Has Adox MCC 110 Changed?

YOU · Oct 26, 2013

Hi everyone,

I have been using Adox MCC 110 for a few years and I have recently noticed some serious change of its characteristics.

It used to come with White boxes (I assume it's until beginning of 2012) then it changed to Red boxes(paper is same as one in white boxes though), then again, it comes with same red boxes but the description of the emulsion code (which you can find on the back of each boxes) looks in very different way. You can also find the production date on the right side of the emulsion code according to an instruction of MCC; "5-12" means "May.2012" for instance.

Anyway, I happened to get some batch which was manufactured in and after Jan.2013 from Freestylephoto and Fotoimpex someday and that was a total different paper from what it used to be. I printed both of new and old one at the same time;with same negative,same exposure and same developer, and anyone on this planet could tell the difference between them. I wouldn't say it's because of fogging or manufacture's failure as they're very consistent within each batch (even with different sizes).

As long as I experienced, the new one has much more contrast (old one can't get same contrast of new one even with two higher grade), more warm side (more controllable with a choice of developers), a slightly brighter surface (it also happened to Ilford papers by the way) and response better in Selenium toner. I personally much prefer the new one because I used to have problems with old one; it's sometimes very low contrast (even with a condenser head and Agfa's contrast filters), it couldn't get any warm tone regardless of developers or not really change in Selenium.

Now I'm having a trouble with making sure that I would get a new batch from Freestylephoto as they still have both of new and old batch in stock. I was told that It'd be very time consuming for them to find some specific batch from their huge warehouse so I would have to order more than 5 boxes of same size if I wanted it. Fotoimpex, on the other hand, seems to stock mostly new one (The last time I ordered 12x16 from them, I've got a new one).

So I keep asking myself if I am the only person who faces this problem.

best regard
--you

Jesper · Oct 26, 2013

Must say that I haven't noticed but then I haven't done the same comparative testing as you've done. The MCC 110 is my paper of choice. Must check to see if I have boxes from different batches.

Roger Cole · Oct 26, 2013

I have stock all bought before the changes you mention. While there is very very little change in selenium (there is SOME though, but way less than MGIV which some folks complain about not changing - personally I have to be careful not to let MGIV get too purple) but it always had plenty of contrast for my tastes. I usually print it with a 2.5 Ilford filter.

NB23 · Oct 26, 2013

MGIV? Change in selenium? Maybe the warm tone but the other mgiv papers show absolutely no change at all....

Roger Cole · Oct 26, 2013

NB23 said:
MGIV? Change in selenium? Maybe the warm tone but the other mgiv papers show absolutely no change at all....

No, the regular stuff. I normally tone the WT in highly dilute brown toner.

MGIV (not WT) will go too purple for my tastes after about 5 minutes in KRST 1+19. I've argued this before. I'm tempted to start toning a bunch of small test strips to send people who dont believe me. A couple of points though:

1. I seem to be VERY sensitive to changes in tone in B&W prints and see differences others don't or say they don't.

2. I develop in LPD 1+2 for 3 minutes, fix in film strength rapid fixer without hardner for one minute. This might have sonething to do with it.

But this is about MCC 110 which responds less than MGIV, or at least the batches I have do.

NB23 · Oct 26, 2013

Roger Cole said:
No, the regular stuff. I normally tone the WT in highly dilute brown toner.

MGIV (not WT) will go too purple for my tastes after about 5 minutes in KRST 1+19. I've argued this before. I'm tempted to start toning a bunch of small test strips to send people who dont believe me. A couple of points though:

1. I seem to be VERY sensitive to changes in tone in B&W prints and see differences others don't or say they don't.

2. I develop in LPD 1+2 for 3 minutes, fix in film strength rapid fixer without hardner for one minute. This might have sonething to do with it.

But this is about MCC 110 which responds less than MGIV, or at least the batches I have do.

I've never seen any change in MGIV and it frustrates me as I'd like to have a slight change such as Oriental papers... Slightly bluish. I otherwise really like Ilford's offerings.
You must have an extremely sharp eye to notice a change.

Roger Cole · Oct 26, 2013

Maybe. Or maybe it responds differently in my developer and fixer. What do you develop it in and how do you fix it?

I have some Oriental I need to try. I like to cool the normal slightly green tone, but something more toward blue and less toward purple would be nicer to me.

NB23 · Oct 26, 2013

Ilford multigrade developer, hypam/rapid fixer

K-G · Oct 27, 2013

First of all , wellcome YOU with your first post here on APUG . Then back to MCC 110 . Yes , I have also experienced problems with getting sufficient contrast from low contrast negatives with paper I received from Fotoimpex in 2012 . These were in the white boxes. With normal and high contrast negatives there were no problems. Early this summer ( 2013 ) I received a new sending from Fotoimpex and this time the contrast rendition was much better ( paper now in red boxes ) . As far as I can see the quality is now on the same level as it was when MCC 110 was re-introduced in 2010 . Whatever hapened in between, I don't know but the problem seems to have been solved. When it comes to toning, my experience is rather limited so I won't comment on that. I am just very happy that we have ADOX MCC 110 , ILFORD MGIV , MGWT and Galerie to choose from. They are all excelent papers !

Karl-Gustaf

ADOX Fotoimpex · Oct 27, 2013

The reason why we print emulsion numbers on the boxes is to make it possible for the user to buy from one batch (in order to print a series with the same settings) and to track claims (if they come up). The reason why we started printing the production date is because customers asked for it.
The observed changes in packaging are due to the implementation of the above and changes in confectioning (now done in house since about 2 years).
So if you prefer one emulsion number over another you can ask your retailer for this service and will find all informations on the box.
As far as I have understood Freestyle does not refuse to do it, neither will Fotoimpex.
So the question really is now: Where is the Problem? ;-)

Kindest Regards,

Mirko

AgX · Oct 27, 2013

-) the OP has the problem that Freestyle only offers this service from a certain volume of purchase.

-) I am surprised that the variation between batches is as large as prompting the OP to state "was a total different paper from what it used to be".

Roger Cole · Oct 27, 2013

Thanks for the information Mirko.

But what hasn't been answered is whether there have been significant changes in the paper or these observations were done quirk of the OP's methods or perhaps a variant batch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fotch · Oct 27, 2013

He said Freestyle demanded a minimum purchase of 5 boxes. Perhaps they should of separated the old from the new and shipped the old until it was depleted.

ADOX Fotoimpex · Oct 27, 2013

There are always noticeable diffenreces between papers from a new batch and an older batch. No matter which manufacturer you compare.
This does not mean there is no batch to batch consistency. If you (could) compare fresh batch to fresh batch no differences would show but you can´t.
Our competitors decided to harden their paper less which gives the paper a higher end grade. We decided to pull even on the last production.
So if you compare the batches you shall see a higher contrast with high filter values (because the older batch has by now fully hardened and then the gradation comes down) but you should not see any other differences apart from the fact that now you cannot dry the paper on a hot press anymore without using hardener in the fixer. But then again things like lith-printing or selenium toning are not part of the standard testing procedures so if he sees differences he does not have to be wrong.
Our standard tesing procedures are the same ones Agfa used in the good days. We can´t go even beyond this level under todays circumstances. No manufacturer gives a guarantee for identical lith or toning behaviour.
Fotoimpex will not ask for a 5 box minimum in order to select batches. Just email us

Mirko

Roger Cole · Oct 27, 2013

Nooo..but my previous experience was that MCC 110 was completely consistent. I have the same results with Ilford. I can do test strips cut from 8x10s from one box of paper then jump to a full sized 11x14 print from a different box with absolute consistency, but then most was bought at the same time, or close, and I haven't thought to compare batch numbers which would make that more meaningful.

So the only difference is that it reaches higher contrast with higher grade filters - that suites me fine. It's excellent paper.

K-G · Oct 27, 2013

My experience with the new batches of MCC 110 is that there is no problem with flattening the prints between archival cardboards in a heated dry mounting press. If the high contrast capability can be maintained to the cost of manually adding hardener to the fix if you want to ferritype the prints, then it is quite OK with me. The emulsion hardening seems to be much better than what the FOMA papers have. They are a pain in the **** to flatten between cardboards, at least when the press is heatened. Keep up your good quality !!!!!!!

Karl-Gustaf

pentaxuser · Oct 27, 2013

K-G said:
. Yes , I have also experienced problems with getting sufficient contrast from low contrast negatives with paper I received from Fotoimpex in 2012 . These were in the white boxes. With normal and high contrast negatives there were no problems. Early this summer ( 2013 ) I received a new sending from Fotoimpex and this time the contrast rendition was much better ( paper now in red boxes ) . As far as I can see the quality is now on the same level as it was when MCC 110 was re-introduced in 2010 .
Karl-Gustaf

When I first saw this thread I wondered where the red boxes had come from because in all the U.K. retailers' pictures of both Adox MCC 110. and the RC MCP the boxes are white. It may be of course that they have now switched to red boxes but have not bothered to update the pictures of the Adox boxes. I just don't know

What concerns me is that there seem to be the problem with the white boxes as highlighted above and that maybe the U.K. retailers are still selling their white boxes until their stock is exhausted so anyone buying it will find the same problem

Can any APUGers based in the U.K who use Adox paper either MCC or MCP say whether they can now buy the red boxes and have they noticed a difference between the white and red boxes?

I have been considering some Adox paper as I enjoyed the old Agfa MCP paper but want to avoid the issue mentioned above

Thanks

pentaxuser

YOU · Oct 28, 2013

Thank you all for your reply. As this is my first thread, I'm so glad that I can discuss with other serious B&W printers.

I feel like there are not so many people who have happened to get a new batch like me so far. Like I mentioned and some did too, MCC has a great consistency within each batches more than any other competitors I know. However, what I want to talk here is not about that kind of consistency but about some serious characteristic changes, which I already mentioned.

Again, each batch has a consistent quality; so if you compare "white box with white box", "red of 2012 with red of 2012" or "red of 2013 with red of 2013", you wouldn't see any differences at all. Let me call one in white box "No.1", one in red box from 2012 "No.2" and one in red box from 2013 "No.3". Then as long as I experienced, only No.3 is a different creature(which I prefer anyway).

I am happy that I could choose some specific batches from Fotoimpex as Mirko said (Although I'd be happier if Freestlyphoto could do it more freely since I live in USA).

One question for Mirko.
-Our competitors decided to harden their paper less which gives the paper a higher end grade. We decided to pull even on the last production.

I'm glad you did that because any of ilford FB papers, for instance, is too high contrast for me. So do you recommend to use hardener fixer with MCC?

best regard
--you

RalphLambrecht · Oct 29, 2013

Roger Cole said:
No, the regular stuff. I normally tone the WT in highly dilute brown toner.

MGIV (not WT) will go too purple for my tastes after about 5 minutes in KRST 1+19. I've argued this before. I'm tempted to start toning a bunch of small test strips to send people who dont believe me. A couple of points though:

1. I seem to be VERY sensitive to changes in tone in B&W prints and see differences others don't or say they don't.

2. I develop in LPD 1+2 for 3 minutes, fix in film strength rapid fixer without hardner for one minute. This might have sonething to do with it.

But this is about MCC 110 which responds less than MGIV, or at least the batches I have do.

I agree with you as I see the sam changes.for me MGIV IS JUST ABOUT PERFECT FOR selenium and sulphide toning;slight changes without being over whelming.

ADOX Fotoimpex · Oct 30, 2013

slight changes without being over whelming

Well that´s what we would claim for MCC as well ans has been observed by the topic starter.
No one has comented on sulfur toning and MCC before.
MCC ofcourse responds more strongly to any kind of sulfur toning just like any other paper would.

Roger Cole · Oct 30, 2013

I haven't tried that since I mainly use those on warm tone papers. But MCC is slightly warm of neutral. I'll give it a try!

payral · Nov 5, 2013

I received a box of MCC110 5x7" 100 sheets this morning from Fotoimpex in Germany. Box is white but label is black with just border in red. Emulsion number but no production date at least as advertised on Adox website. Can somebody tell me about production date of that one ? See pictures below.

AgX · Nov 5, 2013

That confusion should not have happened if Adox had added just a note on a sheet of paper put into the box after changing the emulsions. With processing chemicals one is always advised to follow the latest instructions delivered with the package.
Why not the same with photographic paper?

ath · Nov 5, 2013

payral said:
Can somebody tell me about production date of that one ?

Fotoimpex?

K-G · Nov 5, 2013

This summer I received two boxes of 9 1/2 X 12 inch paper with the identical emulsion number but completed with the caracters P-02-13 . I suppose that means february 2013. My boxes were red with black labels but I think white boxes are used for some sizes as long as they have them in storage. My papers were of the new and restored quality which means excelent.

Karl-Gustaf

Has Adox MCC 110 Changed?

YOU

Attachments

Jesper

Roger Cole

NB23

Roger Cole

NB23

Roger Cole

NB23

K-G

ADOX Fotoimpex

Partner

AgX

Roger Cole

fotch

ADOX Fotoimpex

Partner

Roger Cole

K-G

pentaxuser

YOU

RalphLambrecht

ADOX Fotoimpex

Partner

Roger Cole

payral

AgX

ath

K-G

Has Adox MCC 110 Changed?

Attachments

Partner

Partner

Partner

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency