Foma Variant III FB paper

[logan2z]

I so wanted to like Ilford VCFB Glossy, but I could never get the subtlety out of it I was used to from other papers. I split print and tone everything in Selenium Toner and the Ilford, though competent, never quite hit the mark like, say, Bergger VCNB (may it rest in peace). Then I found the Foma Variant 111 and all was well with the world again ...

I keep reading reports/reviews of the emulsion flaking off the Foma paper. There's a four-part review by Michael Marks describing his frustration with the paper because of flaking/scratched emulsion. Granted this was from 2016. Is this still a problem with the latest papers from Foma?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

The 8x10 glossy Foma 111 FB seems to be the same price as the equivalent Ilford paper: $149/100 sheets for Foma vs. $147/100 sheets for Ilford (B&H pricing). Which of the Foma papers was a lower price?

24x30,5cm here in Belgium (the EEC), and I was talking about prices in 2006 or so, but now I see the Brexit has made it even worse: ILFORD box 50 sheets = €120,99 and FOMA box 50 sheets = €84,99...

 

[chuckroast]

I keep reading reports/reviews of the emulsion flaking off the Foma paper. There's a four-part review by Michael Marks describing his frustration with the paper because of flaking/scratched emulsion. Granted this was from 2016. Is this still a problem with the latest papers from Foma?

I've only noticed it on the edges when I contact print and there is pure black along the edge. Otherwise, I've not seen it.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I keep reading reports/reviews of the emulsion flaking off the Foma paper. There's a four-part review by Michael Marks describing his frustration with the paper because of flaking/scratched emulsion. Granted this was from 2016. Is this still a problem with the latest papers from Foma?

There is only some minor flaking on the short edge of the 24x30,5cm sheets, particularly when I cut off an edge with my roller cutter which is rather old. I print my 6x6 negs on 24x24cm, and use the resulting 6,5cm strip for testing...
I think it has to do with the the running direction of the paper fiber. It results in some black grid like powder residue in the developer, which I filter out with a paper coffee filter.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I played in the darkroom last night and got used to Variant III a little better. I'm rather liking my results so far with the Glossy finish and have some 112 matte coming next week. What I've learned so far.

a. Definitely use a red safelight. My Kodak OC lights fogged the paper. Red worked fine.
b. A lot of dry-down darkening when using ID-78 film developer. Not so much it seemed when I switched to Kalogen 1+11.
c. Has a very nice white base, which I like very much.
d. Have to watch your fingernails since the emulsion scratches fairly easy.
e. Doesn't over do it as far as Selenium toning with Bellini toner at 1+19. Looks just right to me.

I'm impressed so far.

 

[MTGseattle]

Is it just a tad lighter (paper weight) than Ilford? I've seen a bit of paper edge problems, but no emulsion damage in the image yet. My home setup is still a bit wonky, but I'm relatively careful in handling. I haven't used both side by side.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I played in the darkroom last night and got used to Variant III a little better. I'm rather liking my results so far with the Glossy finish and have some 112 matte coming next week. What I've learned so far.

a. Definitely use a red safelight. My Kodak OC lights fogged the paper. Red worked fine.
b. A lot of dry-down darkening when using ID-78 film developer. Not so much it seemed when I switched to Kalogen 1+11.
c. Has a very nice white base, which I like very much.
d. Have to watch your fingernails since the emulsion scratches fairly easy.
e. Doesn't over do it as far as Selenium toning with Bellini toner at 1+19. Looks just right to me.

I'm impressed so far.

Yes, a good red safelight is mandatory, I replaced the filters of my KODAK beehives (*) with Rubylith Lithographic red foil.
As I see it, dry-down darkening isn't that an issue, perhaps thanks to the E-72 I develop in.
The very white paper base is sometimes aesthetically not what I like, hence the (thin-) tea treatment...
I never encountered any emulsion damage due to scratches of any kind.
I don't know about Bellini's Selenium, but with ADOX's at 1+9 for 2min. it looks good.

(*) does anyone has a KODAK beehive for sale, I dropped the one hanging from the sealing while replacing a bulb...

 

[Elmarc]

I so wanted to like Ilford VCFB Glossy, but I could never get the subtlety out of it I was used to from other papers. I split print and tone everything in Selenium Toner and the Ilford, though competent, never quite hit the mark like, say, Bergger VCNB (may it rest in peace). Then I found the Foma Variant 111 and all was well with the world again ...

I agree, but saying that, the Ilford FB glossy does work well for very graphic or geometric works (especially with a cold tone developer) when one is not looking for subtlety in the details.
I would choose Ilford over Foma in this case.

 

[logan2z]

This thread has convinced me to give Foma a try. Curious to see how it compares to the Ilford glossy fiber I've been using.

 

[chuckroast]

I agree, but saying that, the Ilford FB glossy does work well for very graphic or geometric works (especially with a cold tone developer) when one is not looking for subtlety in the details.
I would choose Ilford over Foma in this case.

You're likely spot on, but I found MGIV so hard to tone to my liking, I sort of gave up on it.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used Foma VC, graded, RC and FB for many years, in 5X7 to 11X14 I have not noticed any issues with flaking, tones well,

 

[devecchi]

Ilford FB Classic is more difficult to deal with. I have used Fomabrom III for many years, both Glossy and Matt, it is a good paper, but Ilford Glossy and Matt I consider them superior in terms of results compared to Foma: more intense black and purer whites, more contrasted, and I use more filtering low. Foma is more tamable and Ilford needs to know how to treat in the right way.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Ilford FB Classic is more difficult to deal with. I have used Fomabrom III for many years, both Glossy and Matt, it is a good paper, but Ilford Glossy and Matt I consider them superior in terms of results compared to Foma: more intense black and purer whites, more contrasted, and I use more filtering low. Foma is more tamable and Ilford needs to know how to treat in the right way.

I didn't think you could get a much purer white than what I got with Foma Variant III FB glossy???

 

[GregY]

I didn't think you could get a much purer white than what I got with Foma Variant III FB glossy???

+1..... I prefer Foma to both Ilford Classic & Coldtone. Foma Variant and Ilford WT FB are my two favourite papers still in production. I always get more snappy contrast with Foma than Classic and Coldtone and far better highlight detail.

 

[John Wiegerink]

+1..... I prefer Foma to Ilford Classic & Coldtone. Foma Variant and Ilford WT FB are my two favourite papers still in production. I always get more snappy contrast with Foma than Classic and Coldtone and far better highlight detail.

I couldn't have said it better. Of course, I have to be honest and say that I have never tried Ilfords Coldtone paper.

 

[MTGseattle]

Did any of you use the Oriental "new" Seagull in the 90's? Am I off my rocker or is the Foma variant III quite like the 90's Seagull?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Any opinons about FOMATONE FB, glossy or matt, processed the traditional way?
Till now I only tried it for Lith printing, in which I am merely a debutant...
And there is RETROBROM FB too, but I haven't seen this one yet.

 

[GregY]

Any opinons about FOMATONE FB, glossy or matt, processed the traditional way?
Till now I only tried it for Lith printing, in which I am merely a debutant...
And there is RETROBROM FB too, but I haven't seen this one yet.

I use Foma Variant 111 primarily, but i do have Fomatone 131(glossy)....for some portrait prints. I find it to have a very subtle softer look, more so than Ilford WT.

 

[devecchi]

Did any of you use the Oriental "new" Seagull in the 90's? Am I off my rocker or is the Foma variant III quite like the 90's Seagull?

In the 90's I used Oriental Seagull fixed graded. I consider it the best photographic paper of those years, followed by Kodak Elite. Nothing to do with the current paper.

 

[John Wiegerink]

In the 90's I used Oriental Seagull fixed graded. I consider it the best photographic paper of those years, followed by Kodak Elite. Nothing to do with the current paper.

I used the last of my Seagull graded two years age to make a portrait of and for my granddaughter and her husband. I still have some Seagull RC left, but will have to test it, since I haven't used it since about the same time. The graded was a nice paper, but not as good as the original Seagull papers.

 

[chuckroast]

Did any of you use the Oriental "new" Seagull in the 90's? Am I off my rocker or is the Foma variant III quite like the 90's Seagull?

I've used both extensively, and they are rather different. The Oriental was a little bit warmer as I recall. However, both tone like crazy.

 

[GregY]

BTW I've used lots of Foma paper and not had the ege flaking issue. The only paper i had that issue with was first generation Lodima.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The original Seagull G Graded Bromide paper was my favorite paper back then, followed by Brilliant Bromide graded. The later re-do or "new" Seagull G, plus their VC version, were both relatively anemic and disappointing, although the image tone per se was consistent. The closest I've come in modern papers to the same general feel, though not image tone itself, involves Bergger Prestige Netural Tone VC, developed in 130, then gold chloride toned for coolness. I have yet to see if the Foma Neutral Tone is comparable or not.

Ilford Cool Tone VC is a reliable product much better than their previous MGIV. For me, it only goes true cold tone with Gold Chloride rather than Selenium toning. It takes some practice to master, but the shadows don't drop as fast as with Bergger Neutral, but can still be quite deep. Warmtone papers are in their own category, and Ilford Classic VC is somewhere in between; but I've never been able to leverage it into a true cold tone. The punchiest paper I'm currently using is MGWT. I haven't used any Foma in a long time, so should probably try both the Neutral and Warm version to see how they compare to Ilford results.

 

[chuckroast]

Speaking of Fomabrom Variant 111 ...

I was printing on said paper today and accidentally toned it in double strength selenium toner. The results was ... interesting. Instead of getting the cool-to-neutral look I associate with this paper, I got what can only be described as a warm tone results. These are shots in the fog and the result was kind of haunting and ancient at the same time.

Note To Self: 40ml > 20ml

 

[DREW WILEY]

Selenium toner nearly always trends brown unless only briefly used and highly diluted. The only paper I can recall where is simply deepened the DMax without noticeably warming it was Ilford Galerie Graded.