• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Adox MCP 310 vs 312 vs MCC 110 surface finish

Aerial

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Messages
29
Location
Belgium
Format
Multi Format
I'm currently working on a project and I'm printing quite a lot of images, shuffling them, determining order, throwing images out, etc and it's just a waste of money, time (longer processing times) and water to do that with the FB paper. My stash of Adox MCC110 (an absolutely beautiful paper!) is running out and and I'm considering getting one of the Adox RC papers instead. Could anybody tell me which of these closest matches the surface finish of MC 110? I strongly dislike the plastic shine of the gloss Ilford multigrade rc paper so I'm hesitant to get MCP312. Also, I'm guessing the general contrast and the look of the Adox rc papers more or less matches those of the the fiber variant?

I can't get any of the Adox papers locally to try out and I prefer ordering a couple of boxes at the same time to compensate for shipping costs.
 
Assuming the 312 is like the Arista Private Reserve pearl (I'm pretty sure they are the same paper) that I have tried, it's closer to the 110 than the glossy will be. Nothing other than FB glossy-dried-matte (meaning unferrotyped glossy FB) is exactly the same but Ilford Pearl and this Adox/Arista paper come closer than RC gloss does.

It's a nice paper and too bad Freestyle is discontinuing it. OTOH it responds hardly at all to (or not at all that I can tell) to selenium to cool it a bit and increase d-max, unlike Ilford RC, so I prefer Ilford RC if I'm going to print on RC.

For the most part I only use RC (in glossy for this purpose) for contact sheets, though I have used the pearl surface papers to make nice 5x7s.
 
I use MCP312 and I find it a nice paper. The surface is very similar to Ilford RC Pearl. MCP312 does react to selenium toning, see (there was a url link here which no longer exists). My experience is the same. I don't mind the magenta colour shift with KRST 1+9 all that much. It can be a nice effect.
 
Aerial,

I use and like both papers, MCC110 and MCP312. While I generally prefer FB, MCP312 is lovely, too. It has a beautiful surface shine, is not too thin, accepts longish wet times when my darkroom session spreads over several hours and the prints wait in the holding bath until I wash them (I know it's not the best practice), well, and it just looks good. My usual developer of choice is Moersch ECO4812, in which it gets an ever so subtle warm tone, or with SE2. If you prefer neutral tones, try SE4. I also found that it does not change tone so easily with Selenium, but responds nicely to sepia (my toners are also made by Moersch). You may order directly from Fotoimpex.
 
Ah - it's been a long while since I tried the Arista version of 312, and the other thread is right, it DOES change color in selenium. I remember now. It's not that it didn't change color, it's that I didn't like the color it changed, unlike MGIV RC. IIRC it was my brown toner it didn't seem to respond to at all. I didn't try sepia. I also didn't try selenium as dilute as the 1+30 mentioned in that thread. I just used the 1+19 batch I had mixed for my other prints.
 
There is no RC paper that is the equivalent of a FB paper. Sorry but that is fact. You have to choose the paper that suits your work.

I strongly dislike the plastic shine of the gloss Ilford multigrade rc paper
Click to expand...

All RC papers are encapsulated in plastic so of course they will look plastic.

What do you want? - images that suit your vision or a method to save money and time?

Sorry to be so hard but that is how it is.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de
 

I'm a fan of RC paper.

I like the appearance of RC glossy, when glossy is right for the subject.

And I like and appreciate the appearance of the Ilford pearl and satin finishes (and the Oriental Seagull comparables) for those subjects suited to those surfaces.

I appreciate the durability of the material, as well as the suitability of its process, given my darkroom circumstances.

If you like the results you obtain from RC paper, don't hesitate to use it.

It is your circumstances and your vision that should determine your choice.
 
Thanks for all the replies, I'll give the 312 a go.

Sandra, thanks for suggesting Moersch ECO4812. It looks very promising, especially with that kind of shelf life. I think I'll order a bottle together with the paper.

David, you have clearly misunderstood my question. I'm not looking for an exact equivalent of the FB paper. I want a cheaper paper and a shorter process to work things through (think of it as the equivalent of a book dummy). The final images will be printed on MCC 110.
 
swittmann said:
...You may order directly from Fotoimpex.
Click to expand...
After some research and a confirming email from Mirko, I determined that MCP is still a current ADOX product. Freestyle, however, has decided to stop carrying it.

I just ordered 100 sheets of 8x10 MCP 312 directly from FOTOIMPEX. Even with the substantial shipping charge spread over only one item, my total cost was just a bit higher than what I spent recently for 100 sheets of 8x10 Multigrade Warmtone RC from B&H. I'm looking forward to receipt of the ADOX paper. It holds promise as a high-quality, high D-Max alternative that won't require special developers to attain neutral image tone.
 
David Allen said:
...What do you want? - images that suit your vision or a method to save money and time?...
Click to expand...
I want images that suit my vision, first and foremost. Almost all current FB papers fail in that regard. Their surface is either far, far too glossy or, if "matt" / "semi-matt," too dull and lacking real blacks. "Pearl" RC paper is, for my vision, nearly perfect. I know of no current FB paper that looks as good to me.

Second, in this part of the world where an extended drought has made water conservation of utmost importance, I want a method to minimize water consumption. RC paper's process does that.

The price of materials is, for me, only a small part of photography's cost. If RC paper saves money compared to FB, it's an insignificant difference.

Finally, I've found that the time saving associated with RC actually improves my print quality. Without a permanent darkroom, the ability to iterate and quickly achieve an optimum print means I am more likely to do the work. With FB, I need to set up and tear down the "darkroom" multiple times, decreasing motivation. Life gets in the way.

In this thread

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)​

I pointed out that latest information indicates a useful display life of at least several decades for RC prints after even very light selenium toning. There are certainly applications where the probable greater longevity (we really don't know for sure, given changes in FB's makup) of FB prints would be valuable. However, for most people, properly processed and stored negatives provide all the long-term archive value necessary.

It's important to point out that I have never, do not now and don't intend to ever sell prints. If I did, FB is the only paper I'd use. I'd also be very frustrated by the lack of FB surfaces that suit my vision.
 
I have some carefully processed and selenium toned RC prints that I made in the late 80s that are starting to discolor badly. But that was 80s era paper, and they've been framed under glass the entire time. I don't doubt today's papers are much better.

I don't think RC is bad. I happen to like the look of FB "glossy dried matte" as we used to call it - unferrotyped FB glossy. (Does anyone still ferrotype?) I have been tempted, though, to go to RC paper for 16x20 prints, because once wet and by the time it's in the fixer fiber paper in larger sizes becomes so "floppy" that I find it difficult to handle without creasing. There's even the Ilford "Premium Portfolio" RC if needed.

I agree that Pearl and similar surfaces are my favorites in RC. RC glossy is way too shiny for me most of the time, and RC matte is just plain fugly IMHO. I use RC glossy for contact sheets, however, because it looks better than matte, has better D-max that more closely matches the enlargements I will make, and there is no texture to interfere with the visibility of fine detail under a loupe.

The 112 is a nice paper, and the finish is very nice. You'll probably like it.
 
That's the era when things were really bad. See here:


It wasn't until the late 1990s that things were greatly improved with respect to RC stability on display. For prints stored in a proper album, it's been even longer since other, more basic RC deterioration mechanisms were addressed.

Roger Cole said:
...I happen to like the look of FB "glossy dried matte" as we used to call it - unferrotyped FB glossy...
Click to expand...
As did I. Except that, among current papers, only Ilfobrom Galerie still has sufficiently low gloss to be acceptable to me. All the others, even air dried, are far too shiny for my taste. It's been alleged that Schoeller only supplies one kind of FB paper base, which is why the change occurred. Industry insiders have variously told me that it's different hardening procedures or the photo manufacturers' unwillingness to purchase more expensive base from Schoeller that's to blame. In any case, all I know is that the result is a mess of surface reflection I don't want.

Roger Cole said:
...The 112 is a nice paper, and the finish is very nice. You'll probably like it.
Click to expand...
While I did purchase a small 5x7 package of MCC 112 from Freestyle some time ago, I've not yet tried it, but suspect it will have insufficient D-Max, just like HARMAN's semi-matt version of Multigrade Warmtone FB does. However, I do hope to like the MCP 312 FOTOIMPEX is sending.
 
I was referring to the MCP. It is close enough as makes little difference to Ilford Pearl, best I recall. I do still have some prints on it and I could dig them out later. If memory serves it may be very slightly finer textured.
 
Two weeks and a day later, this paper was delivered moments ago. I won't be able to print on it for quite a while, but will post here again when I do.

Somewhat concerning is that the shipment's accompanying paperwork indicates it was subject to X-ray inspection during the many-day period it sat at Frankfurt Airport mail center. Google doesn't provide any insight as to what type of equipment is employed there for that purpose. Does anyone know whether is it akin to machines used at airports for carry-on bags? Or higher energy, like what checked luggage is subjected to? Time will tell whether the paper suffered any damage. It's unfortunate that FOTOIMPEX doesn't participate in the "known consignor" program under which, apparently, X-ray inspection of shipped packages is not required.
 
I don't recall the subject of x-raying paper coming up before but paper is so slow compared to film I wouldn't expect problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.
 
It depends on the strength of the x-ray machine. I've brought paper home on the the plane and the carry-on luggage X-raying didn't damage the paper just like it doesn't damage film. However, there are reports on the web about Ilford putting paper with a walkman in the checked luggage and it did get damaged. The walkman was imprinted in many sheets of the paper.

Sal, please report back on the state of the paper. I would also be interested in ordering paper straight from Photoimpex.

Menno
 

Can you give us more information. It sounds as if the report is saying that the Xrays in checked luggage are sufficiently high to have effectively taken a picture of the walkman not only on the top sheet but down through many sheets? Wow!

I wonder who in Ilford tried this experiment and when it was done( Walkmans are very old tech). To test its protection provided by its black bag and then boxes the Walkman was presumably placed on top of the Ilford box?

I wonder why a Walkman was chosen and why the likes of Simon Galley never mentioned this Ilford experiment. Was this because Ilford failed to protect its paper apparently quite abysmally based on the story?

As you will gather I am led to wonder greatly about this story and will continue to wander aimlessly as well unless you can help me with my questions.

The web is truly an amazing place. I'd try this experiment myself but I never fly these days after reading on the web that the world may indeed be flat with the attendant danger of flying over the edge

Thanks

pentaxuser
 
spijker said:
...there are reports on the web about Ilford putting paper with a walkman in the checked luggage and it did get damaged. The walkman was imprinted in many sheets of the paper...
Click to expand...

With Menno off line right now, I exercised the Google machine. The only relevant match was this one:

It's a second-hand report by Roger Hicks. No evidence of Simon having ever commented on the paper damage. Perhaps Roger will chime in with more details.
 
I also googled "x-ray photo paper walkman" before I posted the above message and didn't get much back other than forum posts like the rangefinderforum, photo.net and APUG. I recall seeing the original article with photos a long time ago but I can't find it anymore. Maybe things have changed for the better and even the checked luggage x-ray machines are now safe for paper. I once had a plan to bring a piece of photo paper with a small piece of lead on top with me on a plane in my suitcase. But never got around to it. Anyone else going on a plane anytime soon?
 
Thanks for the link. Normally I'd trust Roger Hicks but even his statement is a bit vague on who when where etc. Maybe he was also repeating the kind of anecdotal statement that the net is famous for in order to make a valid point about paper being better in hand luggage.

I remain sceptical and as neither Roger nor Simon Galley, late of Ilford visits this forum any longer then we are relying on the poster to know more.

It's the "impression of a Walkman through umpteen sheets that makes me think of "tall tales"

I knew a man who moved so fast once that he could turn out the bedroom light at the door and be in the bed before it went dark

pentaxuser
 

These are interesting questions and I can understand you are a bit worried. Why not ask Mirko directly by posting in the Adox forum here on APUG. As it's most likely not the first time they shipped paper or film abroad, he is probably better able to answer this kind of questions?
 

Sal, do you have an update for us whether you noticed any effect of the X-rays on the paper? It's been 3 months now. I hope you were not locked out of your darkroom for 3 months.

Menno
 
Sal Santamaura said:
It's unfortunate that FOTOIMPEX doesn't participate in the "known consignor" program under which, apparently, X-ray inspection of shipped packages is not required.
Click to expand...

-) the intention of this scheme is anything but protecting photo-sensitive materials from being x-rayed

-) radiating may still occur

-) becoming a "trustworthy sender" is troublesome and costly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register