Foma MG Classic 131 vs Ilford MG FB WT

[removedacct3]

@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.

Thank you very much for this reminder. Before I bought the LED unit I checked the pros and cons and I remember having read the Ilford PDF and I did notice the grade 5 remark. But for some reason or the other I forgot about it. I did notice, however, that regardless of the paper being used my contrast numbers for grade 4 and 5 are more or less the same.

 

[Ulophot]

MrclSchprs, and others, this is one of those threads exhibiting a wealth of contradictory results, as sometimes occurs among the variables of our medium. I have been struggling to get anything above a Gr. 3 with Fomatone, as posted over on largeformatphotography.info. General, but not universal, consensus is that my extra-dim amber safelighting is the problem, although my tests with Fomatone have shown no fogging despite up to eight minutes of pre-development safelight exposure. I may yet run the rigorous Kodak test recommended but remain skeptical. And tests with red lamps made no difference. There are some other variables, like printing with a coldlight head, which some -- not all -- have said is problematic with this paper.

For what it's worth:
I find the paper warmer than Ilford WTF with a different color, both toned and untoned, thus a nice complement to Ilford;
Base is slightly warmer than Ilford, but stronger yellowish tint just after fixer clears significantly by end of wash;
Needs 3 minutes of development, not 2 -- no good blacks at 2. I have used both Multigrade and Eco-Pro developers.
Tones almost instantly even at 1:20, so that I have resorted to 1:80 selenium just to give me a little time control at around 68 F;
Lovely with long-scale negs, with nice separation in mid and high values;

 

[gone]

I've used the RC Foma 311 papers, not sure if they're the same emulsion as the 131 FB. They didn't like my red safelight and got fogged a bit, and I had to move it way back and work in really low light because that's all I had. The papers gave me essentially the same images as the Ilford papers, but the Foma papers were thinner and I got a number of kinks and bumps in them from my normal style of development. Once I handled them carefully, no issues.

 

[removedacct3]

My box of Ilford MG FB warm tone glossy paper arrived last week. And to follow up on my own question I will give you my first impressions.

- Ilford's blacks are deeper. The max density I get from Foma 131 is 1.68 whereas the max density I get from Ilford MGFB warm tone is 2.12.

- While calibrating my Zonemaster II I noticed that the exposure time needed for just off-white is the same for all grades ranging from 00 up to 2 with a slight, slight increase for grade 3. Quite impressive!

- The contrast range for the grade 0 is wider for Ilford than it is for Foma. The contrast range for grade 4 is narrower for Ilford than it is for Foma. On a side note, I refer to grade 0 and 4 for this comparison as I am not sure that my Heiland LED head is able to do a true 00 and 5 grade.

- The final image on Foma tends to be warmer than it is on Ilford. Not a bad thing, but it is noticeable.

- Ilford is less responsive to Selenium toner than Foma is.

- The final gloss after drying (air drying, nothing fancy) seems to be same.

So far so good I would say. Ilford MGFG warm tone gives me the technical qualities I was looking for. Of course, I do not have a very well formulated opinion on all non-technical aspects. For that I need to use the paper for a longer time.

On last thing. When I was doing this comparison it struck me that I never ever had a bad batch of Foma papers. From a technological point of view the Foma papers may be not as advanced as Ilford's papers, but I never saw manufacturing defects such as scratches or blotches or what not. If only Foma would be able to achieve this level of manufacturing for Foma 200 in 120 format ..... Still hoping that Foma will come forward one day and say: look guys, we've heard you and we will address the QA issues with Foma 200 in 120 format.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

- Ilford is less responsive to Selenium toner than Foma is.

Strangely enough, I have the impression that the last boxes of FOMABROM VARIANT FB 111 I am printing on, are less responsive to Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner than the previous ones.
The dilution for K.R.S.T. I use is 1+9, what's yours, if I may ask, and what brand of selenium toner?

I realise that FOMATONE isn't really not the same as FOMABROM...

 

[removedacct3]

Strangely enough, I have the impression that the last boxes of FOMABROM VARIANT FB 111 I am printing on, are less responsive to Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner than the previous ones. The dilution for K.R.S.T. I use is 1+9, what's yours, if I may ask, and what brand of selenium toner?

I am using Adox Selen toner in a, more or less, 1 + 30 ratio and somewhere between 10 to 20 minutes per print at about 25 deg Celcius. It is 'more or less' as I keep a 1L working solution that I top up every once in a while with fresh toner mixed at 1 + 30. The Adox toner is the only toner I have used so far so I can not comment on Kodak's version. As a matter of fact I am quite confused by the various Selenium toners. While shopping at Fotoimpex I had the option of at least 3 different brands (Adox, Ilford and Moersch) with all different recommended solutions.

Last time I toned Fomabrom 111 I got very nice reddish brown results. But of course that might have been pure beginner's luck.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I am using Adox Selen toner in a, more or less, 1 + 30 ratio and somewhere between 10 to 20 minutes per print at about 25 deg Celcius. It is 'more or less' as I keep a 1L working solution that I top up every once in a while with fresh toner mixed at 1 + 30. The Adox toner is the only toner I have used so far so I can not comment on Kodak's version. As a matter of fact I am quite confused by the various Selenium toners. While shopping at Fotoimpex I had the option of at least 3 different brands (Adox, Ilford and Moersch) with all different recommended solutions.

Last time I toned Fomabrom 111 I got very nice reddish brown results. But of course that might have been pure beginner's luck.

I never got these reddish brown tones on Fomabrom FB 111, but that's not my goal, I want to enhance the blacks a little and the preservation of the print too, but, as I said, I don't get the blacks enhancing anymore, even wit freshly mixed KRST, strange...
Perhaps there aren't any blacks to enhance?

What you see here is one of these prints on Fomabrom FB 111 wish didn't wanted to react on KRST, this was directly scanned without any postprocessing in PS.
But, yes, it's a total contre-jour...

Château de la Ferté-Vidaime, départemen Eure-et-Loir, France.

 

[Elmarc]

I have you used both papers and I find that the Foma papers have more ‘character’ for want of a better word. The combination of Dokumol and 131/132 will still give you a warm tone but not so evident if that is of any help. I don’t tone my prints.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I don't 'tone' my prints neither, at least I don't really want a toning effect, I see selenium more as an 'enhancer' (and a preservative) than a toner...