andreasdegner
Hello,
I’ve finally got round to testing the ADOX MCC with Easylith. My mixture was A+B+water=20+20+600ml, at a temperature of between 25 and 30 degrees. I didn’t have any old lith developer left to use as a starter, so the first test strips were quite neutral in colour and lacked the typical Lith contrasts were (a quick side question: is there a suitable additive to achieve the lith effect straight away?)
So, once the developer had matured a bit, the colour tones were a pleasant ochre – just as I remembered from the old Agfa MCC. The development time was 11 minutes with about one stop of overexposure. Unfortunately, the detail in the highlights and mid-tones is too coarse for my taste. I have seen other examples of lith-processed MCC where, alongside beautiful blacks, the mid-tones and highlights are also beautifully detailed. In my images, the tones are too grainy. In my opinion, this cannot be due to the developer being exhausted, as even the first test strip exhibited this problem.
How can I achieve rich blacks with the MCC whilst maintaining a smooth rendering in the highlights? Would the SE5-Lith perhaps work better? I’d be very grateful for your tips and experiences!
PS: Attached is also a scan of the conventional print on the same paper.
TR
Hi Andi,
I haven’t had any experience with that paper myself. But did you keep moving the reflector? I’d also be happy to give the paper more light than just a single stop of overexposure.
Thomas
Urnes
Hi Andi,
I haven’t had any experience with MCC yet. I’ve worked with Polywarmton and am currently using Fomabrom. With Easylith, I’ve found that a richer mixture works better and doesn’t look quite as graphic (or grainy, i.e. less ‘peppercorn’ effect), so with 600ml you could increase it to 35ml + 35ml. Looking at the print and comparing it to the b/w print, I’d just say I would have left it in for longer; so that wouldn’t quite be my ideal result yet. In my opinion, the rock still lacks black. With Polywarmton, I had times of around 20 minutes at the same temperature. But I must also admit that I’m currently at 36°C and Fomabrom at just 4 minutes (okay, that’s not much help). Another idea that comes to mind would be to simply add two stops of light; you’ll get more colour in, and I reckon that will make the shadow areas stand out even better. Otherwise, just drop Mr Moersch a line; he’s always happy to answer questions. There’s also a list of common mistakes on his website, which is where the tip about using a thicker application comes from – I’ve tried that too.
Regards, Sven.
andreasdegner
Hello!
First of all, thanks for the two replies.
So, I’ve moved the tray around enough. I didn’t want to achieve overexposure by more than one stop, as the negative isn’t very high-contrast and I’m aiming for a print with quite a lot of contrast.
Does anyone here on the forum have any experience with MCC and Easylith or SE5 Lith?
Best regards,
Andreas
michael-kielgmxnet
Hello,
Easy Lith already contains additives, particularly Starter D, which slows down the development process and enhances the colour. I think the Lith Print looks very good as it is. For more contrast, you can do what has already been suggested: develop for longer so that the shadows build up more strongly, or work with a richer solution. A third option would be to perform toning afterwards with selenium toner (briefly in a rich solution) to enhance the shadows.
Generally speaking, you have to experiment a lot with lith printing. Easy Lith is quite good for beginners, as it works well with many types of paper. With the SE5, however, you have far more options, as you can mix the developer yourself exactly as you like or as the paper requires.
Best regards,
Michael
andreasdegner
Hi Michael,
The main problem is the poor definition in the transition from the highlights to the mid-tones... you can see a ‘marbled’ texture there. I think I read somewhere that lith printing reveals certain ‘flaws’ in the paper that are invisible in conventional printing. Perhaps that’s the case with my batch. However, I’ve also seen lith prints with ADOX Mcc that look exactly as I’d imagined... I’ll keep experimenting, perhaps with the SE5.
Best regards,
Andreas
michael-kielgmxnet
SE5, used in a concentrated solution with a little Additive C (antioxidant), is a good way to develop even problematic papers.
However, it’s doubtful whether you’ll be able to get rid of the marbling completely. I’ve seen this with many other papers too (e.g. Adox Fine Print Vario Classic or Maco Expo). It’s likely that this is largely down to the paper’s base material.
