Foma MG Classic 131 vs Ilford MG FB WT

removedacct3 · Feb 12, 2022

Has anybody any first hand experience using Foma's MG Classic 131 and Ilford's MG FB Warmtone papers? If so, I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on these papers especially about the contrast range of both papers.

Unlike some of their films I never encountered technical deficiencies with Foma papers. But I do somethings struggle to get deep blacks. Hence my question, do I gain anything in this regard if I switch over to Ilford MG FB WT? Which is supposed to be superior from a pure technical point of view. Does it have anything to offer in the zone 4 and 5 areas?

Next time I order film and darkroom stuff I will include a small 8x10 pack and have a look for myself. Nevertheless, I am still curious to know what others have experienced.

For reference, I print on a Durst M605 with the Heiland LED cold light source installed utilizing RH Design's Zonemaster IV and I have calibrated my setup using a real densitometer.

Lachlan Young · Feb 12, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
But I do somethings struggle to get deep blacks.

Check your safelights - Fomabrom Variant is quite a bit more sensitive than Ilford's hard cut-off at 575nm or so. Fomatone isn't - and it's much slower too, but if in doubt, perform the usual tests.

As for technical behaviour, scale & compare the published curves - main comments I'd make about Fomatone is that for each given filter number it's harder than MGWT, but doesn't quite reach the same max contrast. It's also slow, the more power you can hit it with, the better. Mind the drydown etc too. Otherwise, I really like it - but I would not use excessive 'calibration' with any of these materials, you need to get some hands-on time with it to get an idea of Fomatone's flexibility.

Peter Schrager · Feb 12, 2022

Fomatone 131 kicks ass and there is NO paper that will match the tones including Ilford WT. the Ilford is a good paper and for me it's gone from warm tone to more deep black and white. can't tell you why because I don't use it enough. learn your materials and be in control.
Deep blacks? I'd love to send you a cast off print so you could see deep blacks. follow advice above and hit it hard with light. I'm usually in the 31 second range.

Juan Valdenebro · Feb 12, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
Has anybody any first hand experience using Foma's MG Classic 131 and Ilford's MG FB Warmtone papers? If so, I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on these papers especially about the contrast range of both papers.

Unlike some of their films I never encountered technical deficiencies with Foma papers. But I do somethings struggle to get deep blacks. Hence my question, do I gain anything in this regard if I switch over to Ilford MG FB WT? Which is supposed to be superior from a pure technical point of view. Does it have anything to offer in the zone 4 and 5 areas?

Next time I order film and darkroom stuff I will include a small 8x10 pack and have a look for myself. Nevertheless, I am still curious to know what others have experienced.

For reference, I print on a Durst M605 with the Heiland LED cold light source installed utilizing RH Design's Zonemaster IV and I have calibrated my setup using a real densitometer.

Juan Valdenebro · Feb 12, 2022

I use Ilford MG Warmtone and Fomatone 131 & 132.
To me the character of those two Foma papers is the one we get using a NeutolWA type of developer.
Ilford's one is a much more "common" paper, and it's only very slightly warm. To my eye, it's in the neutral family anyway.
They are totally different, like white paper and canvas.
If I had to pick only one for life, it would be 131, but with the PrintWA developer as I said.
About blacks, deeper blacks are not better than less deep blacks: 132 has its own beauty too, without deep blacks.
If you have never tried them, they're a pleasure. A bit slow and a bit more contrasty than Ilford's, but it doesn't matter.

gone · Feb 12, 2022

Lachlan Young said:
Check your safelights - Fomabrom Variant

Yes, my prints were initially fogged using a standard red safelight. Once I moved the light farther away and worked in very low light, things went fine.

None of my FB prints have deep blacks like my RC glossy prints though.

removedacct3 · Feb 13, 2022

Peter Schrager said:
... learn your materials and be in control. Deep blacks? ...

I am trying, I am really trying ... but sometimes I wish it would give a me a higher contrast to maintain the skin tones and make the blacks a bit punchier.

I should have used different words or phrases for my question. The blacks are not a problem on themselves. I aim for skin tones and sometimes the blacks, for example pitch black hair, could be deeper.

removedacct3 · Feb 13, 2022

Juan Valdenebro said:
A bit slow and a bit more contrasty than Ilford's, but it doesn't matter.

Interesting, I would have thought it was the other way around, Ilford being a bit more contrasty than Foma.

The general consensus of all 3 posters so far seems to be: don't bother.

Lachlan Young · Feb 13, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
Interesting, I would have thought it was the other way around, Ilford being a bit more contrasty than Foma.

The general consensus of all 3 posters so far seems to be: don't bother.

In terms of absolute range, Ilford is contrastier - but Foma's grade spacing tends to run harder in the 1-4 range than Ilford's.

And Fomatone is very good - I'd suggest trying 131, but I much prefer 132 (but I like matte/ semi-matte surfaces). It'll also do the split-tone thing in selenium if you want.

removedacct3 · Feb 14, 2022

Lachlan Young said:
In terms of absolute range, Ilford is contrastier - but Foma's grade spacing tends to run harder in the 1-4 range than Ilford's.

And Fomatone is very good - I'd suggest trying 131, but I much prefer 132 (but I like matte/ semi-matte surfaces). It'll also do the split-tone thing in selenium if you want.

I am a bit puzzled by the first part of the first sentence. Do you mean that Ilford warmtone paper can be softer and harder than Foma paper distributed over more contrast grades (eg. 00 - 5), whereas the Foma 131 paper is less soft and less hard distributed over less contrast grades (eg. 1 - 4)? With the net result being that although Foma's contrast range being not as wide as Ilford's, the difference between the various grades is bigger for Foma than for Ilford?

I agree on your last line, selenium toned portraits on 131 look great. I have just started to Selenium tone my prints and I am still looking (and experimenting) with toner dilution I like the best.

Philippe-Georges · Feb 14, 2022

To my very personal experience, I think that all the FOMA FB papers are sensitieve to the kind of developer, it's dilution, working temperature and developing times.
But, aren't all enlarging papers like that?
I develop them in a Dektol like developer (E-72) at 1+2 for 3 min at 22°C, constant agitation, then the blacks are really deep and the mid tones are still wonderfully nuanced.

Some KRST 1+9 does good too...

Lachlan Young · Feb 14, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
I am a bit puzzled by the first part of the first sentence. Do you mean that Ilford warmtone paper can be softer and harder than Foma paper distributed over more contrast grades (eg. 00 - 5), whereas the Foma 131 paper is less soft and less hard distributed over less contrast grades (eg. 1 - 4)? With the net result being that although Foma's contrast range being not as wide as Ilford's, the difference between the various grades is bigger for Foma than for Ilford?

I agree on your last line, selenium toned portraits on 131 look great. I have just started to Selenium tone my prints and I am still looking (and experimenting) with toner dilution I like the best.

MGFB WT

00=ISO(R) 170
0=160
1=130
2=110
3=90
4=70
5=50

Therefore total range is 170-50

Fomatone

00=ISO(R) 140
0=120
1=105
2=90
3=75
4=70
5=55

Total range is 140-55

Thus you can see that Fomatone has a shorter available contrast range than MGFB WT - but that if you use a 'G2' filter, Fomatone will equate to using 'G3' with MGFB WT, yet if you use 'G5' with both, MGFB WT will be contrastier. There are also some curve shape differences which will have an effect beyond the immediate ISO(R) comparisons.

removedacct3 · Feb 14, 2022

Thank you for clarifying! Nice to know I have read your previous comment in a correct way.

Philippe-Georges · Feb 14, 2022

I found that FOMABROM FB 111 was close to AGFA MultiContrast FB 111 (which was my standard since it came on the market), that's why, after wandering around in the photographic paper world when AGFA disappeared, I chose FOMA!

Lachlan Young · Feb 14, 2022

Philippe-Georges said:
I found that FOMABROM FB 111 was close to AGFA MultiContrast FB 111 (which was my standard since it came on the market), that's why, after wandering around in the photographic paper world when AGFA disappeared, I chose FOMA!

I'd not be prepared to take that at face value - on the basis of fixing times (probably because of higher iodide levels used), Fomabrom Variant might have more in common with the older Kentmere VC papers conceptually (and other non-Ilford/ late-period Agfa paper emulsion methodologies). I think a lot of the confusion has to do with what will have been the historical effects of Foma falling within the Agfa, then ORWO spheres of influence/ ways of doing,

Philippe-Georges · Feb 15, 2022

Lachlan Young said:
I'd not be prepared to take that at face value - on the basis of fixing times (probably because of higher iodide levels used), Fomabrom Variant might have more in common with the older Kentmere VC papers conceptually (and other non-Ilford/ late-period Agfa paper emulsion methodologies). I think a lot of the confusion has to do with what will have been the historical effects of Foma falling within the Agfa, then ORWO spheres of influence/ ways of doing,

A few years ago, I read somewhere that the original factory (1921) produced photographic plates for medical use. When the switch to the production of contact printing/enlarging paper and rollfilm began, it was done with the interference of KODAK who supplied the machinery during the interbellum, some parts of that equipement could still be in use.
ORWO came with the USSR.

I can't verify this as I couldn't find that text.

But ofcourse, this might be an Urban Legend...

Anyway, I really don't care, I am happy with the quality of the FOMA papers and that's is wat counts for me!

gorbas · Feb 15, 2022

I'm not sure for Foma but Kodak built factory in Hungary right after the IIWW and after nationalisation it become Forte.

Philippe-Georges · Feb 15, 2022

gorbas said:
I'm not sure for Foma but Kodak built factory in Hungary right after the IIWW and after nationalisation it become Forte.

I think that's my confusion...

Lachlan Young · Feb 15, 2022

@Philippe-Georges there was also a significant Kodak coating plant in what became East Berlin & which is often forgotten about (mainly because a lot of its products were not consumer/ amateur photography oriented) - along with the Hungary/ Forte plant.

phanley · Feb 16, 2022

Foma 131 is my preferred paper. I find it much warmer than Ilford WT.
For deeper blacks, have you tried selenium toning or longer developing times?

removedacct3 · Feb 16, 2022

phanley said:
For deeper blacks, have you tried selenium toning or longer developing times?

Yes I have and I really like the selenium toned prints. But as said before, it is not the blacks that are not deep enough, sometimes I would like to have a contrastier image. When printing a portrait I naturally aim for skin tones. Now it sometimes happens that the skin tones and the highlights are the way I would like to see them, but that the blacks of the image are not as black as I would like to see them. Now, of course, I could burn in those areas and I am not proficient enough as a darkroom worker to burn in only the black hair of a model without affecting skin tones. Hence my search for a warmtone paper that gives my a bit more contrast.

I have ordered a box of Ilford MGFB Warmtone paper and next week, when I have a little bit of free time on my hands, I will do some comparison prints from a single neg and see what it gives me.

Philippe-Georges · Feb 16, 2022

To my personal opinion, I think that we are overseeing an other element, what kind of light source is used: condensers, diffusers ore cold light.
I used to print B&W with a colour head (Chromega D4) on my beloved AGFA Record Rapid FB 111, but when I had to change to an other brand and finally went for FOMA, I couldn't really reach the same tonality and blacks I was used to. After some trial-and-error, I tried a condenser head (Omega D3) and that was the solution!

I even tend to be convinced that the way, and by who, the enlarger head, wether condenser or not, is designed, has an effect too.
The difference between my Omega D3 and a friend's DURST L1200 (B&W too) I significant enough to be considered.
The Omega having 3 condensers and the DURST 2 condensers, and these are completely built in a different way.
I would suggest to look at the Omega's longish 'tube' (with an aluminium-white corrugated interior) in which two condensers are assembled, with a variable 3d on top of it, compared to the format fixed compact interchangeable and entirely black 'box' of the DURST.
Add to that the Omega having a lamp directly illuminating the condensers while the DURST has a reflected light source, not to mention the kind of bulb...

But, again, this is a very personal opinion...

removedacct3 · Feb 16, 2022

Philippe-Georges said:
To my personal opinion, I think that we are overseeing an other element, what kind of light source is used: condensers, diffusers ore cold light.

That is a valid point. I have a Heiland cold LED light installed on my Durst M605. For my initial exposure time and grade for a first test print I rely on a RH Designs Zonemaster. To use a Zonemaster in conjunction with led lighting you need to re-calibrate all zonemaster settings. The default ones are completely useless.

I do not mind the calibration process. After a few tries you get the hang of it and the results you get make it very worthwhile.

My permanent darkroom does not have the space to install a second enlarger and switching out the led lights for the original condenser or diffuser is too much trouble. Or at least, too much trouble for now.

https://heilandelectronic.de/led_kaltlicht

Lachlan Young · Feb 16, 2022

@MrclSchprs don't discount adding a G5 filter on the white light setting - Ilford's test of the Heiland panel suggested a maximum contrast about the same as the green/ blue light source MG500 head - ie about 4.25-4.5 - the magenta G5 filter seems to transmit deeper into the blue.

Richard Jepsen · Feb 16, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
Has anybody any first hand experience using Foma's MG Classic 131 and Ilford's MG FB Warmtone papers? If so, I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on these papers especially about the contrast range of both papers.

Unlike some of their films I never encountered technical deficiencies with Foma papers. But I do somethings struggle to get deep blacks. Hence my question, do I gain anything in this regard if I switch over to Ilford MG FB WT? Which is supposed to be superior from a pure technical point of view. Does it have anything to offer in the zone 4 and 5 areas?

Next time I order film and darkroom stuff I will include a small 8x10 pack and have a look for myself. Nevertheless, I am still curious to know what others have experienced.

For reference, I print on a Durst M605 with the Heiland LED cold light source installed utilizing RH Design's Zonemaster IV and I have calibrated my setup using a real densitometer.

I’m currently printing with both papers. In my opinion Ilford WT will print an expanded scale of lighter tones than 131. One paper is not better than the other. They are just different.

There is a notch in 131 where a zone 5 prints a fractional zone lighter. I’m not printing portraits but it seems like Caucasian facial tones print a bit lighter.

My work prints are on Ilford WT RC Pearl and final fiber print on Foma 131. To match prints I may need to drop a 1/2 grade when printing on 131 fiber. I add 1 stop of exposure to the slower 131 for a starting exposure point. I print with a LPL 645 condenser. Developer Multigrade under red safelights.

A cold light may lose lower zone contrast when printing on 131 unless your negative is matched to light source and paper.

Ilford WT RC Pearl is easier to print and has little dry down while 131 dry down is 1/16 stop and a bit more. 131 drys flatter, is very responsive to toning, and has a richer look when the print is held in the hand than RC. 131 is similar in richness but warmer than Ilford WT fiber.

Foma’s untoned paper tint is a hint of yellow brown when developed in Ilford Multigrade. 131 has a bit of olive in certain developers/light but any green tint disappears when within sniffing distance of selenium.

Foma MG Classic 131 vs Ilford MG FB WT

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency