Fomabrom variant, Multigrade RC Deluxe, and sparkling highlights

For 10+ years, I've been using mainly Fomabrom Variant 111 for enlarging. Recently, I decided that RC paper was more convenient to place in albums, and bought some Multigrade RC Deluxe pearl (not glossy!!!). And it happened that I printed the same negative in 13x18cm for an album, and in 18x24cm for hanging on the wall. This made clear what I had previously suspected: that the highlights were rendered better (sparkle, separation) on the RC Deluxe than on the Fomabrom Variant.

I made some tests to

• confirm this as an objective fact, rather than self-delusion
• search for ways to bring the rendering of Fomabrom Variant closer to that of RC Deluxe

I exposed strips of paper, on the baseboard, under a Stouffer step wedge (31x0.1D), developed in ID-62 1+2 for 2 min at 20-22°C. I used an Ilford contrast filter grade 2 in all cases, since Ilford and Foma both indicate a range of 90 for an Ilford #2 filter; not quite true in fact. Samples as follows:

• Multigrade RC Deluxe [MGRCDeluxe]
• Fomabrom Variant [Foma-Ref]
• Fomabrom Variant; ID-62 plus 10cc/litre of Moersch Finisher Blue, a powerful anti-fog [Foma-FinBlue10]
• Fomabrom Variant; ID-62 plus 1g/litre of Benzotriazole [Foma-BTAZ10]
• Fomabrom Variant; treated in a bleach/reducing solution 2g/L ferricyanide + 1g/L KBr; duration 60 seconds; fixed again. [Foma-Reduc]

Intermediate concentrations of Finisher Blue and Benzotriazole were also used but will not be discussed to keep the discussion concise. Reflection densities were tabulated, and analyzed. While the truth is in the discrete measurements, curves are visually nicer. Splines (piecewise polynomials) were used; not the usual splines, that go through data points, but least squares splines, that ignore small irregularities arising from measurement noise. A typical example, to re-assure readers that these splines are not used for cheating.

Least-squares splines: is it a grift?


Summary view of the measurements:


Clearly the global contrast of the Ilfospeed is larger than that of the Fomabrom; so much for manufacturer datasheets. Restrainers may cause a speed loss, but that is not the current topic. How can we be sure that the "sparkling highlights" attributed to the Multigrade RC Deluxe are not a delusion? To address these issues, the next graph shows Ilfospeed versus Fomabrom, with the horizontal scale of the former stretched to make both slopes match in the mid-tones.

Multigrade RC Deluxe (stretched exposure range) versus Fomabrom Variant

Hopefully, the readers see that after matching the mid-tones contrast, the Ilfospeed goes to low densities in a quasi-linear way, while the Fomabrom makes a "soft landing". We have an objective confirmation of the impression encountered in the course of enlarging with these two papers.

Next: can the toe of the Fomabrom be pulled down, by anti-fog or bleach, to make it behave more like the Ilfospeed? To make the visual comparison more reliable, I have shifted the curves along the exposure axis to make them cross at/around density 1.5.

Various modified processings of Fomabrom to straighten the toe.

• Benzotriazole does not reduce the base density (!!?)
• Both Benzotriazole and Finisher Blue depress the mid-tones in the range D~0.5...1.0 and do not (or not very much) cure the "soft toe" of Fomabrom
• The partial bleach with ferricyanide has an action more concentrated in the low densities

No truly satisfactory solution has been found. The "least ineffective" is a light bleach in ferricyanide, but requires either to lengthen considerably the cycle time for test strips, or to gain enough experience to "print down" the highlights by the right amount and perform the bleach in a batch at the end of a session.

Oh... and why, you ask, do I just not switch to whatever paper I judge better? Because I have a non-negligible quantity of Fomabrom. And, while the Pearl surface is very nice, air-dried glossy baryta is unique.

Anyone with similar experience? Anyone has found and tested a more effective remedy?

You could try the Satin surface instead of Pearl.

Just a small and possibly inconsequential point give that Matt hasn't raised it but if you mean the MG RC Deluxe when you mention Ilfospeed I got confused, wondering if another paper had been introduced. There is or was an Ilford paper called Ilfospeed but that was a graded paper and not multi-grade as far as I know

Or have I got it wrong?

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Just a small and possibly inconsequential point give that Matt hasn't raised it but if you mean the MG RC Deluxe when you mention Ilfospeed I got confused, wondering if another paper had been introduced. There is or was an Ilford paper called Ilfospeed but that was a graded paper and not multi-grade as far as I know

Or have I got it wrong?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Yep - Ilfospeed paper was introduced in 1974, and now only available in grade 2, and on two surfaces.

bernard_L said:

Anyone with similar experience?

Click to expand...

Yes, insofar as the experience constitutes "foma's paper curves can be kind of wonky". Here's a measurement I took some time ago on Fomaspeed RC paper:

Note that this is with exposure to monochromatic LED light, so not a 'grade 2'. Still, the 480nm curve seems to give the same kind of performance you're running into.

Btw, Adox MCP312 (I had a little bit left) gave a similar 'soft landing'. I suspect it's quite difficult to make a paper that doesn't have this kind of elongated toe, AND that gives a smooth tonal scale across all gradations. That's one of the things I think you pay for in the more premium product.

What I took from this is that Fomaspeed can work OK, but it tends to look best at high grades.

MattKing said:

You could try the Satin surface instead of Pearl.

Click to expand...

Why should I? I made it clear that the Ilford Mutigrade RC Deluxe (pearl) is (to me) a good paper, and the post is about the shortcomings (relative) of the Fomabrom Variant. Not about choosing between varieties of the Ilford product.

But since you raised the issue of available surfaces for Multigrade RC Deluxe, here is my opinion. Glossy is plasticky, good maybe for industrial documentation and the like, who knows, not my thing. Silk is too textured. Pearl (formerly 44) is in relative terms a decent approximation of air-dried baryta, and in absolute terms a very good compromise between deep blacks and absence of specular reflections.

pentaxuser said:

Just a small and possibly inconsequential point give that Matt hasn't raised it but if you mean the MG RC Deluxe when you mention Ilfospeed I got confused, wondering if another paper had been introduced. There is or was an Ilford paper called Ilfospeed but that was a graded paper and not multi-grade as far as I know

Or have I got it wrong?

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

True, I lapsed in a few places and wrote "Ilfospeed" meaning "Multigrade RC Deluxe". Given the title of the post and numerous other mentions of the "Multigrade RC Deluxe" being compared with the Foma paper, I would not expect this to be a source of confusion for the average reader.

koraks said:

That's one of the things I think you pay for in the more premium product.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is, last time I looked (maybe a year ago) Multigrade RC Deluxe cost about the same as Fomabrom Variant. Of course, Multigrade FB Classic is more expensive. But as I wrote above, I'm happy with the quality (and convenience) of Multigrade RC Deluxe.

koraks said:

What I took from this is that Fomaspeed can work OK, but it tends to look best at high grades.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have a sizeable backlog of existing negatives that seem worthy of printing; so adjusting my development to a lower CI is not an option for these.

bernard_L said:

Why should I? I made it clear that the Ilford Mutigrade RC Deluxe (pearl) is (to me) a good paper, and the post is about the shortcomings (relative) of the Fomabrom Variant. Not about choosing between varieties of the Ilford product.

But since you raised the issue of available surfaces for Multigrade RC Deluxe, here is my opinion. Glossy is plasticky, good maybe for industrial documentation and the like, who knows, not my thing. Silk is too textured. Pearl (formerly 44) is in relative terms a decent approximation of air-dried baryta, and in absolute terms a very good compromise between deep blacks and absence of specular reflections.

Click to expand...

It appears I misunderstood what you were asking - my apologies. Most likely I read your post too quickly.
I thought you preferred or at least liked the Fomabrom, and were asking about how to emulate the results with the Ilford option.

I use both Ilford MG Classic FB and Fomabrom Variant 111 FB. I can confirm the results you get with both in terms of highlight separation. Also, the Fomabrom seems to have a yellower, denser Dmin, which I can only attribute to the emulsion itself. The MG Classic is noticeably whiter, which helps with the impression of bright highlights and separation.

FWIW, neither of these papers have the highlight separation and sparkle of premium graded papers of the past (think Brilliant and Oriental Seagull G). I find myself reaching for the bleach bottle a lot more with VC papers nowadays.

Selective bleaching of highlights can be very gratifying.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus Scudder said:

I use both Ilford MG Classic FB and Fomabrom Variant 111 FB. I can confirm the results you get with both in terms of highlight separation. Also, the Fomabrom seems to have a yellower, denser Dmin, which I can only attribute to the emulsion itself. The MG Classic is noticeably whiter, which helps with the impression of bright highlights and separation.

FWIW, neither of these papers have the highlight separation and sparkle of premium graded papers of the past (think Brilliant and Oriental Seagull G). I find myself reaching for the bleach bottle a lot more with VC papers nowadays.

Selective bleaching of highlights can be very gratifying.

Best,

Doremus

Click to expand...

Ilford Galerie was pretty nice too!

@Doremus Scudder
Thank you for the confirmation. Yes, Ferri helps. I also found (at long last!) that I should not strive to reach paper white in at least one spot (except specular highlights); printing down helps maintain separation.

Because photography is ultimately not about curves, I submit below three versions of enlarging one negative. Slightly different aspect ratio of 13x18cm and 18x24 papers. Each scanned together with pieces of white and black paper, to establish a common tone scale, then cropped.

Well, Ilford is better, but Foma is not bad.

Ilford Multigrade RC Deluxe pearl


Fomabrom Variant 111


Fomabrom Variant 111, 1'30" in Farmer's reducer (maybe too long)