MMC110 gone for now.

[Doremus Scudder]

Thanks to Team Adox and the others who provided the links/information. I look forward to the resumption of production of MCC 110 and will use it as long as it remains on the market (which I hope will be longer than I'm around ). Thanks to Mirko and the Adox team for their faith and efforts in providing and continuing such great products.

Doremus

 

[K-G]

We are optimistic to introduce Polywarmtone in the short term. So that you can start to use it before your MCC stock is depleted.
And yes, the tone of Polywarmtone can be significantly changed by different developers.

ADOX - Innovation In Analog Photography.

Will there be separate neutral and warmtone developers introduced when Polywarmtone enters the stage or is the existing selection sufficient ?

Karl-Gustaf

 

[grainyvision]

No, neither the first nor the second. Harman technology has never been involved at all in the production of ADOX MCC. MCC has always been a full "Made in Germany" product.

As communicated by our company here on photrio and on our homepage
http://www.adox.de/Photo/mcc-and-mcp-production-situation/
we are working hard to get MCC back into production in the mid term. But we cannot give a detailed timeline for it. Making statements of a detailed timeline would be dishonest.

ADOX - Innovation In Analog Photography.

Wow interesting. The specific similarity I’m talking about between Adox and Ilford FB papers is an extremely strong tendency to give “snow balls” in custom lith developer formula, if the developer is not heated. No other modern set of emulsions I’ve seen behave like this. Curious if there is some supply chain intersection or something that causes this particular effect. The RC emulsions of both Ilford and Adox does not have it

 

[Lachlan Young]

Wow interesting. The specific similarity I’m talking about between Adox and Ilford FB papers is an extremely strong tendency to give “snow balls” in custom lith developer formula, if the developer is not heated. No other modern set of emulsions I’ve seen behave like this. Curious if there is some supply chain intersection or something that causes this particular effect. The RC emulsions of both Ilford and Adox does not have it

Graded Fomabrom can do this too. It may have to do with specific chemical components in the emulsion to enhance keeping properties or the dye ballasts in multigrade emulsions - or similar components. It is insufficient evidence to base any attempt at manufacturing plant identification on. I think some batches of Agfa MCC were known to do this too - and it should be noted that Agfa MCC and Ilford MGIV are near contemporaries in both time of introduction and likely technological approaches, albeit with slight differences in emulsions and numbers of layers. MCC's potential lithability may relate to it use of multilayer coating some of which may have had less ballasting of dyes as a result, but MGIV may have been using heavily ballasted dyes in each emulsion, which were then blended into a single layer for coating. There are a lot of variables to consider here, and the behaviour of emulsions under the use of lith-type developers at high dilution seems not to have been disclosed by the manufacturers (possibly because it would reveal confidential emulsion information) - albeit I recall Adox saying that the individual emulsions of PWT-II would lith, but the multilayer coating package wouldn't - at least at the time it was written about. This may have changed in the intervening.

 

[ericdan]

I got a pack of Fomabrom Variant 111 to test as a replacement for MCC110.
This is really nice paper. Wow!
It feels a little softer somehow, less cardboard stiff like MCC110 feels. The glossy surface is beautiful when air dried.
This can indeed be a nice replacement for MCC110.
How do the graded versions of Fomabrom differ? Only in contrast/filtration or also tone and feel?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I settled on this paper about a year ago. I liked it a lot in Neutol WA.
I just ran out a month ago and ordered 4 more 100 sheet boxes. Lucky me. A week later I see that they stopped production.
Adox will move all steps of the production in house. I don't think that will happen anytime soon judging by how long it took for Polywarmtone, which is still not available. I really wanna support them but don't know how long my 400 sheets will last. From past experience not longer than a year.
I hope Polywarmtone will be released by then. Polywarmtone with a neutral developer might be a good replacement.
Otherwise I'll have to look into Ilford or Foma.
What are other MCC110 users doing?

We ordered it several months ago and still haven't seen it.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I got a pack of Fomabrom Variant 111 to test as a replacement for MCC110.
This is really nice paper. Wow!
It feels a little softer somehow, less cardboard stiff like MCC110 feels. The glossy surface is beautiful when air dried.
This can indeed be a nice replacement for MCC110.
How do the graded versions of Fomabrom differ? Only in contrast/filtration or also tone and feel?

I just ran out of Adox MCC 110 yesterday, in the middle of making a print. I had just made my first "keeper." I switched to Fomabrom 111 Variant to finish the run. I did a test strip and made the same print, with the same manipulations.

Result: The Fomabrom 111 Variant is a bit faster (26 seconds vs 33 seconds). The development time was the same, but the Fomabrom 111 comes up faster (maybe the emulsion is not as hardened?)

In the end I dialed in 10M more to get the print I liked, but that may just have been because I wanted that smidgen more of contrast for the Adox MCC 110 print as well. In the end, the print made on the Adox and the ones on the Foma were virtually indistinguishable visually. The distribution of tones seems the same as do the toe and shoulder, at least at the contrast setting I was working with. The finish seems really similar as well. I didn't compare any other contrast settings, just the one I was using (about 60M if I recall). The Adox paper is a bit stiffer; not sure why, but it may be due to emulsion hardening, which also delays onset of development a bit. Both are great papers.

Best,

Doremus

 

[chris77]

surface of the adox has a more elegant surface when airdried, foma is slightly more textured, but i totally agree foma has great tonality aswell.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I just ran out of Adox MCC 110 yesterday, in the middle of making a print. I had just made my first "keeper." I switched to Fomabrom 111 Variant to finish the run. I did a test strip and made the same print, with the same manipulations.

Result: The Fomabrom 111 Variant is a bit faster (26 seconds vs 33 seconds). The development time was the same, but the Fomabrom 111 comes up faster (maybe the emulsion is not as hardened?)

In the end I dialed in 10M more to get the print I liked, but that may just have been because I wanted that smidgen more of contrast for the Adox MCC 110 print as well. In the end, the print made on the Adox and the ones on the Foma were virtually indistinguishable visually. The distribution of tones seems the same as do the toe and shoulder, at least at the contrast setting I was working with. The finish seems really similar as well. I didn't compare any other contrast settings, just the one I was using (about 60M if I recall). The Adox paper is a bit stiffer; not sure why, but it may be due to emulsion hardening, which also delays onset of development a bit. Both are great papers.

Best,

Doremus

Thank you for sharing your findings - very useful information.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Thank you for sharing your findings - very useful information.

I selenium toned the prints I mentioned yesterday. The Foma tones faster and browner. The Adox MCC 110 takes longer and tends toward eggplant color a bit more. Both end up toning very well. The Fomabrom does have a tendency to split tone bleached areas. Sometimes this can be aesthetically pleasing, other times I have to watch out when toning not to go too far. The Adox seems to do this too, but to a bit lesser extent.

Best,

Doremus