Experiences with Adox MCC developer?

[Tom Kershaw]

A question out of curiosity really. I've always got on fine with the standard ILFORD developers available economically in 5lt containers, alongside home brew D-72 etc. Looking at the Adox site I see this http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-chemistry/paper-developers/mcc-developer/ - has anyone tried it? The dilution is unusual as 1+4 to 1+6.

Tom

 

[K-G]

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

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

If you follow the link in Tom's original message you will se that it probably is so.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Henning Serger]

A question out of curiosity really. I've always got on fine with the standard ILFORD developers available economically in 5lt containers, alongside home brew D-72 etc. Looking at the Adox site I see this http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-chemistry/paper-developers/mcc-developer/ - has anyone tried it? The dilution is unusual as 1+4 to 1+6.

Tom

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

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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

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

Tom

 

[Henning Serger]

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

Tom

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

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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]

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.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I haven't used the ILFORD MG developer for a while, so am unable to make an exact comparison at the moment. Generally I've been using PQ Universal and a range of self-mixed developers.

 

[john_s]

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]

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]

Or the glycol helped making a solution of Hydroquinone, which was then mixed in.

 

[koraks]

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]

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.

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]

I think we are splitting hairs here...

 

[pentaxuser]

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]

I think we are splitting hairs here...

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]

Is there such evidence?
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

 

[pentaxuser]

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]

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).