperature.

That is interesting to finally hear now. The folks I spoke to and corresponded with at Kodak 10 or more years ago weren't at all sure, which is why I said "and to my best guess also Azo". The Azo from the 90's and on (probably actually from sometime in the 80's) very different than the paper from the 60's and 70's. Some of that was certainly the paper base, but the emulsion seemed very different too, and sort of in the way the old Portriga paper was, so I was guessing cadmium. Kodak provided dates for some of my old, well stored, Azo and we plotted characteristic curves for several of them. I still have the file somewhere, but I guess it doesn't really matter any more.

Azo was lovely paper all along the way, except for that late Canadian crap which was a whole nother thing; I found nothing it was useful for (which was actually why I was talking to Kodak).

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I used Agfa MCC as my base paper until production ended. I found it had a shelf life of 2 years and a few months after I bought it. The new ADOX is similar in tone and contrast but on a noticeable whiter base support.

 

[maart]

I started printing too late to have worked with the pre-MCC- papers from Agfa. But in my opinion the Agfa MCC AND the ADOX MCC are papers without competition. Every square cm contains more information, more "power", so the paper makes a richer and sharper impression than its competitors. It was a sad day when Agfa went in bankruptcy. I lost a big deal of pleasure in printing. ADOX returnes with the paper, and although indeed on a much whiter base, I forgot about this base immediately when I started printing. So I am a happy man again! Marten