Thanks for the comment -
Originally Posted by Mahler_one
My standard paper has been MG IV for years and with the developers I tested the MCC is completely different - then again I did a strait print with no fiddling around.
The biggest thing is the Zone VI-IX response that I am getting vs MG IV in terms of response at least for prints with grade 2-3 that I have done so far. The other big thing that is purely subjective is that I really like the color better - a lot better.
Originally Posted by rwboyer
I usually use the Ilford under-lens filters. I run a color head so I do occasionally dial in the colors, but usually the under-lens filters work just peachy for me. The only time I really stay away from under-lens is if I'm working a hard-contrast picture where the slight bit of flare and diffusion of the filter causes bleed-over into the highlights. But I've only encountered that twice where it's been a problem.
Just as a note - and I do not have the reference in front of me but... I wonder what filter set exactly corresponds to the values spec'd by Adox - I kind of recall that the Agfa filters provided a tick LESS contrast w/ Ilford paper than the Ilford filters like less than 1/2 a grade.
Originally Posted by Ken N
i have bought a batch of AGFA MCC118 from Maco in Germany. Well, i really like this paper for portraits and bromoil. But how does it compare to ADOX MCC110 ?
MCC 118 -- revival possible?
MCC 118 is the same emulsion, but on a
Originally Posted by kompressor
warm paper base with a pebbled texture.
I LOVED the color of the paper with this
emulsion, but much disliked the texture.
It's odd that you mention 118 -- I just
wrote to Mirko today to ask whether Adox
might try to do a run of MCC on a warm
paper like the old 118. Both papers used
the same emulsion, so it should be possible
if a suitable paper base can be found, and
if Adox determines there is a demand for
such a paper.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Sanders, if you like 118, then FOMA Variant 123 should be the ticket. So close to be almost indistinguishable between the two. They tone very closely too.
I did a calibration effort this weekend for the RH Designs ZoneMaster II with this paper. The enlarger is an Omega Chromega B Dichroic using Ilford under-the-lens filters. For this specific calibration I didn't use a negative but initial tests show that with Ilford PanF, I encountered no shifting for me to worry about. The enlarger bulb has had moderate use but was unused for the past two years. ZoneMaster II has a new battery installed, but no shifting of exposure readings were noted between fresh battery and old battery.
ADOX MCC 110 processed two minutes in PRINT WA developer 1:11 at 70 degrees. Untoned and microwave dried.
Grade 00, -9
Grade 0, -9
Grade 1, -9
Grade 2, -9
Grade 3, -12
Grade 4, -18
Grade 5, -21
Grade 00, 189
Grade 0, 143
Grade 1, 123
Grade 2, 103
Grade 3, 88
Grade 4, 76
Grade 5, 61
In the printed documentation, the R values for filter grades 0-5 are 140, 120, 100, 85, 70 and 55. Those turned out to be very close and in fact, if a person were to heavily tone, I'd say that they are closer than my contrast settings. My offsets are to the nearest 1/4 stop. I'd suggest that these numbers be used ONLY as a starting guide and really only have any bearing to my specific configuration outlined above. I'll be refining the measurements over the next few sessions to get things dialed in closer.
Interesting observations, and thanks. With the Zone vi developer there is very little difference in the color of the scene. Obviously the developer must be affecting the paper much more than the Zone vi developer has.
Originally Posted by rwboyer
[QUOTE=Ken N;920348]I just ordered up my second large batch of MCC and PRINT WA developer. This has become my new standard paper. It took me the better part of an entire weekend to calibrate my ZoneMaster II to work with it because the curves are so substantially different than Multigrade IV to be silly. Once recalibrated, it's heavenly to work with.
The biggest advantage I see to MCC is two-fold: Blacks are BLACK! Not some off-blue cast that Ilford Multigrade IV papers have. Secondly, the straight-line section of the tonal response curves are straight! I'm so used to fighting the double-hump in the curves that I ended up split-grade printing most of the time. With MCC, I get perfectly predictable Zones I-IV and have been able to reduce contrast by an entire paper-grade to still get good blacks.
A third advantage to MCC is the fact I get zero gloss differential.
More interesting still....I have not observed any of the color casts in the shadows that you are alluding to. I wonder what we are doing that is so different so as to yield such different appearing shadow tones? As noted, Zone vi, etc., etc. and I get very deep shadows with very nice highlights. Contact printing, F stop timing, citric acid or water stop bath, non hardening fixer from Formulary or Ilford, etc.,etc. No need so far to go to 130 or LPD for deeper blacks on the Ilford paper in question. Indeed, the blacks are so deep as to be almost "inky". The negatives are often developed by inspection in Pyrocat HD, trays, etc., etc. Those that aren't DBI are carefully developed in DDX based on the BTZS system, and carefully matched so as to easily print on ANSI Grade 2 paper. I have used 130 on Azo and Lodima as a substitute for Amidol, but thus far no problem with the Ilford Multigrade VC FB. I have no answer to account for the off black tones that you appear to be experiencing, but such would obviously be very bothersome. Best of luck with the Adox MCC though...happy that the problem might be solved.
I am generally printing 35mm negs so contact printing is out. As to the Zone VI developer, that might be one of the items which helps the Ilford papers get a more neutral coloring. Split-grade printing really helps the Ilford papers, but I didn't see the same need to use it with MCC that I generally do with Ilford. This isn't badmouthing the Multigrade IV papers as they are very good! It's just that I happen to see a specific improvement for MY workflow and negatives with MCC. Had I never tried MCC I would have continued on using Ilford without hesitation and if MCC availability becomes problematic I'll return to using it. In fact, for RC papers, I find Multigrade IV RC Pearl-surface to be without peer!