Experiences with Adox MCC developer?

K-G

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
551
Location
Goth, Sweden
Format
Multi Format
I have tried it together with Adox MCC 110 paper and I have a feeling that it really can give you a litle bit extra in contrast and density. I have compared it with Moersch Eco 4812 ( which in itself is an excellent developer ). I have not made any measurements on contrast and D-max values but the MCC developer seems to have the edge. One thing is clear and that is that MCC dveloper reacts much faster, Allready after 10 - 15 seconds the image starts to emerge while sometimes you have to wait 40 - 50 seconds for the 4812. Given enough time ( 3 - 4 minutes ) 4812 can also give you excellent result but fresh MCC developer can deliver after 2 - 2,5 minutes. When the MCC developer is worn out it seems to loose its capacity more rapidly than the 4812. The 4812 can also be diluted more ( 1 + 14 ) and has very good keeping properties if stored airtight. They are very good developers both of them, but when I set up for making exhibition prints , I choose the MCC developer.

Karl-Gustaf
 
OP
OP

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,974
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format

Karl-Gustaf,

Thanks for that. Very helpful and well explained. The Adox products tend to be reasonably priced compared to Moersch; although I did some printing today with Moersch SE6 first opened about 10 years ago and it still worked fine - once I managed to open the bottle...

Tom
 

lantau

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
826
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
I'm using MMC dev because it's designed for replenishment and that suits my slot processor. The image appears after just over 5s if I remember correctly, but I'm using slightly elevated temperature in the Nova. The darkroom is cold in winter.

I also had a subjective feeling that on MCP and MCC the blacks were a little stronger than with Neutol Eco. I didn't use my Fomatone papers with MCC, yet.

I had a partially filled bottle standing around for half a year and it became visibly darker. I had a feeling that the images were getting a colder tone. With Adox Neutol Eco that effect was much stronger, though. I had an image that looked baby blue to me. So I sepia toned it.

I have a fresh bottle of MCC on standby for when I switch back to b/w from color in a few weeks. But I kept the old tank solution and will check what it's going to do then.
 

R.Gould

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
1,752
Location
Jersey Chann
Format
Multi Format
There was an Agfa multi contrast developer which was designed to be used with the agfa Mcc papers, it realy suited that pa[er, gave a bit of warmth to the prints and a littles extra ommph to it, could be that this the same formula
 

K-G

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
551
Location
Goth, Sweden
Format
Multi Format
R.Gould said:
There was an Agfa multi contrast developer which was designed to be used with the agfa Mcc papers, it realy suited that pa[er, gave a bit of warmth to the prints and a littles extra ommph to it, could be that this the same formula
Click to expand...
If you follow the link in Tom's original message you will se that it probably is so.

Karl-Gustaf
 

Henning Serger

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,196
Format
Multi Format

ADOX MCC developer is meanwhile my main used developer. I've used and tested lots of different developers in the past. And MCC suits my needs best:
- excellent very high Dmax with ADOX MCP / MCC / Lupex papers and Ilford Multigrade papers (PE and FB)
- excellent capacity
- reacts fast
- very long shelf life: I am doing a shelf life test since 2015 with a bottle of MCC opened that year: Stored in the original bottle and protected with Tetenal protective gas. Last week I have developed with that MCC from 2015 again and it worked perfectly
- nice neutral tone
- outstanding price-performance ratio.

Best regards,
Henning
 
OP
OP

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,974
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format

Have you tried the MCC developer in comparison with the ILFORD MULTIGRADE developer?

Tom
 

Henning Serger

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,196
Format
Multi Format
Tom Kershaw said:
Have you tried the MCC developer in comparison with the ILFORD MULTIGRADE developer?

Tom
Click to expand...

Hello Tom,
yes I have. Ilford Multigrade is a good, solid developer, but I've got significant better results with the MCC developer. With MCC I've achieved
- better Dmax
- higher capacity
- longer shelf-life, both with the concentrate and the working solution; the working solution of Multigrade developer is exhausting faster than MCC working solution; MCC has better 'stamina' in open developing trays.

Best regards,
Henning
 
OP
OP

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,974
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
Better late than never, I've just been printing with the MCC developer and it is an excellent product. For self evident reasons I cannot yet comment on capacity and shelf-life but the Dmax is impressive, and the product works very well with ILFORD MG papers (classic and warmtone tried so far) and the MCC paper. I would agree with Henning with regard to the neutral tone.
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
2,996
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
When comparing MG and MCC developers and the Dmax they deliver one should not overlook the fact the one can be used at 1+9 or 1+14, the other at 1+4 or 1+6 dilution. Quite a difference.
 
OP
OP

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,974
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
miha said:
When comparing MG and MCC developers and the Dmax they deliver one should not overlook the fact the one can be used at 1+9 or 1+14, the other at 1+4 or 1+6 dilution. Quite a difference.
Click to expand...

Very true, but I suspect ADOX are using a different approach as the developer is suggested for replenishing, whereas the ILFORD products are intended for single session use.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,050
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Tom Kershaw said:
Very true, but I suspect ADOX are using a different approach as the developer is suggested for replenishing, whereas the ILFORD products are intended for single session use.
Click to expand...
Tom you and others here might be right about extra DMax and longevity but I have always replenished MG in my Nova slot and that way the MG seemed to maintain consistency. Mt replenishment regime was on the basis that at 1+9 and RC paper 1 8x10 "uses" 10ml if a 1000ml can develop 100 sheets as per Ilford instructions. So I could on the above basis do about 40 5x7 prints for 100ml but I always erred on the safe side and used a 100ml replenishment even if I had done maybe 20 sheets of 5x7. It was easier to automatically replenish with 100ml each time

pentaxuser
 

john_s

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
2,153
Location
Melbourne, A
Format
Medium Format
Adox MCC seems to unavailable here at the end of the Earth, so I had a look at the MSDS to see if there might be something similar that I could try. I notice that it has a few percent of diethylene glycol. I understand the use of glycol to make water-free concentrated developers to enhance storage life, but what would be the function of a few percent?
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,715
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
It's unclear to me, but I do know that solubility of hydroquinone is much greater in diethylene glycol than in water. However, since the MSDS states that the hydroquinone content of the product is below 5%, I'm not sure if this is the reason as up to 5% HQ would dissolve in just water. Another possibility is that it helps the developer to penetrate the gelatin as suggested here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/diethylene-glycol-purpose-in-developers-e6-fd.143418/
A third possibility is that the glycol helps to keep impurities in solution, preventing them from interfering with the image: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/diethylene-glycol-and-development-applications.192546/
 

lantau

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
826
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Or the glycol helped making a solution of Hydroquinone, which was then mixed in.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,715
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I don't think so. The glycol is present in roughly a similar amount as the HQ ad solubility of HQ in diethylene glycol is something like 36%. Plus it would add an unnecessary extra step in manufacturing. It makes more sense that the glycol actually serves a purpose in the concentrate itself or even in the working strength developer.
 

Henning Serger

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,196
Format
Multi Format
miha said:
When comparing MG and MCC developers and the Dmax they deliver one should not overlook the fact the one can be used at 1+9 or 1+14, the other at 1+4 or 1+6 dilution. Quite a difference.
Click to expand...

Well, not a difference concerning Dmax. Ilford Multigrade delivers optimal Dmax at 1+9 dilution. But you don't get higher Dmax with a "fatter" dilution like 1+6 or 1+4.
MCC developer give optimal Dmax at its standard dilution 1+4. And that Dmax is higher than that of Multigrade at its optimal standard dilution.
That fact and that MCC offers capacity and shelf life advantages to me are the reasons why I prefer the ADOX MCC developer (and I have used Ilford Multigrade dev. for several years).

Best regards,
Henning
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
2,996
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
I think we are splitting hairs here...
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,050
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
When Dmax is mentioned, the problem is that the differences in the Dmax in the print is usually measured by eye and by definition it is the eye of the beholder. Nothing wrong with that except that we all tend to have "different eyes". So we need a lot of users who have used both developers to say that Adox is the higher Dmax before we can say conclusively that Adox delivers the higher Dmax.

The more conclusive alternative is that with all other things being equal there are density measurements that show that Adox is capable of the greater DMax and that the difference in mathematically measured terms, exceeds the difference beyond which we know the naked eye can detect

Is there such evidence?

pentaxuser
 

Henning Serger

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,196
Format
Multi Format
miha said:
I think we are splitting hairs here...
Click to expand...

Certainly not we, but maybe you.....
I've just reported about my experiences with MCC Dev. and other developers, and my test results in Dmax measurements, in which ADOX MCC Dev. shows its advantages.

Best regards,
Henning
 

Henning Serger

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
2,196
Format
Multi Format
pentaxuser said:
Is there such evidence?
pentaxuser
Click to expand...

Yes. I've tested the Dmax of MCC Dev. with a densitometer. It's advantage is both measurable and visible.
I am - next to other projects - running an independent photography test lab, so scientific tests are my standard. And when I am writing here about my test results, I am mostly referring to these tests from my test lab.

Best regards,
Henning
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,050
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Henning, in addition to your # 22 which was a reply to miha, can you say in reply to my #21 what your test results Dmax measurements were or point me to the information.

Thanks

pentaxuser
 

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
2,996
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
Pentaxuser,

attached is a test of a few print developers conducted by Photrio member Piu: http://fg-kometen.vdsastro.de/piu/f/pentw.pdf
It's in German but I'm sure you will understand it. Ergebnise = results (Frische Entwickler = fresh developer). The step wedges all look the same to me, however the author ranked Dmax (Maximaldichte) from 1 to 3 (3=best).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…