PDA

View Full Version : Adox MC110 Quality Control



Pages : 1 [2]

2F/2F
04-01-2011, 12:02 AM
Collectively we don't need to repeat the Kodachrome saga and not use it for 10 years but profess lifelong love for it then complain bitterly when the manufacturer drops it.

Exactly.

Buy lots of film...and then SHOOT it so you need to buy lots more!

I have been a sinner myself as of late. I normally shoot a lot. But I don't think I have shot more than a couple frames of film in the past month with my current schedule (14 - 18 hour days during the week).

ath
04-01-2011, 05:35 AM
...obscure Euro products (that often seem to be of dubious manufacture)
...
should be supporting Ilford ...

Well, be careful when bashing European products. After all Harman (not Ilford) is in the UK which is still part of Europe. Might be confusing when being so far away....

kauffman v36
04-01-2011, 06:13 AM
while it is not agfa, adox products are coming surprisingly close to agfa in terms of results. i also use ilford products, and support them in every way possible, but if everyone JUST bought ilford then every other european company would for sure go out of business.

Ulrich Drolshagen
04-01-2011, 06:44 AM
I have had this issue too and could identify the plastic bag as the culprit. It is made of a folded sheet welded together at the edges. This welding creates up a breaking point where you get light leaks easily if you bend the material too often. Mirco should chose on more spacious boxes and think over the assembly method for the bags.

Ulrich

kauffman v36
04-01-2011, 08:08 AM
Ulrich,

ill check the bag today, the funny thing is it happened the very first time i opened the box. so unless someone at adox had been folding my black bag over and over (which i doubt, lol) it had never been folded other than when it was packaged.

Michael R 1974
04-01-2011, 08:20 AM
[QUOTE=Michael R 1974;1160283]

I may be wrong, but I read it as Bruce saying that Kodak's quality is top notch, and hard for other manufacturers to match. I didn't read it as him saying that Kodak's quality has gone downhill.

If this is what he meant, then I agree. I feel the same way about Ilford and Fuji, though. I've never had so much as a minor problem with any product from either of these "Big Three." But I have had at the very least minor quality issues with every product I have used by one of the "alternative" manufacturers. The only ones that have totally destroyed shots for 100 percent analog purposes have been Efke/Adox films and occasionally Fotokemika paper. However, if I really wanted to save those shots, I could use digital methods.

You're right now that I read it again I totally misunderstood what Bruce was saying, and he clarified it in a subsequent post.

I agree with what you are saying too. I cannot recall having a problem with any product from Kodak, Ilford or Fuji product that wasn't my own fault.

Trond
04-01-2011, 08:25 AM
In Australia we can get very few of these obscure Euro products (that often seem to be of dubious manufacture) and that does not concern me one bit.


Well, they may be obscure to you, but they are certainly not to me! Foma and Fotokemika are well established players in this field, and I have used their products for years, in addition to products from Ilford, Kodak and Fuji.

And I can assure you that Adox MCC 110 is a high quality product, matching that of Agfa MCC 111. If they didn't now what they were doing, I doubt they would be able to make anything even remotely similar.

I haven't experienced the issue discussed in this tread, but I'm sure it will be resolved. I just got some more Adox MCC 110 24x30cm paper from Fotoimpex, and the boxes are now bigger compared to the old ones I have.

Trond

Ulrich Drolshagen
04-01-2011, 09:18 AM
I just got some more Adox MCC 110 24x30cm paper from Fotoimpex, and the boxes are now bigger compared to the old ones I have.
Proving that Mirco has an ear for his customers.

Ulrich

ADOX Fotoimpex
04-02-2011, 12:30 PM
Robert,

please post a scan of one of your prints. I think at this point every one has a different imagination of the lines you are talking about.
This is definitely not a common problem.
I would very much welcome if the other gentleman who states that he had the same problem please do so as well so we can compare the lines, identify the problem and look for a fix.

Another gentlemen stated that he found inconsistencies with our CMS 20 film. As this is practically impossible I would welcome some more clarification on this issue as well. I would imagine it is rather a chemical problem and not a film issue as we have sold CMS 20 from the same frozen coating batch over the past 5 years with absolutely identical parameters and up to today zero claims.
The film will give inconsistent results if it is not developed in ADOTECH developer however. ADOX has never released the film to be developed in anything but ADOTECH.

None of the products mentioned above btw. are of Eastern European origin.

It is also difficult for me to judge a statement refering to "efke/adox" films. There is no such thing as "efke/adox" films.
Please let me know if you encountered problems with an ADOX or with an efke branded film and ofcourse it would be interesting to know here as well what the actual problem was.

Best wishes,

Mirko

2F/2F
04-02-2011, 01:32 PM
The film will give inconsistent results if it is not developed in ADOTECH developer however. ADOX has never released the film to be developed in anything but ADOTECH.

This seems to be nothing more than an attempt to get people to buy your own developers rather than fact. This first sentence could not possibly be true. What is it about your film and developer that makes it so they must be used together or else they provide inconsistent results? Black and white film is black and white film, and black and white developer is black and white developer. I've never encountered any film or developer that give "inconsistent" results as long as you do the same thing every time.

And the second sentence ("ADOX has never released the film to be developed in anything but ADOTECH.") is not true at all. Adox's own description of the film mentions two other developers in regards to how they can be used with the film:

"If used in pictorial photography the film achieves 20 ASA of usable speed in ADOTECH developer. If used for high contrast purposes the usable speed increases to 80 ASA. If developed in non dedicated low contrast developers (HC 110, cafenol etc) it can be exposed at 6-12 ASA."

The claim that CMS 20 needs Adotech to be consistent in results and quality is highly ridiculous.


None of the products mentioned above btw. are of Eastern European origin.

The definition of "Eastern Europe" is highly variable. I know it is not technically accurate, but for many people "Eastern Europe" is still anything east of a line drawn through Berlin, including the Balkans. Don't let it offend you. It is just a shorthand, sloppy definition made by us dumb non-Europeans.


It is also difficult for me to judge a statement refering to "efke/adox" films. There is no such thing as "efke/adox" films.
Please let me know if you encountered problems with an ADOX or with an efke branded film and of course it would be interesting to know here as well what the actual problem was.

There is such a thing as Efke/Adox films that can be categorized together for purposes of simplicity of discussion. By "Efke/Adox," the line of 25/50/100 "old-school emulsion" products is obviously being referred to – the ones that share emulsions, but come in different boxes. This is not news that they share common emulsions, nor is it strange terminology that you should have difficulty judging.

Problems with these films are well documented just on this one Website, from pinholes and chunks of emulsion missing even when following the published special processing instructions, to banding, mis-stamping of edge notches, rough base material, etc. The only one I have not experienced personally is the banding. I am sure the makers have heard directly from users on quite more than a few occasions.

The stuff can be beautiful when you get it to work flawlessly, but it is just plain not as well made as Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, or even Rollei products by any stretch of the imagination. Many people seem to have kind of come to accept that this is just the kind of stuff you have to deal with when shooting Ekfe/Adox old-school emulsions. In order to make our ways around all the technical problems with these films, some have come up with our own methods, which are even more careful than the published methods that say to simply skip the stop bath. To avoid problems with the emulsion, I use no stop bath, I use an alkaline fixer, and I never develop warmer than 68 F, which I usually do with all other films without the slightest hint of any issues. I also never develop sheet film together in trays, as the rough surface of the base and roughly cut edges can play hell on the soft emulsions.

But I suppose it could be claimed that all these problems are just be because people are not using Adox chemicals! :whistling:

Ulrich Drolshagen
04-02-2011, 02:05 PM
Hi Mirco,

here are the pictures

http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/5/7/2/3/lichteinfallscan-110402-0001.jpg
http://www.apug.org/gallery1/files/5/7/2/3/riss.jpg

It is not from MCC but from MCP312, 25 Sheet Box, Emulsion 0310 36012-3A 04-09.
I wanted to send you the bag but forgot about it until this thread.

Ulrich

ADOX Fotoimpex
04-03-2011, 05:32 AM
What is it about your film and developer that makes it so they must be used together or else they provide inconsistent results?

It is simply an imaging system which was developed by a specialist to work only like this without problems. Getting the CMS 20 to deliver images with halftones will work if you combine it with ADOTECH and no one knows what will happen if you do it a different way whic we have not tested and for which we cannot give any guarante. Known problems with microfilms beeing exposed and developed to midtones are cloudy patches in areas of the same density (sky, water etc.). Adotech was one of the first developers of itīs kind to overcome this problem. We have never recomended any other chemistry and we have never stated anywhere that a different system will work without problems. People have stated that they got good results in cafenol etc. but we cannot give a guarante for this. On our website it says: " Other than common microfilm developers ADOTECH is very resistant against streaking or producing turbulence- clouds next to the film holes. Still you have to use some general caution in agitating the filmtank. "

However the point I wanted to make is that these problems, if they show, are not originating in the film itself. They are always film/chemistry combination problems.

Still I am interested what the problem actually was. Why donīt we wait untl the gentleman explains to us which problem he had when he says that: " I found this film to be of relatively poor and inconsistent quality. ".
This is a very general way of wording it.

2) Even by your standards of Eastern Europe from 1989 my statement still holds true except for confectioning which is located in what we call "Germany" without east or west now.

3) When I made my statement about the Film Chemistry combination I was only refering to CMS 20 plus Adotech. Any further interpretation of this is pure speculation.

4) It is not true to say that efke branded materials differ only by the paint on the box from ADOX branded materials. They differ at least in emulsion numbers and final inspection, some in packaging and in the future they will also be finished in Germany with various QC steps inbetween. Therefore I would like to know if any of the above have been expirienced with ADOX branded products or efke branded products and it is only fair to make this differentiation.

@Ulrich,

what you found is light fogging originating from what you guessed is the cause.
I think the person who started this thread has a different problem.
Your probem has been fixed about a year ago when we increased the box sizes.
We will also change the supplier of the black bags shortly when the photographic inacitvity tests are over. Things like this cannot be changed in week.
You have to make sure first that a different PE material does not affect the emulsion in long term tests.

Kind regards,

Mirko

ozphoto
04-03-2011, 06:27 AM
[QUOTE=2F/2F;1160946]

You're right now that I read it again I totally misunderstood what Bruce was saying, and he clarified it in a subsequent post.

I agree with what you are saying too. I cannot recall having a problem with any product from Kodak, Ilford or Fuji product that wasn't my own fault.

Kodak did have a fault with a bad batch of Kodak Gold 100 in the early 90s; seems they forgot to coat the yellow layer and the resulting prints had a wonderful color cast to them, and printing them was a pain if you didn't pick up on it right away.

I remember our Kodak rep going through about 150 cartons of the film we had in stock to ensure the bad batch was removed and replaced with good stuff. (Along with an extra carton for the troubles it caused.)

Thankfully, most of the boxes were sealed (ordered for the soon to begin Christmas period), and only 25 cartons were from the faulty batch, although from memory, that was equal to 5000 rolls!!:blink: