Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome printing techniques

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10th March 2011, 09:20 AM
Keith Tapscott.'s Avatar
Keith Tapscott. Keith Tapscott. is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,144
Question Fomaspeed RC & Fomabrom 111 FB Papers.

Has anyone used any of these papers and how do they compare with the Multigrade IV RC and FB papers?
I still have Multigrade papers to use up and a new box of Kentmere Fineprint, but the Fomaspeed and Fomabrom Varient are on my list to try soon.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10th March 2011, 09:34 AM
Trevor Crone's Avatar
Trevor Crone Trevor Crone is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott. View Post
Has anyone used any of these papers and how do they compare with the Multigrade IV RC and FB papers?
I still have Multigrade papers to use up and a new box of Kentmere Fineprint, but the Fomaspeed and Fomabrom Varient are on my list to try soon.
Keith of the two, I've used Fomaspeed Varient 311. I found grade for grade, Ilford's MG IV RC had deeper, richer blacks. I haven't a record of what print developer I used, but it would have only been one type, perhaps deeper blacks could be obtained with the right developer. Needs some trial and error.
__________________
"To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which will never be seen again" Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Timespresent
Arenaphotographers
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10th March 2011, 09:40 AM
Luis Luis is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 130
Default

They are [ IMHO ] different kind of beasts.

Althought I haven't used the RC, the variant 111 is quite a lovely paper which looks retro, without being warm, compared with anything from Ilford, slightly less contrasty for each grade, and in my experience much more prone to get chemical stains when you're using several toners.

Said that, I always stock some of it, so those cons shouldn't be that bad
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10th March 2011, 10:19 AM
Trond Trond is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Harestua, Norway
Posts: 181
Default

Fomabrom is my standard paper, and I am pleased with it. I haven't compared it with Ilford papers, but it's fairly neutral in the developers I've used it with. The base is warmer than that of the new MCC 110. I think I would prefer MCC, as it has a very special glow(difficult to describe), but what I can use on a regular basis also comes down to price, and MCC is quite expensive.

Trond
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10th March 2011, 11:32 AM
Stoo Batchelor's Avatar
Stoo Batchelor Stoo Batchelor is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 339
Default

Hi keith

I use the Fomobrom Variant 112, which is I believe, the matt version of the 111. It is a very nice paper indeed. A few months back, I had a very hard negative to print, and was using Ilford's MG4 5k, the matt surface. No matter what I did to the Ilford paper I struggled to get a decent print. I tried everything to get detail in the highlights, preflashing, post flashing, water baths, but failed. I pulled a sheet of Fomabrom 112 out of the box and produced a straight print from the same negative! Quite remarkable. Typically, if I print a negative on Ilfords paper at grade 2 1/2, I would need to print at about grade 3 1/4 on the Fomabrom to acheive the same contrast.

I have one of Leon Taylors prints on the wall which I am pretty sure is printed on the Fomabrom 111. It has a beautiful surface, and lovely deep blacks. I know toning is not your thing, but it takes beautifully to theo toning, split with selenium.

Hope this helps

Stoo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott. View Post
Has anyone used any of these papers and how do they compare with the Multigrade IV RC and FB papers?
I still have Multigrade papers to use up and a new box of Kentmere Fineprint, but the Fomaspeed and Fomabrom Varient are on my list to try soon.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10th March 2011, 02:53 PM
Keith Tapscott.'s Avatar
Keith Tapscott. Keith Tapscott. is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo Batchelor View Post
Hi keith

I use the Fomobrom Variant 112, which is I believe, the matt version of the 111. It is a very nice paper indeed.

A few months back, I had a very hard negative to print, and was using Ilford's MG4 5k, the matt surface. No matter what I did to the Ilford paper I struggled to get a decent print. I tried everything to get detail in the highlights, preflashing, post flashing, water baths, but failed.

I pulled a sheet of Fomabrom 112 out of the box and produced a straight print from the same negative! Quite remarkable. Typically, if I print a negative on Ilfords paper at grade 2 1/2, I would need to print at about grade 3 1/4 on the Fomabrom to acheive the same contrast.

I have one of Leon Taylors prints on the wall which I am pretty sure is printed on the Fomabrom 111. It has a beautiful surface, and lovely deep blacks. I know toning is not your thing, but it takes beautifully to theo toning, split with selenium.

Hope this helps

Stoo.
Trevor, Muihlinn and Trond, thank you for your replies. Perhaps I will have to use a slightly higher contrast grade filter to get a similar look to the Ilford papers if I decide to try the Foma.

Stoo, your comments are much appreciated particularly how you described the difficulty you experienced with your negative and that it printed straight on the Foma paper, very interesting that.

The Adox MCP and MCC papers are of interest as well, but they are just as expensive as the Ilford papers. I will thinks things over before buying.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10th March 2011, 03:39 PM
PaulG's Avatar
PaulG PaulG is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 332
Default

Keith,

Another vote here for Foma Variant. I've done a bit of 'conventional' printing with it and been pleased with the results, although I haven't assessed it alongsider Ilford MGIV. Apparently it tones very nicely. It will also lith (with a bit of patience), but it is quite hard to control. At Tim Rudman's last workshop, he showed some b&w prints made on this paper that had been bleached and re-developed in lith developer, with some interesting results. This would seem a more reliable approach if lith printing is your thing.

To confuse the issue, you might also want to look into Variant 123. It is a much warmer paper than 111, with a semi-matt and slightly textured finish.
__________________
************************************************** *************************
More photos live here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arm_a_dillo/
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10th March 2011, 06:43 PM
Keith Tapscott.'s Avatar
Keith Tapscott. Keith Tapscott. is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulG View Post
Keith,

Another vote here for Foma Variant. I've done a bit of 'conventional' printing with it and been pleased with the results, although I haven't assessed it alongsider Ilford MGIV. Apparently it tones very nicely. It will also lith (with a bit of patience), but it is quite hard to control. At Tim Rudman's last workshop, he showed some b&w prints made on this paper that had been bleached and re-developed in lith developer, with some interesting results. This would seem a more reliable approach if lith printing is your thing.

To confuse the issue, you might also want to look into Variant 123. It is a much warmer paper than 111, with a semi-matt and slightly textured finish.
I prefer a neutral paper over the warm tone papers, but thanks for suggesting the Variant 123 paper Paul.

The price differences between different films is bad enough, but the difference in paper prices is even worse. I don't know why the Adox MCC, Fomatone MG and Ilford papers cost so much.
Variant certainly seems worth trying.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10th March 2011, 07:20 PM
Adrian Twiss's Avatar
Adrian Twiss Adrian Twiss is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North West England (The cold wet bit :-)
Posts: 397
Default

I like Fomabrom which I develop in either D72 or Ansco 130 (1:1). I would agree it does not have the same punch as, say, Kentmere Fineprint VC or indeed Multigrade IV. However with selenium toning it still produces rich prints.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10th March 2011, 08:34 PM
Steve O's Avatar
Steve O Steve O is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kelsall, Cheshire
Posts: 379
Default

I like the way 112 tones in selenium, far better than MG IV. The variant 123 is completely different, much warmer with a base texture virtually identical to the now deceased Kentmere Finegrain. It liths very well too.

Steve
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What B&W Papers? Keith Tapscott. Monochrome printing techniques 23 15th February 2011 06:35 PM
Fomabrom 112 & toning Steve O Monochrome printing techniques 5 22nd April 2010 01:40 PM
Fomabrom Variant 111, does it lith? michael71 Monochrome printing techniques 5 25th November 2009 07:46 PM
Graded B&W papers. Ag-Bromide Ask Les 1 19th March 2009 01:39 PM
Resin coated papers versus Fibre-based papers. Ag-Bromide Monochrome printing techniques 23 3rd January 2009 04:48 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.