Adox MCC 110

[Ed Pierce]

I haven't seen much written about this paper, so I thought folks might be interested in my experience with it.

I recently tested this against some other papers I had on hand, and this stuff is really good.

For my test I made a straight print of a normal negative on Ilford grade 2, which I use as a standard. I then attempted to match that print with the Adox, and some others which I had on hand; Seagull grade 2, Seagull VC, and Kentmere VC. My enlarger is a Zone VI VC, and all papers were developed in Dektol 1+2. All prints were toned in selenium, 1+9 for 5 minutes.

Tone: The color of the Adox paper reminds me of the old Zone VI Brilliant. It's almost a warm tone print; a little warmer than Ilford and Seagull. Kentmere was much colder than the rest.

Contrast: The Adox responded well to the same settings I use for Seagull VC and Ilford MG.

Midtones: The Adox tended to print midtones lighter than the other papers.

High value contrast: The Adox was a little soft in this area, a little softer than Seagull VC. Ilford and Kentmere had better definition in the high values.

Low value contrast: The Adox was hands down the clear winner in this regard. The deep shadow areas made even the Iford's blacks look cloudy. The Seagull grade 2 was so flat in the shadows I tossed what was left.

Bleach: The Adox seems to be a little more sensitive to bleach than the others, so be careful.

Overall, the Adox has a wonderful sense of depth and atmosphere, and I'm looking forward to printing with it. As far as I know, it's only available in the US from Freestyle. I strongly recommend it and hope that it becomes available on the east coast soon.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks. Hope to try it myself soon. One thing I disliked about the previous version of this is that it didn't bleach well in Farmers. I'm especially eager to conduct some
toning experiments.

[Alex Wei]

Yep, thanks for the test report, I also just ordered two boxes of the paper after tested some pre-production tiral version of this paper and I really like it.

[Alex Wei]

It looks really good developed in Ansco 130 1:1 for about 2 minutes. Toning in selenium 1:15 doesn't have any color change, only the D-max is slightly improved, the paper itself is about neutral black. The base is pure white. Beautiful paper.

[Philippe Grunchec]

Take a look at Wolfgang Moersch's website! http://www.moersch-photochemie.de/content/galerie/adoxmcc/19

[Drew Wiley]

I just completed my first printing session with this lucious stuff. An impressive paper, but unusual in the sense of being resistant to color shifts with typical toners. Nice when you want to determine image color mainly by developer choice, and then merely add a minor tweak afterwards by toning. Had a rather soft 8X10 neg taken in mist, so printed right thru a 47 blue tricolor filter and the entire scale came out magnificently. Have done this particular neg before with both Forte Polygrade V and Seagull G3, but this was the easiest printing so far. This paper has earned a spot in my standard darkroom inventory.

[Drew Wiley]

Postscript - this paper develops really fast. And even if it tones slow, I easily split
toned it as an experiment, if that's your bag.

[Renato Tonelli]

Postscript - this paper develops really fast. And even if it tones slow, I easily split
toned it as an experiment, if that's your bag.

What developer(s) did you try it with?

I have had a pack of this paper for almost a month now and have been really looking forward to trying it.

[Drew Wiley]

Renato - I only used a variation of Ansco 130 (glycin) 1:3, which is a relatively slow
developer with some papers, but certainly not with this one! Next time I'll try one of my favorite amidol tweaks. Usually takes me awhile to get used to a new paper,
but today all it took was a couple of test strips and I already had a "keeper".

[Renato Tonelli]

Drew - Thanks.
If I recall correctly, the old Agfa Multicontrast MCC 111 also developed very fast with the Ansco 130.

[Michael Graves]

Nice test, Ed. I did a similar comparison between the Seagull and the Adox MC110, and everything you said fits everything I found. Although I didn't have too much problem with high values. That probably had to do with the negative I was using. And I tend to print by making test strips of the highlights I think are important and then dialing contrast in or out to get the blacks I want. I didn't try bleaching. Thanks for the heads up on that aspect.

An additional thing that I can point out is based on the fact that I used a Zone VI Variable Contrast cold light head. The MC110 responds "more briskly" to changes in filtration than does the Seagull. Moving the hard dial back two notches on the Adox made the print slightly softer, but not dramatically so. I couldn't see any change at all in the Seagull. I'm only guessing at this, but I'm thinking with the Adox, I get about a full extra grade of contrast over the Seagull.

I don't know if that is necessarily a belly buster of a difference. But I think fine-tuning a print is easier--for me anyway. I must say, that I liked the print color of both papers after selenium toning. The Seagull REQUIRES toning as far as I'm concerned. But once it's toned, it's beautiful. Adox looks good with our without.

[Drew Wiley]

So rainy around here this week that the prints are taking forever drying, but I'm getting lovely highlight detail on this paper as it dries down. No problem. But this was
a Bergger 200 neg souped in pyro. Didn't even have to burn in with a softer filter.
The published R&D curve looks like there's plenty of usable room.

[Drew Wiley]

Did I just say that -"R&D curve"? Ooops. H&D.

[Merg Ross]

So rainy around here this week that the prints are taking forever drying, but I'm getting lovely highlight detail on this paper as it dries down.

Rainy, but sunny tomorrow!

My order is going in tonight. Perhaps I missed it, but has anyone commented on the paper surface?

Thanks,
Merg

[Drew Wiley]

Seems a tad glossier than Seagull G or Forte Polygrad V. Nice smooth surface.

[Merg Ross]

Seems a tad glossier than Seagull G or Forte Polygrad V. Nice smooth surface.

Thanks Drew, I appreciate that; should have it before the weekend from Freestyle.

[Merg Ross]

Thanks Drew, I appreciate that; should have it before the weekend from Freestyle.

I guess not, they show it out of stock. Does it only come in 25 sheet packs?

[Sal Santamaura]

I guess not, they show it out of stock. Does it only come in 25 sheet packs?So far, except for the 5-sheet 8x10 trial package, yes, only 25s. There's been a lot of clamor for 100-sheet boxes, but no definitive response from Adox on that.

While sorry you won't be able to try any this weekend, I see the "out of stock" situation as a positive indication that demand has been high. In my opinion, this paper is worth waiting for.

[Merg Ross]

So far, except for the 5-sheet 8x10 trial package, yes, only 25s. There's been a lot of clamor for 100-sheet boxes, but no definitive response from Adox on that.

While sorry you won't be able to try any this weekend, I see the "out of stock" situation as a positive indication that demand has been high. In my opinion, this paper is worth waiting for.

Sal, thanks for the info. I checked with Freestyle this morning and they are getting back to me on a stocking date.

My timing has been bad, it was out of stock last time I tried to place an order. I hope that you are right about the demand, it sounds like a terrific paper.

[chuck461]

Hi Merg

If your looking for 100 sheets of 8X10, you might consider the 16X20 and cut it down. Assuming you have a suitable cutter.

FWIW I really like this paper. It has replaced Oriental MG.

Hopefully Freestyle will figure out what they need to stock, and get 100 sheet boxes.

Chuck Wells

[Sal Santamaura]

...consider the 16X20 and cut it down...Good idea, and one package of 16x20 ($94.99) costs less than four packages of 8x10 (4 x $25.99 = $103.96). That works out to 18 cents per cut for your labor. :) And the 16x20 is in stock.


...Hopefully Freestyle will figure out what they need to stock, and get 100 sheet boxes...It's not Freestyle's decision; Adox has so far only offered the 25-sheet packages.

[mikebarger]

While it's a RC paper, I've been using some of the MCP310 along with the MCC110. Pretty nice RC paper (and it comes in a 100 sheet box).

Mike

[Filmnut]

I was sent a 5 sheet trial pack, and what I printed looked good also, although you can't do much testing with only 5 sheets!
Thank you for the additional info, as I am going to want to buy some more paper soon, and I think I will give the Adox a try.
Keith

[Merg Ross]

I guess not, they show it out of stock. Does it only come in 25 sheet packs?

Update.

I heard from Freestyle this morning. They will be shipping the 8x10 on Monday, 2/4/10.

[Merg Ross]

I heard from Freestyle this morning. They will be shipping the 8x10 on Monday, 2/4/10.

Update.

Freestyle currently has this paper in stock. My backorder shipped on Friday, 1/29/10.

[letchhausen]

I just got some from Freestyle. I printed last night in Ilford Multigrade developer. Someone who did tests said that it's about a contrast grade lower than Bergger. My session last night confirmed that with that particular negative. The print I worked on was a #2 filter for 22 seconds with Bergger, with the Adox it was a #3 filter for 30 seconds. I compared against Oriental G2 and G3. The Adox definitely looked much nicer. With dry down it definitely was nicer than either.

Tonight I tried a negative that is very black and white that I had done with Bergger and Oriental, both with a #2 filter. Adox was fine with the #2 though it's times were longer than the Bergger and a little shorter than the Oriental. So I guess that contrast comparison isn't a generality. The negative did have some areas that I had to burn in on Bergger paper (light greys on a white background) but I didn't have to burn with the Adox. Tonight I tried everything in my school locker Forte semi-matte, Bergger, Oriental G2 and G3. Adox and Bergger looked nicest. We'll see what dry down looks like tomorrow.

Bergger has been my paper of choice for quite awhile (replacing Oriental) and with their coating situation in flux it's looking like I have a replacement paper for the time being. With more testing and printing maybe it'll be a permanent replacement.

It does seem lightweight though. Also, it develops really fast. Overall, good stuff. Since I can't get Bergger right now I'm going to order more of this and run with it.

[Andre Noble]

I believe Freestyle has a house brand that is identical to this Adox MCC 110 paper. I used it last night to print about 80 contact sheets. Box says Made in the E.U. and the Freestyle salesman said it is the old Agfa Multicontrast emulsilsion formula - in Germany - on a new paper based in a new facility - matching the descriprion of Adox MC 110. 25 sheet11x14 packs for $20.89.

It develops really fast in the developer and has other qualities y'all mention. I will look at package when I get home. Has a nice look to it. Some subtle nature scenes looked really nice.

But remember, it is still "just" an RC paper. Additionally, years ago Ctein reported in his book "Post Exposure" possible
archival issues with Agfa MC B&W papers.

[Sal Santamaura]

I believe Freestyle has a house brand that is identical to this Adox MCC 110 paper...But remember, it is still "just" an RC paper...If this Freestyle paper is repackaged Berlin-produced Adox, it's MCP 310 (glossy) or MCP 312 (semi-matte), not MCC 110. MCC 110 is fiber-based.

[Andre Noble]

"It's MCP 312 (semi-matte), not MCC 110. MCC 110 is fiber-based."

I stand corrected.

So, Freestyle house Arista Private Reserve RC VC Semi Matte = Adox MCP 312.

[Drew Wiley]

Just got around to souping this paper in amidol, which develops it just as fast as
glycin. Curiously, the image color came out about the same, slightly warm. In Selenium it doesn't go purplish/mauve like the old Brillant Bromide, nor chestnut
like Seagull, at least not in typical toning times. Don't what it would do if you left
it forever in the toner. This is an impressive paper, but apparently not the best
choice if you need a true cold tone.

[Sal Santamaura]

...This is an impressive paper, but apparently not the best choice if you need a true cold tone.No need to get fancy with the developer. Just plop it in this

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9424-Agfa-Neutol-NE-1.25-Liter?cat_id=301

and enjoy the neutral-to-cold result without any toning.

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry Sal, I'm into subtleties and mix my own special developers for a reason. Sometimes it's the difference between a good print and a great one. And I'm obsessed with exact image tone for the same reason.

[Merg Ross]

Made my first prints yesterday with this paper. I used some extra bromided glycin and the results were fine. Selenium, which I seldom use, added a bit to the blacks without changing print color at 1:15/75 degrees, 4 minutes. Probably would not bother with Selenium in the future.

My next session will be with a Phenidone formulated developer, and I expect a bit more sparkle. As always, the negative needs to match the paper for an honest test.

When I finish the hundred sheets, I will check back in.

[JohnN]

I ran a test of this paper against my supply of Agfa MC110.

Although the Adox is good, IMHO, it just isn't quite as good as the Agfa.

Different look. I personally believe the Agfa has better depth and tones.

[Sal Santamaura]

I ran a test of this paper against my supply of Agfa MC110.

Although the Adox is good, IMHO, it just isn't quite as good as the Agfa.

Different look. I personally believe the Agfa has better depth and tones.My refrigerator still contains around 75 sheets of glossy MCC 111 from Agfa's final coating. Comparing it against both the Adox MCC 110 5-sheet pre-production package and first production run, the only differences I can see are:

Adox base is white; Agfa's was slightly warm
Adox is approximately 1/3-stop faster.

Even if Agfa were still producing MCC 111, the base color change would have happened because Schoeller (where every western manufacturer's fiber paper base comes from now) no longer offers warm stock. I also suspect the "better depth and tones" you describe are artifacts of exposure/filtration differences that could be nulled out.

In any case, the comparison of significance is Adox MCC 110 against other paper currently in production. On that basis, and considering reliable product quality, I'm unaware of anything that comes close to the new Adox product.

[letchhausen]

No need to get fancy with the developer. Just plop it in this

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/9424-Agfa-Neutol-NE-1.25-Liter?cat_id=301

and enjoy the neutral-to-cold result without any toning.

Is this like the Agfa Neutol Plus that I used until it went away? That was a nice cold toned developer. I used either that or Clayton Ultracold for those qualities.

[Sal Santamaura]

Is this like the Agfa Neutol Plus that I used until it went away?...No, it's like Neutol NE. Neutol Plus was an ascorbic-based developer. The current owner of what was Agfa's chemical plant discontinued Neutol Plus, but continues to produce the non-ascorbic NE and WA versions.

[Andre Noble]

I just finished printing a small batch of 5x7 prints off a 6x7 Delta 3200 negatives onto Adoc MCC 110.

My previous experience with B&W papers is mostly limited to Ilford MGIV Fiber and Kentmere Bromide graded. According to Freestyle, Kentmere Bromide is not being made at his time.

I must say that the print I made from the Adox MCC 110 fiber paper (developed in Ilford Bromophen) is of a high quality and very sharp look that I have not seen from my two aforementioned papers.

I saw an A/B set of Adox MCC 110 prints at Freestyle this weekend with and without 1:3 Selenium toning. The toned prints sparkled even more. True, there was no color shift.

Thanks to all those on this site for bringing the paper to our attention.

[Drew Wiley]

Toning protects the silver itself from degredation by atmospheric pollutants. It has
little to do with the baryta coating. Otherwise we tone to fine-tune the visual quality
of the print or enhance it.

[Andre Noble]

A Downside to the new Adox MCC 110:

I am pretty tough on my B&W prints: I often leave them soaking for 3 or 4 hours, and then squeegee them by rolling them with an acrylic brayer on a marble top.

Well, the edges of the MCC110 prints after soaking for a couple hours could not withstand this process as can Ilford MGIV. The emulsion at the edge of the prints just flaked off!

So this is a very beautiful papaer, but not as robust as Ilford MGIV.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I am pretty tough on my B&W prints: I often leave them soaking for 3 or 4 hours, and then squeegee them by rolling them with an acrylic brayer on a marble top...The emulsion at the edge of the prints just flaked off...not as robust as Ilford MGIV.I have left MCC 110 in the washer for as long as three hours. At that point, the standard rubber squeegee routine (actually a VW Beetle windshield wiper blade) to remove excess water before screen drying causes no emulsion flaking at all.

Perhaps MCC 110 is robust enough for normal treatment but not for being driven over by an acrylic tire. :)

[Robert Hughes]

...a VW Beetle windshield wiper blade..
Old or New Beetle? I don't want to buy the wrong one. :rolleyes:

[Sal Santamaura]

Old or New Beetle? I don't want to buy the wrong one. :rolleyes:Old. 13" ;)

[Drew Wiley]

I ordinary time the wash to one hour flat. But I did leave an uninspired MCC print in
the washer overnite just to see what would happen. Sqeegeed fine, no flaking. So what gives? Did you use a hardening fixer? I didn't.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Did you use a hardening fixer? I didn't.I didn't either.

[Andre Noble]

The emulsion flaked along the side edges where I trimmed it in the darkroom with my rotatrim trimmer. Coincidently, I think in general squeegeeing with an acrylic brayer is getler than a rubber squeegee.

[Sal Santamaura]

The emulsion flaked along the side edges where I trimmed it in the darkroom with my rotatrim trimmer. Coincidently, I think in general squeegeeing with an acrylic brayer is getler than a rubber squeegee.I don't think unyielding acrylic can be gentler than a properly used, i.e. lightly swiped, rubber squeegee. Even if the flaking didn't occur until trimming, use of your brayer might have stressed the emulsion enough to cause it.

Have you discussed this with Mirko at Adox?

mirko.boeddecker@fotoimpex.de

[Merg Ross]

The emulsion flaked along the side edges where I trimmed it in the darkroom with my rotatrim trimmer. Coincidently, I think in general squeegeeing with an acrylic brayer is getler than a rubber squeegee.

Did you trim the paper and then process it? I'm not clear on the Rotatrim in the darkroom part. Thanks.

[Andre Noble]

PS: I used TF-5 (non hardening fixer).

Sal, the brayer turns as one rolls it across the print, vastly diminishing the coefficient of static friction. So essentially all pressure is rendered exactly perpendicular to the table top.

I'm not going to get into some debate, I am just reporting my finding. I don't feel this flaking renders the paper useless by any stretch of the imagination. My wash time was very long, I trimmed the paper (in the darkroom, pre-exposure and pre-processing), and I exposed the emulsion to atypical mechanical stress.

Like I said, just reporting my findings.

[Merg Ross]

If it is flaking on the side that you trimmed, then trimming is the culprit. I have had this experience with other papers when I cut them down prior to processing.

[Toyon]

There is no reason to squeegee a print. It is just inviting damage. Just hang dry for a few minutes then lay flat on a screen.

[kay tokugo]

I've enlarged several 4x5 negatives with this paper and it is NICE!! Like it a lot.

[Andre Noble]

Yes this paper is awesome!!

However, I ran a second batch today and more flaking: These were the same 8x10 "sample pak" sheets (Sept 2009 batch) I just bought a second batch from Freestyle two days ago.

I trimmed them down to 5x7 again, rotatrim, pre-exposure pre-processing.
50 minute Wash time, instead of previous "3 hours".
Light squeegee with acrylic brayer - much less pressure - just enough to roll off surface water

Some say squeegeeing or trimming or both is culprit and not to do either.

Nevertheless, I love the look from this paper. It puts my Ilford VC MGIV to shame.

Soon I will see how it tones.

[Merg Ross]

Is Freestyle the only United States supplier of this paper? They are out of 11x14 until the end of October.

Also, 100 sheet boxes of 8x10 would be handy, and perhaps less expensive than four 25 sheet packages. Any thoughts who to contact on this? Even better, 250 sheet boxes! Beautiful paper!

[edtog]

Supply does seem to be a problem.
I just waited 4 weeks for a delivery of FB and resin paper, heard today it's been delivered tomorrow, so I've stocked up.

Shame if they lost customers because the product is superb, but let down by delivery.

[patrickjames]

I am with Merg. 250 sheet boxes would be great.

[Roger Cole]

Supply does seem to be a problem.
I just waited 4 weeks for a delivery of FB and resin paper, heard today it's been delivered tomorrow, so I've stocked up.

Shame if they lost customers because the product is superb, but let down by delivery.

If you use the RC paper (we're talking about MCP 312 here, correct?) and they're out of Adox, just get the Arista Private Reserve. Same paper, very slightly cheaper. I'm about to experiment with it next for an RC paper. Currently I see 11x14 in both brands in both glossy and pearl in stock though.

I love the MCC 110. It's lovely stuff. I agree larger boxes would be nice even if they didn't save any money, but that seems to be why they aren't offered. Freestyle and Adox have said that larger boxes wouldn't present any economy, no cheaper per sheet. Of course we can also just buy four 25 sheet packs when it's in stock. Larger boxes would be slightly more convenient but really only slightly so.