FOMABROM VARIANT IV 123 - emulsion changed?

[M Carter]

There was a 2012 thread on APUG along these lines, but no answers...

I had a few sheets of 16x20 that were approaching their 2nd birthday, and also some 11x14 I purchased in November, both from Freestyle - good bromoil paper for me.

For lith printing, I did some initial tests on cut-down older paper which didn't get crazy colors but had a nice gritty look. Going to final prints on the newer 11x14, the effect was pretty ugly. Very broken up image, weird grain.

This was a difficult neg - grab shot on delta 3200 from a party one night, underexposed and very grainy. But I got the best prints I've ever managed from it with the old paper, newer stuff was a waste (and I really tried to be as accurate in testing as lith allows, printing new just after old, trying in replenished developer, etc).

Is anyone aware of an emulsion change, or does "aging" this paper affect how it liths? Curious, and kinda bummed.

 

[Mark Fisher]

I've used Fomabrom that is old and new. Either way, it is super difficult to lith print with, but I haven't noticed variability. You might try a higher developer concentration. Hard to know based on the description. I can't comment much on Fomabrom batch to batch variability, but I've never noticed it on the few batches I've used. The only paper I've had real batch to batch issues with is Slavich.

 

[Mike Crawford]

I only found out Variant 123 worked with lith about a year ago and since have done quite a bit with it. Last bought some three months ago and seems to work fine and as you describe, no 'crazy colors but a nice gritty look.' Never got anything worth keeping on other Variant surfaces. So, batches in the UK seem fine though always a big problem trying to get the same lith look on papers from different years. Attached is a print done a few months ago on 123. Is this the look you are talking about?

 

[M Carter]

123 has been a good Bromoil paper for me, that's for sure -

Mike, it was bizarre - the cut-down older paper were keepers, the new 11x14 just sort of a grungy mess. I did enlarge **slightly** between emulsions, not enough to affect exposure significantly.

By the time the highlights were good, the blacks were a mess. And yeah, grainy as hell neg - you end up with grain chunks being essentially "highlights" even though they're in the black. I tried printing this traditionally, and toned the neg to get more whites.

It's just a grab shot, but I like the composition, it was a big-ass party full of great friends, it's my awesome Mrs. wearing the ring I gave her, and I've got a waiting list of kid and friends saying "that for xmas please!"

Looking at the scans I'd think spot-bleaching for composition, but the actual print is tight. I'll certainly play with the jacked prints for bleach & redevelop though, got quite a pile.

Wondering if I can spot out the distracting grain in the blacks by her fingers and on her sleeve from dodging/burning... I'll also give it a shot to add some separation between her fingers, should be able to spot where it looks like there's some grain there. Used to be a commercial illustrator before photoshop killed that biz!

Scans, old emulsion and then new:

 

[StoneNYC]

I don't know about lith work but the Paper I bought fresh to test was very nice.

My first thought when I look at that paper and the difference between the two is that for example it almost looks like you dodged a lot in the center with one, and did not with the other, the exposures are just way different and the blocks are obviously not fully burned in, but I don't understand with printing so I don't know if you do it similarly to traditional darkroom printing or not. But my first thought is just that you didn't do the dodging that you did for the first image, and so you didn't expose the image long enough in the blacks to make them go fully dark, it also looks like you didn't possibly spend enough time developing the image sometimes when you don't develop long enough the blacks don't fully come in?

Again I am completely novice, just sharing some thoughts based on my first initial impression. And I have used paper and I found it amazing for regular darkroom printing. The surface texture is very unique, so I can see it being useful for other alternative printing methods.

 

[M Carter]

Well, lith printing is very different from regular printing. Both of these were dodged with the same mask though.

You generally snatch a lith print from the developer when the highlights are where you want them. You never develop lith to completion, as it's two to five stops over exposed. I definitely know how to process a print to completion in liquidol or dektol, it's not something that applies here though. I've never used developing time to adjust print density with standard processes, though maybe some have... I use a timer and base developing time on paper specs and tests. Maybe in 2-bath developing time can be an issue, but that wouldn't suit this neg anyway. So not sure what you're seeing here, though dodging for the lith prints was very helpful and I had 2 different soft masks in play. Thus the spray of white grain between the two hands where it should be a deeper black (but that should spot out if I can sit still long enough!) - this being a 35mm neg, I didn't mess with a registered mask for selective dodging.

Both prints have roughly similar highlights (I'm looking at the fingers), but the newer paper, the black didn't come up until the fingers were shot. And there's a real messiness to the overall rendering. Scratching my head, but I think there are foma papers considered better for lith - the only papers I had that would lith were purchased specifically for bromoil. But then again, my older stock - considering what a tough neg this is - made prints I really liked, all things considered.

 

[StoneNYC]

Hmm, could just be a difference in the batch themselves, as I understand it printing paper batches very much more so than film emulsion batches, so could just be that? As I understand it each batch of FOMA is slightly different as their batches are less consistent than Ilfords? But the overall shadow detail I've seen from FOMA seems much better.

Best of luck.

Good luck!

 

[Mike Crawford]

It's not that the developer is at a different stage in it's useable life compared to when you printed before? I got results similar to that when the dev was getting a bit too used with 123. There again, some negs just did not work and I got results similar to yours if I developed for too long. Others printed OK.

Nothing is ever straight forward with lith!!

 

[Mike Crawford]

Looking again at the two, does it need less exposure and a bit more dev perhaps in more dilute dev?

 

[M Carter]

It's not that the developer is at a different stage in it's useable life compared to when you printed before? I got results similar to that when the dev was getting a bit too used with 123. There again, some negs just did not work and I got results similar to yours if I developed for too long. Others printed OK.

Nothing is ever straight forward with lith!!

I recall trying all kinds of stuff - first replenished the dev., then played with exposure. Kicking exposure way up should have given me more contrast as I understand it? But I did go both ways. and worked a wide range of temps, too.

Y'know though, big-picture... I'm sure I'll want to gain much more experience with lith. (I mean, if standard developing is cool and magical and amazing, lith is all-a-that times 10. I was going to stick with bromoil for the next few weeks, as time allowed, but this neg seemed like it could be interesting with lith, and I got Rudman's book and... well, you know how that goes! Suddenly there's a package from Freestyle and it's midnight and my wife is "you still in there dude?!?!?" I imagine in the weeks/months ahead I'll find some images that seem lith-centric and I'll do some research on available papers and get a little methodical. Especially now that I have a liter of legit old brown!! Man, it's brown!

That should be a first-time lith printer's t-shirt: "I FINALLY HAVE SOME OLD BROWN". That would raise some eyebrows...

 

[Mark Fisher]

I think Mike C is correct. To my eyes, it the second one looks like it has lower contrast meaning that you need less exposure (old paper was a little slower, perhaps?) Also, it looks like you left the first one in the developer a bit longer looking at the blacks. Honestly, I think you simply nailed the first one hitting the exposure and development perfectly....it isn't always easy to repeat with lith.

 

[Simonh82]

Foma made a change to the gelatin used in their emulsion in late 2012, early 2013. This affected their lithability and was noted in Tim Rudman's 2013 lith materials update.

I don't know if this is the specific cause of your problems but there has certainly been a change to the emulsion.

They are apparently in the process of changing gelatin again specifically to address the lith problems but I think they were starting with the papers based on the multi grade classic emulsion like 131 and 132.

I would recommend subscribing to Tim's newsletter. The last one contained details of the emulsion numbers when they made the change.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Foma made a change to the gelatin used in their emulsion in late 2012, early 2013. This affected their lithability and was noted in Tim Rudman's 2013 lith materials update.

I don't know if this is the specific cause of your problems but there has certainly been a change to the emulsion.

They are apparently in the process of changing gelatin again specifically to address the lith problems but I think they were starting with the papers based on the multi grade classic emulsion like 131 and 132.

I would recommend subscribing to Tim's newsletter. The last one contained details of the emulsion numbers when they made the change.

Tim's newsletter was directly referring to Fomatone, while this is the 123 version of Fomabrom Variant which seems to lith rather well unlike other surfaces of Variant. (I always get confused when talking about the two Foma papers!) Have also done some tests on the new batches of Fomatone and getting some good results.

 

[Simonh82]

Tim's newsletter was directly referring to Fomatone, while this is the 123 version of Fomabrom Variant which seems to lith rather well unlike other surfaces of Variant. (I always get confused when talking about the two Foma papers!) Have also done some tests on the new batches of Fomatone and getting some good results.

From Tim's newsletter "The gelatine change started from Fomatone (MG Classic 131 + 132) emulsion number 060848. Fomabrom emulsions will also change"

I'm not saying this is definitely the cause of the problem, just that it might be a factor. I've not used Variant 123, only old stock 112 which I've found quite difficult to control and prone to random speckling and uneven development.

 

[M Carter]

I think Mike C is correct. To my eyes, it the second one looks like it has lower contrast meaning that you need less exposure (old paper was a little slower, perhaps?) Also, it looks like you left the first one in the developer a bit longer looking at the blacks. Honestly, I think you simply nailed the first one hitting the exposure and development perfectly....it isn't always easy to repeat with lith.

Nope, I got 3 or 4 similar prints with the older emulsion batch. It was actually pretty repeatable (for lith) though I didn't track snatch times, and I replenished with maybe another 75A/75B (to 2 liters) in the midst of those.

With the newer emulsion, I went with my exposure notes from the good prints (I keep a white board by the enlarger and can track the progress of a print session by letter-coding test prints and noting times, filters, dodge maps, etc - I can track the "evolution" of a print very easily), tried different exposures, etc.

I did find a 2012 Rudman newsletter that had a sort of cryptic mention of 123, but as I said a few posts back - this session was based on my happening to have some FB paper (that freestyle claims liths well) and trying two different batches. I'm REALLY glad I started test prints with trimmed bits left in the old emulsion bag though, if I'd started right off with the newer I'd have assumed 123 didn't work, at least for this neg, and likely given up.

Next time I want to play with lith, I'll buy a few papers specifically for the process. But I'll definitely sign up on Tim's site.

I did like the grit and limited color of that old batch though... and the spooky way that out of focus areas rendered.

 

[M Carter]

THIS JUST IN...

Apparently, all Foma papers have changed due to a new source of gelatine. Doesn't affect general printing or bromoil - changes the F*&K out of lithability. Affects the entire line.

That's it for Lith papers, far as I understand - short of the supposedly coarse and grainy Unibrom 160 BP which is hard to get - nothing else is currently manufactured that does true infectious development.

EXCEPT... foma announced recently they're reformulating some emulsions to lith properly with true infectious development. I will make a little candle shrine and pray to the paper gods.

 

[andreios]

THIS JUST IN...

EXCEPT... foma announced recently they're reformulating some emulsions to lith properly with true infectious development. I will make a little candle shrine and pray to the paper gods.

It is true, I have contacted Foma and they've confirmed this - the new emulsion is from batch no. 0680 on 131, there should be by now a new coating of 532 as well - I have tried it and it works fine - not as GREAT as fomatone of old (of which I still treasure few boxes) but really nice - I can easily get the look I am after.

 

[M Carter]

That's very good news. I'd hate to see lith be the next casualty...

 

[andreios]

That would be sad indeed... Nevertheless, since the paper seems to behave really nicely, I might consider making some reasonably large stock in case of further changes...
What is the best way to store paper, anyway?

 

[Simonh82]

There is an interesting discussion going on on the Lith printing group on Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/315339078572684/?fref=to. Several people have reported mottling effects on new batches of Foma paper, both Fomabrom and Fomatone seem to be affected.

Tim has been gathering batch numbers and passing them to Foma, who seem to have admitted a problem. Perhaps hold off on the big purchase until the extent of the issue is identified.

 

[andreios]

My 131 is fine, 532 after first try doesn't seem to work well. I don't do facebook so I can't chime in there...

 

[M Carter]

You can (I believe) read posts on that sort of FB page without signing up.

Storing paper: most people say to freeze it. This is a problem if you want to stock up on 16x20 I imagine. I poked around craig's list the other day and saw various smaller freezers available, though even a smallish one is a space hog that many folks can't afford (living in Texas with its high water table, I certainly miss those big Michigan basements of my childhood!)

I don't know if refrigeration is at least an improvement over room temp storage, but there's likely plenty of info here and around the web.

My recent 123 experience was mottling and bizarre infectious behavior. really keeping my fingers crossed on this one.