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 !
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? ;-)
-) 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".
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
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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
Last edited by ADOX Fotoimpex; 10-27-2013 at 11:18 AM. Click to view previous post history.
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.
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 !!!!!!!
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
Originally Posted by K-G
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
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?