Hello Lichtlicht,
In terms of technical specifications, the MCC is on a par with the earlier papers; however, the parameters are determined relatively soon after the paper is cast.
Original Agfa MCC from over 5 years ago is now, depending on the type of storage it has undergone, more or less far from its optimum condition.
I would therefore only calibrate the old pack to use up what’s left.
Regarding your second question, I need to go into a bit more detail.
The classic silver halide photography commonly used today is based on light-sensitive silver salts made from silver iodide, silver chloride or silver bromide.
Each of the types listed has its own absolute and spectral sensitivity. All are adjusted and stabilised in their sensitivity through physical and chemical digestion, and then spectrally sensitised, which in turn influences the sensitivity. Each crystal type incorporates the desired photographic properties to a greater or lesser extent.
Papers are also matured/blended and coated to achieve different gradients. This, in turn, influences the speed and development kinetics.
If I wanted to design a new photographic paper, I would note down various properties in my specification that I require from the new paper.
Then it’s a matter of making adjustments to ensure my crystals deliver exactly what I want. In the case of Multigrade, sensitisation to blue and green is also required for the hard and soft gradients respectively.
In the end, you’re really busy ensuring that everything comes out exactly as you intended. On top of that, making sure that a paper has exactly the same speed and the exact same gradient response as the competition’s – that was probably too much of a hassle for everyone involved over the years.
Added to this, of course, is the fact that some of those involved would not even be technologically capable of implementing what is, for example, found in the MCC (precision of gradation steps, consistency in the characteristic curve, overall sensitivity, storage stability over 5 years, etc.).
For this reason alone, there will always be differences, because it cannot be the case that the better product has to lower its quality to the level of the worst one due to standardisation to the lowest common denominator (as is the case, for example, with the Euro coin tests).
So it’s not that simple. Like everything in life ;-)
You do need to calibrate it first. After that, it works all by itself.
Best regards,
Mirko
Many thanks for the explanation.
In what ways does the Adox MCC differ from the Adox Varioton?
When I compare the product descriptions of the papers, e.g. ADOX Variotone vs. Ilford MG(W) vs. Oriental (new) and now MCC 110, it’s hard to tell which paper has the best quality or the widest range of enlargements (e.g. medium-format negatives).
I recently enlarged a 35mm negative on the new Oriental and on the ADOX Variotone; visually, I could hardly tell the difference (toning aside), and I also found the selenium toning time too long with the Oriental, whilst with the Variotone you have to be careful not to overshoot the ‘peak’...
Enthusiasts claim that Oriental is (or was) the ‘best of the best’ simply because Ansel Adams used it?
Which paper would you recommend?
Regards
Oliver
