Agfa MCC paper question

[bgav]

I usually happily print on Ilford MGIV FB, but from time to time I hear some people abroad print exclusively on Agfa MCC. I checked stores around and see that MCC is available only upon special order having limited set of sizes and about 1.5 times more expensive than MGIV. Can somebody explain the difference between these papers? Should I bother? Am I missing something?

 

[Paul Sorensen]

Agfa MCC is very nice paper, but so is Ilford. My experience with Agfa Fiber paper is that the base tends to be warmer than Ilford and it takes Selenium toner more readily. In the US it tends to be somewhat cheaper than Ilford. Unless there is something about the Ilford that you are don't like, I can't see going through the hassle and expense to get the Agfa.

 

[SoulSurround]

...and about 1.5 times more expensive than MGIV.

Over here in the Netherlands Agfa MCC (for example 50 sheets of 24x30cm) costs 39 euro, wheras Ilford costs 54.95 euro. So I guess it's more the location than the paper's specifications what you are paying for. But as was already mentioned; don't change on papers when there is no reason to do this.

Jeroen

 

[gbroadbridge]

The RC papers are strikingly different. MGIV is very light weight whereas MCC is double weight. Their response to light under the enlarger is very similar.

FB may or may not be different


Graham.

 

[timeUnit]

Ilford MGIV FB is as stated colder than Afga MCC, in both paper base and emulsion IMO. MCC reacts well with selenium, and I hear it responds more to different developers than MGIV. MCC placed in a strong selenium toner, 1+9 or less diluted, for more than a few minutes takes on a quite deep red tone in shadows and lower midtones, I guess you could call it split-tone. Some people (myself included) think this looks great on some pics, others hate it.

MCC has two surfaces, 118 and 111. 118 is "semi-matt" -- a coarsely structured surface that I find very pleasing. 111 is glossy, and resembles most glossy FB papers. Interestingly I find that the two surfaces have slightly different tones. 118 semi-matt is a bit warmer than the 111 glossy. It was a good while ago I used the 111 surface (like eight years...) so it might have changed since then.

I bought a 50 pack of MCC 118 12x16 yesterday.

*h

 

[Maine-iac]

I usually happily print on Ilford MGIV FB, but from time to time I hear some people abroad print exclusively on Agfa MCC. I checked stores around and see that MCC is available only upon special order having limited set of sizes and about 1.5 times more expensive than MGIV. Can somebody explain the difference between these papers? Should I bother? Am I missing something?

I love MCC, having switched to it from Ilford MGIV. It has a slightly warmer base, but will give a neutral tone in the emulsion, depending on the developer. But the real reason I like it is that it gives much better depth and detail in the shadows than Ilford. I like to see into the shadows, and MCC does this very well. I suspect the higher price is either due to excise taxes in your area or the particular source you're purchasing from. In most places, it's less expensive than Ilford. If you can find Tetenal Vario FB in your area, it's really Agfa MCC packaged under the Tetenal name; often it's less expensive by 10-15%.

Larry

 

[Tach]

I usually happily print on Ilford MGIV FB, but from time to time I hear some people abroad print exclusively on Agfa MCC. I checked stores around and see that MCC is available only upon special order having limited set of sizes and about 1.5 times more expensive than MGIV. Can somebody explain the difference between these papers? Should I bother? Am I missing something?

According to some people, Ilford MGIV is optimized to print films with no shoulder (TMAX et al), having less contrast in the highlights than Agfa, and muddying them with conventional films.

I've printed in both, and the results seems to confirm these observations. My favourite films are PanF + and HP5+, and the prints in agfa have an highlight sparkle missing in the MGIV. Tri-X has a much less pronounced shoulder in my developer of choice, and I'm happy with prints in both papers.

 

[bgav]

Thanks to everyone.

 

[firecracker]

the prospect of Ilford and Agfa MC FB

Does anyone know at this point which company holds a better future for providing us good photographic paper? I know this question sounds silly, but it is kind of important for me because:

REASON#1 Earlier this year, I looked for Ilford FB MC 11x14" in stores in Japan (Both regular and online retailers), and they were out of stock for a couple of months without knowing when they would get the next shipment from the manufacture. It sounded like the entire country was out of the paper!

REASON#2 The prices have gone up significantly high. Besides, they usually cost almost double over here compared to the U.S. and Europe. For example, right now, a box of 11x14" (50 sheets) Agfa MC FB is about 70 U.S. dollars, and Ilford only comes in 10 sheet envelopes for this size for 15 U.S. dollars each, which is pain if you need at least a couple of boxs of 50 sheets.

So, I wonder if shipping from another country like U.S. (or even China if available) is better to save some money, I will. But the question is, is it too risky to do international shipment for darkroom paper because they are light-sensitive? (I heard FedEx does a hand search instead of Xray scan, but is it always the case?) Does anyone do that? Or is it even legal to ship the same brand products (new products) across the different markets?

Please help me out on this.

 

[Sinarfar]

I use MCC because of the lith printing capabilities, love it. I do not like the way MG lith's.

 

[PhotoJim]

MCC has deeper blacks for me compared to MG IV. I like the tonality of MG IV, but pictures printed on MCC have a better snap. I'm not sure if it responds better with my developers or if it just suits my style better.

I usually use Bromophen 1:3 but sometimes use Ansco 130 1:1.