Wanting to try ADOX MCC 110 - any advice?

[Drew Wiley]

It's compatible with all ordinary developers. I was simply implying that you're not going to get a true neutral black out of it, and certainly not a blue-black by anything I've tried. It's a tad on the warm side, though I wouldn't classify it as a warm tone paper per se. It takes toners well, and you can split print with it if that appeals to you, but the effect is less dramatic than with MGWT. Ansco 130 is a superb general-purpose paper developer, but it has slightly different effects on different kinds of paper in terms of final image color.
I routinely use TF4 for all my film and paper needs, and always one-shot. The odor is mild. If I want to smell cats I go back in the house.

[m00dawg]

I thought I'd provide an update on my experiences. Advice here has been spot on - the MCC paper has some lovely tones but I have "run out" of contrast with it using my Aristo Cold Light on my D2 on a few occasions. I can try to thwart that by switching back to condensers but it hasn't been a huge issue necessarily. It's also a tad on the warm side, or rather the base of the paper isn't as white as the Ilford RC papers I have. I think I would still call it neutral but it leans a bit warm. I'm using Ilford multigrade developer for it so another developer might produce different results, though I think it's mostly the paper base I'm looking at.

That said, though, it's a joy to work with! It's my first fiber paper, as noted previously, so I don't have a ton to go on but I've enjoyed the overall look of the paper, I love how it handles, it does seem to have a bit more "depth" (though perhaps less than I was expecting given comments on fiber vs rc). I really like the weight.

Overall I'm sold on fiber. I'll still do RC for tests and strips and quick prints, but typically if I'm in the darkroom it's because I have an intent to print something and usually I'd rather spend the extra time to make it as nice as I can. Working with fiber hasn't been a huge deal. I did some residual fixer tests and it seems like my wash methods are decent. I'm currently not toning but will do that at some point. I wasn't quite ready to work with the heavy metals.

Not trying to doodoo no RC paper either - I really like the Ilford RC papers, the cooltone especially for the right composition is really great! But fiber is definitely a step up and yeah I just enjoy working with it more. I'll perhaps try other FB papers as well (ADOX Polywarmtone looks interesting, oddly, paired with the cooltone developer they were testing with). Plenty to try which is another reason I like FB (bigger selection).

Anyways thanks for all the help and advice both here and in general! Learned a lot and am glad I finally gave fiber a shot!

[JMO]

I’ll agree with most of the comments above about working with MCC 110 based on my last year of working it; and also about the recos to try EC- or ANSCO-130 developer (I’ve tried Dektol and ADOX’s developers with MCC 110 also). However, if you’ll permit me to interject a suggestion about another paper besides MCC 110, I recommend you try ADOX’s MCC 112 semi-matte. It allows greater latitude to bring in the highlights and keep the shadows, but also does not finish quite as “matte” or “ semi-matte” as (for example) Ilford’s FB semi-matte. And to my mind 112 does not finish a bit warm as some have said above about MCC 110.

[m00dawg]

I’ll agree with most of the comments above about working with MCC 110 based on my last year of working it; and also about the recos to try EC- or ANSCO-130 developer (I’ve tried Dektol and ADOX’s developers with MCC 110 also). However, if you’ll permit me to interject a suggestion about another paper besides MCC 110, I recommend you try ADOX’s MCC 112 semi-matte. It allows greater latitude to bring in the highlights and keep the shadows, but also does not finish as “matte” or “ semi-matte” as (for example) Ilford’s FB semi-matte. And to my mind 112 does not finish a bit warm as some have said above about MCC 110.

Hmm really? Well that's rather interesting! I would not have though there would have been such a different between the two. I'll have to give that a go!

Also a good reminder for me to look at the other developers! I actually pulled up the Photographer's Formulary version of the 130 just now. I noticed they note the working solution can last 1-2 months!? That's rather impressive compared to Ilford's Multigrade which is measured in days. Not a fan of the powders or mixing process but if the shelf and working solutions last as long as the instructions say, that may be well worth it.

[Jeroen]

I assume you're located in Europe or you wouldn't consider Fotoimpex. This Belgian webshop could be a nice alternative source: https://www.retrocamera.be. I bought there a few times with total satisfaction. They reply fast to your questions, too.

Adox MCC is a nice paper, Berger is 1/3 grade harder and a bit thicker/heavier than MCC, but MCC is 2x faster and 1/2 the price of Berger. With Adox warm tone developer I get very nice results, more like Record Rapid than Brovira.

[m00dawg]

In the US actually. It ended up being cheaper to go with Fotoimpex or at least the same price and at the time US places were out of stock of either the MCC 110 paper in the sizes I wanted or the CHS ii film. I normally do Freestyle or BH. I think Freestyle is more or less the official ADOX distributor (but shipping can be pretty terrible, even when compared to the cost of shipping overseas).

Anyway back to paper, I thought about Bergger since I've heard good things about it and there is a nice selection of it in the US. I was slightly apprehensive just because Pancro 400 has been such a tough (and grainy) film to master and I didn't want to have a repeat experience with their paper. (I'm not saying Pancro 400 is bad, just a film I haven't been able to figure out with my process).

[Greg Y]

M00dawg, The results from PF 130 are definitely worth the small effort of mixing from powder.