Yeah, same. I can't tell the difference.
want to order some Fomatone Classic to try
Thread title tweaked.
Mostly because thread title searches work much easier if they don't have to be keyed on the word "Quick"
e.g. "I know that I've read a thread recently about Foma paper surfaces that had the word 'Quick' in it"
Wasn't at all enamoured with the look of that paper when it came out of the developer, but boy!, did it tone like crazy. Went full eggplant on me in a matter of seconds in Selenium 1+9. I have some left that I want to try split sepia/selenium one day.
That's the one thing I was a little disappointed with when it came to Foma Variant 111 and 112. I just didn't see much of a shift in color tone when I selenium toned it. I might have used a more diluted solution than you did Alex.
I had the same experience than you with Fomabrom Variant 112. Not much tone shift, but I that was OK, as I just wanted the slight increase in contrast and shadow density.
Fomatone MG Classic 132 is the paper that reacted so strongly to toning.
A thing I noticed on their recent RC papers, which may or may not also be on their FB. I have always used an OC safelight indirect in my darkroom for the Fomaspeed 313 variant (velvet). I just bought a new box of 100 and printed a bunch for the postcard exchange here. Foma's documentation says use yellow or orange safelight. Don't. My OC safelight fogged this batch in short order, first time I've EVER had that problem with the 313. They had to have changed the emulsion and/or base fairly recently but not updated their documentation. End result is, I will be checking safelight from now on with any new batch of Foma papers, as well as switching to a dark red safelight.
The 8x10 25 sheet package I got from B&H last May is semi-gloss. They do still call it glossy on the site, but Freestyle has it as semi-gloss. I believe the problem was they quit making the paper Foma used. Google AI explains it better than me:
Foma changed the surface of Fomatone 131 (MG Classic) from glossy to semi-gloss around 2022 primarily due to a lack of raw materials, rather than a purely aesthetic choice. While they retained the 131 product name, the, change was necessitated by supply chain constraints, which some users noted also coincided with changes in the emulsion or base.
Key details regarding this change include:
- Material Shortages: The primary driver for the shift to a semi-gloss finish was the unavailability of the raw materials required for the previous glossy surface.
- Product Consistency: Despite the surface change, Foma kept the 131 designation for the paper.
- Lith Printing Impact: Some users noted that this change occurred around the same time as, or was part of, shifts in the paper's emulsion, which affected how the paper behaved with, or in, lith printing.
- Batch Identification: Users looking for specific, older, or newer, batches of Fomatone 131 often look for, for example, batch numbers starting with 0796xx-xx or 0803xx-xx.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?