Experiences with Adox MCC developer?

[pentaxuser]

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

Thanks So can you give me a link to these tests at your lab. I'd like to have a look for myself if I may

pentaxuser

 

[Henning Serger]

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

I am living at two different locations several dozens kilometres in distance, at one there is my lab, at the other one my main flat. My big archive with all the test results is at the lab, and I am currently in my flat. So I cannot have a look at my archive. But if I remember right, the measured Dmax advantage of MCC was in the 4 - 8% range (depending on the paper). MCC dev. performed best with Agfa/ADOX MCC and MCP paper. Not surprising: The MCC dev. formula was designed by Agfa for optimal performance with their MCC and MCP paper.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[pentaxuser]

miha, thanks for the link to Piu's tests. Looking at the step wedges it would seem that the Rollei neutral print developer has a slight edge on Ilford MG but would it be enough to be visible and even if it was, is it enough to make a "real life" difference? I just don't know. The prints from the negative might show this but the tests were all step wedges.

None of the developers were Adox MCC unfortunately. Nevertheless an interesting test

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I am living at two different locations several dozens kilometres in distance, at one there is my lab, at the other one my main flat. My big archive with all the test results is at the lab, and I am currently in my flat. So I cannot have a look at my archive. But if I remember right, the measured Dmax advantage of MCC was in the 4 - 8% range (depending on the paper). MCC dev. performed best with Agfa/ADOX MCC and MCP paper. Not surprising: The MCC dev. formula was designed by Agfa for optimal performance with their MCC and MCP paper.

Best regards,
Henning

OK and thanks for the reply Henning

pentaxuser

 

[john_s]

Now I wonder if the advantage in Dmax of Adox MCC developer over Ilford Multigrade developer is somehow linked to the former's higher pH (11.2 compared to 10, according to their MSDS docs).

 

[~andi]

Its a good developer, most expensive one I've used so far. Here's the Euro-per-liter-working solution
numbers if you buy over the Impex webshop (as of July 22, 2019):

MCCD 1+4: 2.85
MCCD 1+6: 2.00
Moersch ECO4812 1+14: 1.78
Dektol 1+2: 1.41
Dektol 1+4: 0.85

I use the developers one shot an go through about 2l working solution per week on average these days.
So prices are interesting (though not determinable for me in this case). The wet prints look different in
different developers (very snappy blacks in MCCDev). I don't see (eyes, not densitometer)
relevant (to me) differences amongst the different developers with MGWT FB after it dried down.
That might be the Ilford-consistency thing though. Haven't used other papers.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

I think, you'll find that t5hey all are a derivative of D72.

 

[Henning Serger]

I think, you'll find that t5hey all are a derivative of D72.

Do you have any real evidence for that? Have you done direct comparison tests?
What I have reported here about ADOX MCC developer is the result of the direct comparison tests I've made to some other developers I've used before and beside.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Now that I've used the ADOX MCC developer for over 2 months, I can report the replenishment regime works well, and suits the way I often print in the darkroom, meaning less wasted developer and reasonable costs.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Do you have any real evidence for that? Have you done direct comparison tests?
What I have reported here about ADOX MCC developer is the result of the direct comparison tests I've made to some other developers I've used before and beside.

Best regards,
Henning

my evidence is a comparison of their MSDSs

 

[Tom Kershaw]

D-72 gives great looking prints but doesn't last long in the development tray.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

, I can report the replenishment regime works well, and suits the way I often print in the darkroom, meaning less wasted developer and reasonable costs.

Can you maybe tell me a bit more about the way you often print?

Eg I printed last weekend, if I will print next weekend, I just mix a bit new MCC solution and mix it with the old developer?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Eg I printed last weekend, if I will print next weekend, I just mix a bit new MCC solution and mix it with the old developer?

Pretty much. Although I've not printed for a while and switched over to self mixed developers.

 

[relistan]

I used Adox MCC developer in the past and it was good. I found that with that developer and a few others, if I didn't have an extended print session, I was able to drain the tray into an accordion bottle and keep it for a week to print the following weekend. MCC developer works fine in this way.

Here's to hoping MCC paper gets put back into production at some point...

 

[Doremus Scudder]

...

Here's to hoping MCC paper gets put back into production at some point...

+1!

 

[K-G]

...

Here's to hoping MCC paper gets put back into production at some point...

+1 ( at least ! ).

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Joerg Bergs]

I think, you'll find that t5hey all are a derivative of D72.

That is the point, much else is pure marketing. In terms of lifetime, the Moersch 4812 is the best developer. And there are reasons why it works slowly in higher dilutions.