Ilford FB Warmtone Semi-Matt vs. Fomabrom Varient 123- experiences?

Dear All,

I'm looking for an alternative to Kentmere Fineprint FB Glossy in 16x20"/40x50cm, which is the size paper I almost exclusively use for printing 120-size (6x6cm) negatives.

What I like(d) about this paper:
- it dries very flat if taped down to glass (face up),
- it tones very nicely and controllably in Selenium,
- the surface shine after drying is nice (although I prefer a more matte finish- see below),
- how it handles contrasty negs printed at up to grade 2.

What I like less:
- it goes a bit muddy with low-contrast, subtle negatives,
- it doesn't print as well at higher grades (although I usually don't go beyond 3.5 anyway),
- it doesn't have the sparkle & subtleness of good old Agfa MCC 111 (my mainstay up to several years ago),
- I prefer the 'Finegrain' finish (Kentmere lexicon for 'matte') over Glossy, but Finegrain is out of production and out of stock.

So what I'm looking for now is an FB paper that tones well in Selenium, has a Kentmere Finegrain like texture, and has the subtle tonality & excellent low-to-high grade response of Agfa MCC. At the same time I also won't mind trying a warmer-toned paper (read: warmer than Adox MCC 110) that allows room for obtaining different degrees of warmth & tone, as determined by paper developer and toning process.

While money is an issue I will not, in this case, allow it to be. I used to think differently but have recently come to believe that I should save on cameras, lenses, film and chemistry, definitely not on paper.

With all the above in mind I have narrowed down the choice to two papers:
1. Ilford MG FB Warmtone ("24K") Semi-Matt (link to Ag in the UK),
2. Fomabrom Varient 123 (white base, but not super-white, with a Semi-Matt or 'Velvet' texture- link).

I am leaning a tiny (and I mean really tiny!) bit towards the Foma paper because it has good (though limited) rep here and elsewhere, while being cheaper (old habits die hard, sigh) than Ilford. What's holding me back is fear of lack of quality control by Foma. Also, I have not been able to find out if this paper dries flat (if kept taped down during drying), if the thinner base (180 g/m^2 vs. 255 for Ilford) makes a huge difference in handling (kinking) and 'quality-feel', and how 'archival' it is (assuming the fictitious perfect printer). Basically what it comes down to for me with this Foma paper: it looks great on paper (sorry), but how reliable and practical is it in real life?

I have burnt my hands badly and repeatedly on Foma film in 120, while I have only praise for Ilford products (or what I've tried at least) and for their service- Simon is terrific. Hence my doubts about the Foma brand.

So my limbo relates to:
(1) how the ideal-world, on-paper qualities of the respective papers turn out in real life, and
(2) doubts about quality control in the case of Foma.

I welcome comments (preferably personal user experience) on either paper. I'm also open to suggestions outside the two.

BTW, I'm in Netherlands, where it is not possible to obtain either paper at a good price (or at all). I am willing to spend money, but it should be for the paper first and foremost, not for the shop owner- no offence to anyone. Therefore I will order from the UK, probably from Ag (I love their website for the commitment it radiates). Shipment to Netherlands is GBP 17. This means that I will want to think twice before ordering, and if I do, I'd rather order for a substantial amount (100-200 euros/GBP). IOW, I want to get it sort-of-right first time ordering, for which I need you fellow APUG'ers feedback on these papers!

PS. I prefer replies based on actual personal user experience, not so much from what others/books/pdf's say.

Thanks a lot for reading/answering this somewhat convoluted post!!!

Best, Sander

The Foma 123 is as close to the old Agfa MCC 118 you're going to get surface wise (and Kentmere fine grain). It's also similar in paper base color.
Side by side prints show a remarkable similarity.
However, I'm not sure how it tones in selenium on its own. The samples I've seen have been toned indirectly in Kodak Sepia II first, which makes it a LOT more responsive to a second bath in selenium.

Ilford MGWT, in my mind, isn't at all like the Agfa paper, and surface wise you get a very smooth silky product with the Ilford, which isn't at all anything like the fine grain surface, (or Velvet as they call it), of the Foma 123. It does tone rather well in selenium, though...

Choices, choices... If you want something close to Agfa, the Foma 123 is your choice. But MGWT probably responds better to selenium.

Thanks for sharing Thomas.

I'm not familiar with Agfa MCC 118 (and never will be, alas), but if it is like Kentmere Finegrain then I can imagine what it was like. I have >100 sheets of 12x16" Finegrain in the fridge and sort of covet it for its texture.

Most interesting I find your remark that Ilford Warmtone Semi-matt (you are talking Semi-matt right?) is different from the texture of the 'class' of Agfa MCC 118/Kentmere Finegrain/Fomabrom Varient 123. Can you elaborate?

I've read elsewhere that Fomabrom 123 tones well in Selenium, so I'm not primarily worried about that aspect of the paper. It's rather reliability and workability (paper thickness) that I seek reassurance for.

The Foma 123 is the closest to the old Finegrain surface that you can get, I think they must use the same paper stock as the old Kentmere Finegrain. which was one of my all time favorites, the Ilford semi mat is a different beast, much smoother and more ''Matt'' than the old finegrain, the foma is thinner than the foma, and there is quite a price difference between the two, I personally prefer the Foma.
Richard

I'm just pasting this in for my own (and others') reference (taken from (there was a url link here which no longer exists)):

Coding of FOMA photographic papers
Numerical code with three digits

1st digit = base type
1 – double-weight
2 – single-weight
3 – resin-coated(RC)
4 – resin-coated(RC) (110g per sq.m)
5 – natural

2nd digit = base whiteness
1 – extra white
2 – white
3 – cream-coloured
4 – chamois

3rd digit = surface type
1 – glossy
2 – matte
3 – velvet
4 – lustre
5 – pyramid grain

This stuff is confusing to me, particularly as not every manufacturer seems to use three-number designations (Kentmere, Ilford), or not the same ones (Agfa).

The Kentmere Finegrain / Agfa MCC 118 / Foma 123 (and Fotokemika Varycon matte, if it matters), all have this slightly pebbled surface.
Ilford Warmtone semi-matt has a completely smooth surface without any texture at all. It's very beautiful in its own right, but isn't at all like the other three (or four). When you run your hand across the MGWT it's like a very smooth flat surface. The other four have these little pebbles that make up the surface texture, and it looks kind of like as if you sprayed fine water droplets onto a flat very cold surface, and they froze, like frost on your car's windscreen. If you have Kentmere Finegrain, you know what the texture feels like. If I remember correctly, the Kentmere paper was slightly 'rougher' than the others, but behind glass I think they all would look pretty much the same.

R.Gould said:

The Foma 123 is the closest to the old Finegrain surface that you can get, I think they must use the same paper stock as the old Kentmere Finegrain. which was one of my all time favorites, the Ilford semi mat is a different beast, much smoother and more ''Matt'' than the old finegrain, the foma is thinner than the foma [Ilford- Sander], and there is quite a price difference between the two, I personally prefer the Foma.
Richard

Click to expand...

Thanks Richard, that is *very* useful information. Your description of the textures makes me lean more towards the Fomabrom 123.

It's almost a pity that five envelopes of 10x Foma totalled are cheaper than one 50-sheet box of Ilford. (I much prefer boxes.) But no, I just told myself to ignore the pricing issue. Why this obession of mine wanting to be cheap all the time? One 50-sheet box should last me a long time (about a year I reckon).

Thomas Bertilsson said:

The Kentmere Finegrain / Agfa MCC 118 / Foma 123 (and Fotokemika Varycon matte, if it matters), all have this slightly pebbled surface.
Ilford Warmtone semi-matt has a completely smooth surface without any texture at all. It's very beautiful in its own right, but isn't at all like the other three (or four). When you run your hand across the MGWT it's like a very smooth flat surface. The other four have these little pebbles that make up the surface texture, and it looks kind of like as if you sprayed fine water droplets onto a flat very cold surface, and they froze, like frost on your car's windscreen. If you have Kentmere Finegrain, you know what the texture feels like. If I remember correctly, the Kentmere paper was slightly 'rougher' than the others, but behind glass I think they all would look pretty much the same.

Click to expand...

Do you write novels? You should! This is great stuff, I now understand (or so I think) the difference in texture between the above mentioned group of papers and Ilford MGWT Semi-matt. Thanks a lot for sharing!

I'm leaning more and more towards Fomabrom 123.

One thing: I have a tendency to kink papers at some point in the workflow. This happened to me more often with the old Agfa MCC 111 than with Kentmere Fineprint, which is actually odd because MCC 111 should have been thick enough at 283 g/m^2 (source).

Does the 180 g/m^2 Fomabrom 123 kink easily?

And does it feel more flimsy than say the 255 g/m^2 Ilford MGWT? My nicest prints end up behind glass but not the majority- I tape them to walls/cupboards/etc, or keep them in a box that I leaf through now and then, in which case 'stiffer' paper is nicer.

Again for the sake of reference, the old Agfa- (and new Adox-, I suppose) nomenclature:

Coding of base weight:
1 . . = double weight fibre-base paper (FB)
3 . . = polyethylene / resin-coated paper (RC)

The base tint is indicated by the second figure (not given for
single-weight types such as MULTICONTRAST CLASSIC 1).
. 1 . = white paper tint

Coding of surface:
. . 0 = glossy (natural high gloss)
. . 1 = glossy, smooth surface suitable for high-gloss
drying (only for fibre-base papers)
. . 2 = semi-matt surface
. . 8 = fine-grain matt

Example:
MCP 310 RC = MULTICONTRAST PREMIUM,
RC base, white, glossy
MCP 312 RC = MULTICONTRAST PREMIUM,
RC base, white, semi-matt
MCC 111 = MULTICONTRAST CLASSIC,
double-weight, white, glossy
MCC 1 = MULTICONTRAST CLASSIC,
single-weight, white, glossy

sandermarijn said:

Do you write novels? You should! This is great stuff, I now understand (or so I think) the difference in texture between the above mentioned group of papers and Ilford MGWT Semi-matt. Thanks a lot for sharing!

I'm leaning more and more towards Fomabrom 123.

One thing: I have a tendency to kink papers at some point in the workflow. This happened to me more often with the old Agfa MCC 111 than with Kentmere Fineprint, which is actually odd because MCC 111 should have been thick enough at 283 g/m^2 (source).

Does the 180 g/m^2 Fomabrom 123 kink easily?

And does it feel more flimsy than say the 255 g/m^2 Ilford MGWT? My nicest prints end up behind glass but not the majority- I tape them to walls/cupboards/etc, or keep them in a box that I leaf through now and then, in which case 'stiffer' paper is nicer.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind comments on the writing. It's difficult to describe texture in writing.

I think Foma papers in general aren't as tough as something like Ilford MGWT. Memory tells me the Kentmere paper was rather stiff, regardless of weight. I actually like how 'nimble' the Foma papers are. Maybe you just need to be more careful.

So what I'm looking for now is an FB paper that tones well in Selenium, has a Kentmere Finegrain like texture, and has the subtle tonality & excellent low-to-high grade response of Agfa MCC. At the same time I also won't mind trying a warmer-toned paper (read: warmer than Adox MCC 110) that allows room for obtaining different degrees of warmth & tone, as determined by paper developer and toning process.

Click to expand...

I don't know of a paper to match your requirements. Try 50 sheets of Fomabrom Variant 123 due to the paper surface and contrasty negatives.
The alternative is Adox Fine Print Variotone Premium VC FB Warmtone recommended because of contrast, color shifts and tonal complexity when toned.


Other comments:

Ilford has excellent quality control. Foma & Fotokemika are a step behind. Storage is a factor as papers age in storage.

Agfa MCC was my base paper. MCC had deep blacks, a short (contrasty) tonal scale with charcoal midtones & slightly warm blacks. Ilford WT is not similar. Ilford WT tonal scale is longer and image tint warmer.

123's surface looks like Agfa Portriga Rapid (118).
123 does not curl as much as Ilford WT. Dries somewhat flat similar to Forte Polywarmtone Plus, a 300g paper weight.
123 Dmax is less than MCC, Ilford WT, EMAKs graded, Galeria, Varycon, Adox 110, and Fineprint Variotone Premium.
123 leans towards yellow vs warm grey. KRST cools off Ilford WT and 123.
123 has a slight pencil etching look. Images are distinctive.

I've had a small amount of experience with both.
No quality control problems with the Foma paper. No kinking problems.
I found it to be a low contrast paper. I've seen vintage European prints from the 1930s and '40s and 123 was very similar.
The Ilford is a beautiful paper, I much prefer the look of it to 123, although as noted earlier it does not have the surface texture you might be after. I find the Ilford WT range responds very well to different developers, e.g. you will get quite different looks in Ilford WT dev, LPD, Adox WA etc.
Haven't tested the 123 as much but from memory it doesn't change much from one dev to another.

I use them both, but do have more experience with the Ilford. They are very different papers tonally. The Fomabrom is more comparable to Ilford MGIV in my mind. Ilford MGWT responds very well (strongly!) to selenium with a purple-y brown shadow. Here is one example with a heavy selenium tone on Ilford MGWT with lots of shadows. Here is one with lots of highlights. Here is a Fomabrom example with selenium with both shadows and highlights.

Mark Fisher said:

I use them both, but do have more experience with the Ilford. They are very different papers tonally. The Fomabrom is more comparable to Ilford MGIV in my mind. Ilford MGWT responds very well (strongly!) to selenium with a purple-y brown shadow. Here is one example with a heavy selenium tone on Ilford MGWT with lots of shadows. Here is one with lots of highlights. Here is a Fomabrom example with selenium with both shadows and highlights.

Click to expand...

Mark,

Are you sure that the photo you link to is the Fomabrom Variant 123, with the 'velvet' surface? I don't pick up any of the texture you normally get from that paper in your scan.
The Foma 123 behaves entirely differently than say the regular matte 112, both tonally, surface wise, how it responds to toners, and how it lith prints.

Thanks for your feedback, Richard, it really adds (to both doubt and decidedness).

Richard Jepsen said:

I don't know of a paper to match your requirements. Try 50 sheets of Fomabrom Variant 123 due to the paper surface and contrasty negatives.
The alternative is Adox Fine Print Variotone Premium VC FB Warmtone recommended because of contrast, color shifts and tonal complexity when toned.

Click to expand...

I have considered Adox FP Variotone WT. The reason I left it out of my equation is that I was trying to keep the choice semi-easy. That's obviously not a good reason.

From what I have read ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)) this paper tones well in Selenium (brownish). A number of people say it has a similar look to Agfa MCC 111. Somebody in the same thread makes a direct comparison to Fomabrom, stating that the Adox paper reacts very nicely to Selenium whereas the Fomabrom does not ("unattractive").

There is also the remark that no datasheet seems available for Adox FP Variotone WT. I can't find one either and frankly find this a somewhat off-putting omission for such a premium paper. For example I have no way of knowing if my Ilford SL1 (Orange) safelight will work. This is a minor point as I can easily get hold of a red safelight- just mentioning to show how a datasheet can come in handy.

I would also like more information on the surface types. I know that there are two (Glossy and Semi-matt), but I can find user feedback only on the glossy version. Perhaps with Harman involved the Semi-matt will be like Kentmere Finegrain/Fomabrom 123?

Then there is pricing and packaging. Adox FP Variotone WT comes in 25 sheet boxes max (16x20") and is priced roughly the same as Ilford MGWT. I find that pretty steep for a relatively unknown & unspecified paper. And I prefer 50 sheet boxes (minor point).

Ilford MGWT also tones nicely in Selenium and, according to SuzanneR:
"I think, at the end of the day, high key pictures like those I've posted will work better on the Ilford with it's slightly creamier base... I like how it treats the highlights, but I think the Adox will be lovely for lower key images."
This is confirmed by Mick Fagan:
"I also use the Ilford paper with high key work, it holds those high tones very well with the cream base colour, as you mention."
These remarks make me suspect that Ilford MGWT is perhaps the slightly better allround (high-key and low-key) option. A paper's ability to hold/reproduce highlight detail is an important property to me.

Richard Jepsen said:

Other comments:

Ilford has excellent quality control. Foma & Fotokemika are a step behind. Storage is a factor as papers age in storage.

Click to expand...

This (if true) is a huge plus for Ilford. I am not a super-frequent printer (or not always at 16x20"), so it will be nice if my say 50 sheets have a decent lifetime. I am also still weary of Foma's (and to a lesser extent Adox's) quality control, although admittedly nobody seems to report problems with Fomabrom or Adox Variotone.

Richard Jepsen said:

Agfa MCC was my base paper. MCC had deep blacks, a short (contrasty) tonal scale with charcoal midtones & slightly warm blacks. Ilford WT is not similar. Ilford WT tonal scale is longer and image tint warmer.

Click to expand...

I suppose the tonal scale is set by the filter grade. Or is there something else, a 'non-linear' aspect so to say?

I welcome a warmer image.

Richard Jepsen said:

123's surface looks like Agfa Portriga Rapid (118).
123 does not curl as much as Ilford WT. Dries somewhat flat similar to Forte Polywarmtone Plus, a 300g paper weight.

Click to expand...

That all sounds good, and the surface description seems in agreement with what others (Thomas) have said.

Richard Jepsen said:

123 Dmax is less than MCC, Ilford WT, EMAKs graded, Galeria, Varycon, Adox 110, and Fineprint Variotone Premium.
123 leans towards yellow vs warm grey. KRST cools off Ilford WT and 123.

Click to expand...

Lower Dmax sounds less appealing. The yellowish base of Fomabrom was mentioned elsewhere too. Not sure I will like that.

Richard Jepsen said:

123 has a slight pencil etching look. Images are distinctive.

Click to expand...

'Distinctive' is indeed the impression I get of Fomabrom, from reading about it. Some people dislike certain aspects, but everybody seems to agree that it is distinctive, that it has something of a unique look.

Choices, choices, choices- maybe too many of them!

Michael W said:

I've had a small amount of experience with both.
No quality control problems with the Foma paper. No kinking problems.

Click to expand...

Great!

Michael W said:

I found it to be a low contrast paper. I've seen vintage European prints from the 1930s and '40s and 123 was very similar.
The Ilford is a beautiful paper, I much prefer the look of it to 123, although as noted earlier it does not have the surface texture you might be after. I find the Ilford WT range responds very well to different developers, e.g. you will get quite different looks in Ilford WT dev, LPD, Adox WA etc.
Haven't tested the 123 as much but from memory it doesn't change much from one dev to another.

Click to expand...

Things start to add up, the picture is becoming more consistent with every post. It seems that Ilford MGWT Semi-matt is the best paper for my purposes, with only the surface type a possible source of unpleasant (or pleasant!) suprise. While I really like the Kentmere Finegrain sort of texture, it is very well possible that the less 'pebbly' Ilford Semi-matt finish will appeal to me as well, or even more. I am looking for a diversion from the standard (as known to me from Kentmere Glossy dried to air at room temperature) glossy eggshell look- somewhat bored with that.

Thanks Michael.

Mark Fisher said:

I use them both, but do have more experience with the Ilford. They are very different papers tonally. The Fomabrom is more comparable to Ilford MGIV in my mind. Ilford MGWT responds very well (strongly!) to selenium with a purple-y brown shadow.

Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that Ilford MGIV is very different tonally from Ilford MGWT? I'm not sure if I understand you correctly on this. Also, as I have never used Ilford MGIV (though I have in RC), I can't really relate to your observation (which does not make it any less welcome!).

Can you try put into words the tonality of Ilford MGWT (Semi-matt)? Images speak more, I know, but I like words too. 'Tonality' is often used differently by different people, and I wonder what you mean with it.

I love your Se-toned MGWT prints; if that came out of my hands I'd be very happy. Purpley-brown is something that I'd like to achieve.
Of course the one element missing here (apart from scanning-related matters) is an impression of the texture of the print. Only one way to find out about that I guess.

I don't see much Selenium in the cows. The consensus seems to be that Ilford MGWT is more susceptible. I stated in post #3 that Fomabrom tones well in Selenium, but more careful reading of posts here and elsewhere makes me withdraw that statement. With all the different Fomatones and 'broms it can be easy to misread.

Thanks a lot Mark. Further elaboration on 'tonality' (of Ilford MGWT specifically) will be very welcome.

Adox FP tones to faint eggplant for me with Se 1+20. MGWT tones to somewhat darker. MGIV only shifts after excessive toning. Not a good toning paper for Se.

clayne said:

Adox FP tones to faint eggplant for me with Se 1+20. MGWT tones to somewhat darker. MGIV only shifts after excessive toning. Not a good toning paper for Se.

Click to expand...

Thanks clayne, that's again very useful information. Can you tell me something also about how Adox FP WT relates to Ilford MGWT in terms of 'tonality', overall look? Which of those two papers do you personally prefer (if you do)? Sander

While I have had quality issues with Foma film in the past, I have never had any quality issues with their paper. Even if I did, I would not be risking the original image. I prefer Ilford for some papers and Foma for other papers.

Ilford has excellent quality control. Foma & Fotokemika are a step behind. Storage is a factor as papers age in storage.

Click to expand...

Kodak and Ilford are tops. I experienced paper black spots with one box of Varycon paper. With Foma paper I recall only one quality problem. I am happy with the quality of Foma or Fotokemika papers. EMAKs graded is outstanding.

I suppose the tonal scale is set by the filter grade. Or is there something else, a 'non-linear' aspect so to say?

Click to expand...

Some papers produce more steps in a step wedge or distribute the tones differently. ILford WT has a long tonal scale with ability to record a zone 7 vs zone 6 1/2 print tone vs other papers. Its not a question of better or worse....just different. Adox Premium WT tone scale is similar to Agfa MCC and requires a red safe light per box directions. The Adox Premium WT paper surface and tint look like Kentmere fineprint glossy stock paper. The Adox papers are fast, have short recommended development times of 60s, and warnings to limit exposure to a safelight. I experienced unexpected safelight fogging with Adox MCP 312 and Variotone Premium using the recommended safelight. I need to adjust paper safelight exposure by time or distance. It was not a paper problem.

I reviewed my recent prints on Fomabrome 123 toned in selenium. The print tone was more neutral than recalled. The paper provides adequate midtones but not deep blacks. I have limited experience with 123 but plan to purchase more.

Hallo,

One thing to possibly note with MGWT - I think you mentioned in your original post that you tape the wet paper to glass to dry? I used this technique with great success with standard MG paper but when using MGWT the paper got glued to the glass and had to be soaked to lift it off the glass. I was using archival artists watercolor tape for this. I did read somewhere, and can't remember where, that the base soaks or draws the adhesive from the paper tape under or into the print paper. Anyway, taping MGWT was a resounding failure for me! *other users experience may differ*

Knowing the cost of 20x16 MGWT paper perhaps a trial pack of 25 10x8s might help in finding out if the paper suits your workflow as well as the final appearance?

Sim2.

Sim2 said:

One thing to possibly note with MGWT - I think you mentioned in your original post that you tape the wet paper to glass to dry? I used this technique with great success with standard MG paper but when using MGWT the paper got glued to the glass and had to be soaked to lift it off the glass.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed I watercolour tape my FB papers to glass to dry. Never had a problem with any paper. But if what you have found is generally true then I will most certainly not use Ilford MGWT. I didn't read any of this in the Ilford data sheet, but I will read again, and use Google.

Thanks a *lot* for reporting this Sim2 (regardless of whether you're alone in this or not).

Can others comment on this (potential) issue?

Well, I Googled around but have been unable to find any info on drying Ilford MGWT to the air while having it watercolour-taped down (face up) to glass.

The Ilford MGWT datasheet makes no mention of this drying method being a problem. However, in the paragraph "Drying" it reads:

"After washing, squeegee prints on both sides to
remove surplus water. Prints can be clipped back-
to-back to minimise curl and air-dried at room
temperature, or glazed/ferrotyped, or heat-dried.
However, the use of belt print dryers and
photographic blotters is not recommended as there
is a risk that prints will stick to them. If a belt print
dryer must be used, fix the prints using a
hardening fixer; however, this will have the
drawbacks explained under ‘Fixation’."

Contrast the above section to the fact sheet for Ilford MGIV FB (again under "Drying"):

"After washing, squeegee prints on both sides to
remove surplus water. Prints can be clipped back-
to-back to minimise curl and air-dried at room
temperature, or glazed/ferrotyped or heat-dried."

Here no warning mention is made against using belt print dryers and photographic blotters. I am not familiar at all with these devices and therefore cannot say if them being mentioned has any relevance to taped-down drying on glass at room temperature. It feels slightly suspicious nonetheless.

The Fomabrom I use is the glossy finish. I was unaware that the finish affected the tones. That might explain why I've seen some really well controlled lith prints in Fomabrom when I have a really hard time with that paper....it is a different paper!