Gast
sputnik
Well, yes. And what exactly am I supposed to make of this graph? The values on the Y-axis can’t possibly represent the contrast of the negative. Am I missing something? Thanks for an enlightening reply.
PS: My interest is purely theoretical. I think comparative tests using grey scale charts are complete nonsense. Not that I have anything against the lovely MCC, mind you.
PPS: While we’re on the subject of questions asked purely out of interest: Mirko, if you’re reading this. How did the designation MCC 110 actually come about? As far as I’ve gathered, the 111 became the 110 because of the pure white base. But that doesn’t fit at all with Agfa’s number codes for photographic paper, does it?
Digit 1 – Indicates the base thickness
Digit 2 – Base colour
Digit 3 – Indicates the surface finish
It just surprises me, because you’re usually so keen to keep things as retro as possible :-)
Best regards,
Siegfried
Gast
Hello,
The diagram shows the contrast range of the different types of paper.
This is also explained in the text.
Best regards,
Wolfgang
sputnik
Hi Wolfgang,
I’m well aware of that. I’d just like to know what all this refers to, do you see? If the filter values were set in relation to the negative contrast and one could see, for example, that Paper X needs to be exposed with 100 magenta at a negative contrast of 0.7, whilst Paper Y already requires 130 M and Paper Z might not even manage it (because it’s already at the limit of the filter wheel), then that would (for me) have a reference to practice. Incidentally, that’s how I read the diagram too. I just can’t make head nor tail of the values given here, ranging from 0 to 2.7. And my request to explain what unit of measurement is being used here was meant in all seriousness. Perhaps I might even understand it. :-)
Have a lovely evening,
Siegfried
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Siegfried,
We aren’t necessarily trying to do everything the old-fashioned way.
With the Agfa rebrand, however, it is of course important that end users recognise ‘their’ products.
The first digit still stands for the baryta base (1).
The second digit still stands for the white base (1) – this is where the problem lies. Agfa assigned the number 1 to white for PE and to slightly tinted for baryta. If they had used a different digit there, we could have changed it back to white.
I also found the third digit confusing. Why should PE papers have a different digit for glossy than baryta? This is no longer appropriate today and leads to misunderstandings among customers. I have therefore equated glossy baryta with glossy PE – for the future.
It is, however, correct that when enquiries are made, we should also explain: ‘We have changed the code because the papers are not entirely identical, as the substrate is different.’ We do want to prevent misunderstandings, even if this does not strictly adhere to Agfa’s coding procedure...
In future, we will revert to the standard procedure, whilst ensuring that the codes for PE and Baryt mean the same thing, so as not to confuse the user.
So, should a lightly tinted, glossy MCC version be released, it will be called, for example, 120 or 130.
This also means the codes won’t overlap with Foma as often (e.g. 111, 131). That was important to me too, as the respective papers can be quite different, particularly when it comes to warmer tones.
Best regards,
Mirko
