Fomaspeed vs Ilfospeed. Dmax, Fog? Experience?

[bernard_L]

I've been testing some Fomaspeed 313 ("velvet", similar to Ilfospeed 44 "pearl"). Exposing Stouffer wedges. Testing in parallel with Ilfospeed MGRC 44 Deluxe and Fomabrom Variant 111. Ilford grade filter 2.5. Developed in fresh D-72 1+2 2mins @ 22°C. Safelight has passed the Kodak test with Fomabrom Variant up to 7min exposure.

Visually, Fomaspeed 313 does not equal Ilfospeed in three respects:

• lower dmax (confirmed by densitometer)
• white not quite clean (slight fog)
• black is not neutral, warmer

My question
Did anyone perform similar A/B testing of Fomaspeed? Is Fomaspeed inherently flawed? or did I happen to be provided with outdated paper?
I'm a bit surprised, since (like several other Photrio members) I find Fomabrom Varian 111 quite good.

 

[koraks]

Did anyone perform similar A/B testing of Fomaspeed?

Not with Ilford, but with some (by now, old) Adox MCP, and the purpose of the test was not so much to do a side-by-side paper comparison. I was mucking about with LEDs for VC B&W printing and this involved some step wedge work as well. https://tinker.koraks.nl/photograph...e-leds-for-variable-contrast-black-and-white/

However, I can confirm that:
* Dmax of the Foma paper was slightly lower than Adox. The difference is measurable, and also visible in strong light. Under subdued light, the difference is minimal.
* The Foma paper does have a different tone to its blacks; it looks more purple/magenta compared to the more neutral black of Adox MCP, again under very strong illumination.

I've not used the 313 product but it's conceivable it has a slightly warmer base, perhaps? The measured Dmin on the Fomaspeed I tested is around 0.085; the Adox was very slightly higher around 0.095-0.100. Not a huge difference and Fomaspeed's white is a perfectly acceptable white indeed.

I did note interesting H/D curves on the Fomaspeed paper when exposed to pure green (550nm) light; however, the practical relevance of this is very limited since this is not a usual way of exposing the paper, as it gives something like a grade "00000" contrast (i.e. far lower than grade 00). In reality, you always expose with a little bit of blue as well so the curves blend better and the paper does become more linear in that case. Still, you may still see a bit of an odd 'bump' in the H/D curve of Fomaspeed at the lowest contrast grades. It's more linear at the higher grades.

 

[bernard_L]

@koraks
Thank you for your input. I went back to earlier measurements from last year and dug out H/D curves of Fomaspeed versus Ilfosped "deluxe". They are consistent with the visual impression. The Dmin for Fomaspeed 313, left of the toe, fluctuates 0.08-0.09. Consistent with your 0.085, given the age of my densitometer... MGRC-Pearl I measured at 0.03. Dmax for Fomaspeed I measure at 1.89; Foma datasheet says 2.1 hmmm.

Dmin is maybe the least worrysome of the metrics. I normally print such that "paper white" is not reached except maybe in specular highlights.

The comparison of Fomaspeed variant versus Fomabrom variant: Dmax, tonality, Dmin, seems to indicate that the emulsion is not the same. Maybe Foma regard the "speed" papers as economy/beginner papers.

 

[koraks]

The comparison of Fomaspeed variant versus Fomabrom variant: Dmax, tonality, Dmin, seems to indicate that the emulsion is not the same.

Whether the emulsion is the same, I really don't know. The coating sure is different since one is an RC paper and the other a FB paper, so differences in dmin and dmax are to be expected. Curve shape should tell something about the emulsion as such, although from a practical viewpoint, this would be only/mostly useful if you want to make proofs on RC and then do full prints with the same settings on FB.

I'm surprised at the lowish dmax; I would have expected higher from this paper given my own measurements. However, the reflectance of the surface and play a role. I do my measurements with an i1Pro 2, which I think does a fairly good job controlling for surface qualities of the material. It's easy to see how a meter might be thrown off especially when measuring semi-glossy and glossy surfaces (like all RC papers). Still, there's no arguing about the visual difference between one paper and another, regardless of what a meter says.

Keep in mind that developer/development may play a role particularly in dmax, although I trust you're fully aware of this. In my test I used well-aged and replenished ID62 and obtained 2.00-2.05logD on the Fomaspeed paper; I suspect I might be able to eek out a tiny bit more by optimizing development, which should bring me even closer to the specified 2.1logD.

 

[bernard_L]

I'm surprised at the lowish dmax; I would have expected higher from this paper given my own measurements. However, the reflectance of the surface and play a role.

The MGRC Pearl has the same handicap, yet measures 0.1 higher. In fact, MGRC44 is almost as good-looking as MG glossy air dried.

I do my measurements with an i1Pro 2, which I think does a fairly good job controlling for surface qualities of the material.

I won't dispute that your densitometer is more accurate than mine.

Keep in mind that developer/development may play a role particularly in dmax, although I trust you're fully aware of this. In my test I used well-aged and replenished ID62 and obtained 2.00-2.05logD on the Fomaspeed paper; I suspect I might be able to eek out a tiny bit more by optimizing development, which should bring me even closer to the specified 2.1logD.

I'm not really convinced, after receiving and following advice on this forum to use Dokumol to increase contrast: improvement measurably absent. Ditto Moersch 4812: ordered, paid, tested; same H&D as D-72. Maybe glycin (so expensive) or the original Eukobrom (unobtainium) are (was) really superior.

My recent experiments, that prompted me to start this thread (no densitometer measurements yet), were made with D-72 and ID-62, and variants in which KBr is fully replaced by "equivalent" BTA. The induction time was in the range 10-15s, and the paper developed for 2min; so I believe it received full development. Any combination involving Fomaspeed 313 has a brownish tone compared with any combination involving MGRC, irrespective of more or less benzotriazole in the developer. Agrees with your observation of a "purple/magenta" tone. This alone eliminates Fomaspeed 313: I want a neutral black.

So... Maybe I was sold outdated Fomaspeed 313. Maybe that paper has slightly inferior specs right out of the factory. I'll leave it at that and play safe, staying with Fomabrom Variant for baryta and Ilford MGRC for RC.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[koraks]

I'm not really convinced

Me neither, mind you. I offered a couple of nuances, but I realize very well they change very little about your observations. Sadly, I don't have any 313 around, certainly not fresh (maybe some very old leftovers), so I can't check if I get the same results.

The induction time was in the range 10-15s, and the paper developed for 2min; so I believe it received full development.

I agree.

Agrees with your observation of a "purple/magenta" tone. This alone eliminates Fomaspeed 313: I want a neutral black.

Selenium toning may/will help some. I still need to do some measurements on selenium-toned fomaspeed, but subjectively, it looks a little better. But I've been sepia + selenium toning all of my RC prints over the past two weeks, so that's a whole different ballgame altogether.

I can only agree that the safe bet is to stick with the known-good paper. I quite like Fomabrom, but agree with you that Fomaspeed isn't quite "up there".

 

[miha]

I've just had a look at a couple of recently made prints on Fomaspeed Variant glossy (311) and Ilford Multigrade V glossy (1M) both developed in Ilford Ilforbrom. At first glance they look pretty equal, however observed next to each other the Fomaspeed paper shows slight fog / lower Dmin while Ilford exhibits slightly warmer base. Dmax is comparable. I would also say that Ilford shows somewhat more gloss. I find Ilford to be the superior paper and a major leap over it's predecessor. I should say both prints were made from 4x5 negs so my impression wasn't affected by either grain or sharpness.