ADOX MCP processing with ADOX Chemie

DirkHerrmann · 2010-02-13T17:56:31+00:00

Hallo, früher hatte ich ein Fotolabor und benutzte das Papier (Work) und die Chemie von Tetenal. Nach einigen Jahren Pause fange ich nun wieder an Fotos ab...

DirkHerrmann

Hello, I used to run a photo lab and used Tetenal’s paper (Work) and chemicals. After a break of a few years, I’m now starting to print photos again, but I’ve switched to ADOX MCP 310 paper and have also bought ADOX chemicals. I’d like to develop in a drum (Durst) and use the chemicals as a single-use developer. Can anyone help me with the chemicals and processing times? ADOX’s specifications for both dilution and processing times are quite variable, aren’t they? I place more importance on reliable processing than on economy, because I sell the prints and want to ensure they don’t deteriorate prematurely due to poor processing. Here’s how I’ve planned it: ADOX Adotol Liquid NE (1+7 1 min) ADOSTOP (1+10 0.5 min) Adofix (1+9 1.5 min) 4 x 1 min rinsing ADOSTAB (1+20 2 min) I also have a question about gradient control: I have two tables. In one, only one value is set, whilst in the other, two values are always set to balance the density. This means the exposure time remains the same when selecting a different gradient. Does this method have any drawbacks? My enlarger is a Durst M605. Many thanks, Dirk

Tandemfahren

Hi Dirk, That’s certainly fine. I reckon ‘4*1min water changes’ means changing the water four times, each time for one minute. Of course, it depends on how many plants you’re growing, how much water you’re using, and how well you’re circulating it, etc., but in principle it’s fine. What bothers me, though, is that you want to waste the good (and expensive!) Neutol as a single-use chemical! You don’t change it after every trip to the shops, do you? – I don’t know how long Neutol lasts, but certainly longer than once, even for a die-hard quality fanatic… and there’s also an environmental aspect to consider. And instead of fixing for so long, my suggestion would be to use two fixers (with a short rinse in between) and fix for 2x30s. The first fixer can be used to its full capacity (the environmental aspect), and when it’s finished, the second fixer becomes the first fixer and a new second fixer is prepared. It’s purely for environmental reasons and quality assurance. You can use the filter table for constant times, though the results vary quite significantly from paper to paper. It works quite well for me with MCP. No other disadvantages are known. It’s a shame you already have an enlarger; I’ve got three to spare (Kaiser KB, Kaiser 6x6 and LPL-Jobo 6x7) and a stack of V-lenses (2x Rodagon 2.8/50, EL-Nikkor 2.8/50, Rodagon 5.6/80, Componon-S 5.6/100, EL-Nikkor 5.6/80). And there are also 30 packs of 5 fresh Velvia 100 (with and without F). I think I’ll set up a street stall! Good luck selling your photos on ‘God’s paper’! Frank

DirkHerrmann

Hi Frank, You’ve got the “4 x 1-minute rinses” bit spot on. I leave the paper in the drum to rinse. I can see your point about using the developer later for environmental reasons. I’d just like to add that I use 30x40 paper. I put 150ml of chemical into the drum. Do you think the developer isn’t used up after that? I’m just unsure about the dilution and the times with the ADOX chemicals. Regards, Dirk

cfb_de

I’d just like to add that I use 30x40 cm sheets of paper. I put 150 ml of chemical into the drum. Do you think the developer won’t be used up after that?

Hello Dirk, The Agfa data sheet for Neutol states a coverage of 5m²/l at a dilution of 1+7. Applied to your situation, that works out at 0.75m²/150ml. A 30x40 sheet is 0.12m², so theoretically (due to carry-over from the bath and oxidation in the air) you can develop up to six sheets in the 150ml. You can easily check for any discrepancies in coverage yourself using Mirko’s figures: http://www.adox.de/ADOX_Chemie/page45/page65/page65.html Best regards, Franz

DirkHerrmann

Hi Franz, That’s a great start in terms of the developer. Many thanks, Dirk

cfb_de

I have two tables. In one, only a single value is set, whilst in the other, two values are always set to compensate for the density. This means that the exposure time remains the same when a different gradient is selected. Does this method have any drawbacks?

In principle, it doesn’t matter which method you use. The supposedly consistent exposure time refers only to a single grey level. And unfortunately, it’s never specified which one that is... Best regards, Franz

Tandemfahren

Hi Franz, hi Dirk, That’s right, nobody tells you that, so I performed an exposure on MCP for a series of streaks: steps 0–9 of the 13-step Brenner transparent grey scale, which correspond to densities of 0.15 to 1.35 logD, on the 6x7 stage instead of a negative (i.e. not in contact). Step 7 (1.05 logD, corresponding to approx. Zone VII of the negative target curve) remains constant. Just a visual assessment; the areas have become too small to measure; it’s not as precise as that anyway... Best regards, Frank P.S. I love words like ‘transparent step grey scale’!