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 ...
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?
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 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 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.
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.
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???
+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.
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.
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.
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?
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?