In Praise Of Fomabrom Variant III 111 VC FB

bernard_L · May 22, 2024

Agree.
On the other hand, Fomaspeed 313 "satin" is visibly inferior to Ilford MG RC Deluxe 44 "pearl". The surface textures are very similar, yet the Fomaspeed has higher Dmin and lower Dmax. I'm using pure red safelights and fresh ID-62, and am fully satisfied with Fomabrom variant 111.
Too bad, because RC paper also has its uses, and Foma would have a winner if they would achieve the same quality in RC as for fiber base.

Anon Ymous · May 22, 2024

bernard_L said:
... Fomaspeed has higher Dmin...

That's quite strange. Is there a chance that it's old, slightly fogged paper?

bernard_L · May 22, 2024

Anon Ymous said:
That's quite strange. Is there a chance that it's old, slightly fogged paper?

Bought Jan-2023 from CyberLaboPhoto, a mail-order store in France selling exclusively Foma products; looks like an official outlet. If they sell outdated paper...

DREW WILEY · May 22, 2024

I just used one of those basic screw-in Delta red light bulbs and it worked fine with this paper. No fogging at all.

pentaxuser · May 22, 2024

John Wiegerink said:
Well, after using it for a while, I must say it's a darn good paper for my purposes. The only thing I had to do was ditch my old safelights and go to all red.

DREW WILEY said:
I just used one of those basic screw-in Delta red light bulbs and it worked fine with this paper. No fogging at all.

For what it worth it appears from what Ian Grant has said in relation to safelights and Foma paper on another thread on this subject that Ilford 902 light brown/amber safelight is OK with Foma paper as well.

pentaxuser

MattKing · May 22, 2024

pentaxuser said:
For what it worth it appears from what Ian Grant has said in relation to safelights and Foma paper on another thread on this subject that Ilford 902 light brown/amber safelight is OK with Foma paper as well.

pentaxuser

See Doremus' contrary experience in a similar recent post.
It may vary with paper type.

DREW WILEY · May 22, 2024

I didn't want to take that chance. So I unscrewed my regular Kodak beehive lamp and put in a red bulb, since I already had one of those on hand. This is an expensive paper to begin with; someone else can be the Guinea pig.

chuckroast · May 22, 2024

DREW WILEY said:
I didn't want to take that chance. So I unscrewed my regular Kodak beehive lamp and put in a red bulb, since I already had one of those on hand. This is an expensive paper to begin with; someone else can be the Guinea pig.

I use two large 10x12 Kodak safelight housings at the far end of the darkroom about 12 feet away from the developing tray. I have a bullet mounted to the ceiling pointing at the trays from about 5 feet to the developer. In all cases, I am using very low wattage bulbs and - most importantly - I am using deep red X-Ray film safelight filters.

Neither explicit tests nor day-to-day use shows any fogging.

My general view is that I just need enough safelight illumination to avoid banging into things. I'm not using the light to judge the development. So, my red light darkroom is likely darker than most people's.

DREW WILEY · May 22, 2024

I never leave the bulb on anyway. I'm used to working in total darkness, especially with film and color paper. There is a momentary contact waterproof rubberized footswitch on the floor beneath the sink. I do use it to briefly check paper development, etc.

I'm not particularly happy with the brownish tone I got with the combination of 111 paper and 130 developer - warmer in fact than MGWT with its yellowish base. So the next session, I'll try a different developer. But all the borders and highlights are clean white.

Sal Santamaura · May 22, 2024

DREW WILEY said:
...I've finally tried out a little of the Foma 111 Variant just today. It's a thicker kind of paper with slightly less sheen than the typical gloss paper...

Thicker, not curled out of the box, and dries very flat on screens, even in low relative humidity conditions. Its glossy surface shininess is the least bad available today. While not perfect, it's much less obnoxious than the high gloss every other fb paper currently on the market suffers from. I just traded off my remaining stock of ADOX MCC 110 for some darkroom equipment after settling on Foma 111.

DREW WILEY said:
...This is an expensive paper...

I just purchased a 100-sheet box of 8x10 from FOTOIMPEX. It was less expensive than buying in the U.S., even including DHL Express shipping, and arrived in four days.

DREW WILEY said:
...I'm not particularly happy with the brownish tone I got with the combination of 111 paper and 130 developer - warmer in fact than MGWT with its yellowish base. So the next session, I'll try a different developer...

For nearly a decade, all my FB paper has been developed in Moersch SE6 blue. Foma 111 and the others I've used all come out pretty close to neutral. A bit of SE toning gets them the rest of the way there.

GregY · May 22, 2024

MattKing said:
See Doremus' contrary experience in a similar recent post.
It may vary with paper type.

I also had fogging, and switched out my brown Ilford filters for a red bulb....

John Wiegerink · May 22, 2024

GregY said:
I also had fogging, and switched out my brown Ilford filters for a red bulb....

+1. I tried my Kodak amber with Foam 111 and found that I also had fogging. Went to red and no fog. I also found that I can crank the light volume up a lot and still no fogging. I actually have brighter work area than I did with my Kodak amber safelights. Very helpful for someone like me with no inner ear balance.

eli griggs · May 22, 2024

Has anyone using this paper tried using it under a Thomas Sodium Light with it's orange aspect?

MarkS · May 23, 2024

If you read the data sheet you'll see that the Foma papers require red safelights. I'll admit that I fogged my first sheet of Foma paper because I didn't.
Then at my local photo store I found a used Zone VI safelight with two settings- one each for VC and graded paper. Although the VC setting is notably amber (?) it does not fog the Foma paper (yes I tested it).
I'd never realized that Z-VI had sold such a product; so I've lucked out. Now if Adox will bring back their good FB paper...

eli griggs · May 23, 2024

MarkS said:
If you read the data sheet you'll see that the Foma papers require red safelights. I'll admit that I fogged my first sheet of Foma paper because I didn't.
Then at my local photo store I found a used Zone VI safelight with two settings- one each for VC and graded paper. Although the VC setting is notably amber (?) it does not fog the Foma paper (yes I tested it).
I'd never realized that Z-VI had sold such a product; so I've lucked out. Now if Adox will bring back their good FB paper...

Cheers, I have yet to try this paper and will have to fish out some red lights.

I might also test out my Lume Cube "Pro's Go and Go Pro" colour production feature to see if it can be used as safe lights, which I suspect the more powerful light of handling quite easily.

That said, the proof is in the results.

Godspeed and Best Wishes to all.

Doremus Scudder · May 23, 2024

I currently print on Ilford Classic FB and Fomabrom 111, with the occasional Bergger NB and Slavich from my stash (for special occasions only). I, too, wish Adox would hurry up with bringing back the MC-110 paper!

I find the Fomabrom to be a bit less-contrasty than the Ilford Classic as well as having a slightly yellower base tint (from the emulsion itself or the baryta coating, I believe, not the paper base). It is a beautiful paper for many subjects. When I want real sparkling white, though, I'll reach for the Ilford.

Best,

Doremus

logan2z · May 23, 2024

Doremus Scudder said:
I currently print on Ilford Classic FB and Fomabrom 111, with the occasional Bergger NB and Slavich from my stash (for special occasions only). I, too, wish Adox would hurry up with bringing back the MC-110 paper!

I find the Fomabrom to be a bit less-contrasty than the Ilford Classic as well as having a slightly yellower base tint (from the emulsion itself or the baryta coating, I believe, not the paper base). It is a beautiful paper for many subjects. When I want real sparkling white, though, I'll reach for the Ilford.

Best,

Doremus

I was thinking about asking how Ilford Classic, Fomabrom and Bergger papers compared, but didn't want to take this thread off topic. But, since you brought it up...

I've used the Ilford paper exclusively for my prints to date, but have been thinking about giving one of these other papers a try out of curiosity. I've heard good things about the Bergger and understand that it is coated by Ilford. Is there much of a difference between these papers? Pros/Cons? Fomabrom is another one that has been highly recommended, although I've heard about some issues related to the emulsion flaking off the edges of the paper. Not sure if that has been corrected in recent production. I'll probably give both papers a try as soon as I can buy some here in the US - they have been out of stock for a while at most of the major photographic retailers.

MarkS · May 23, 2024

The Berger paper has been unavailable in the US for some time. I bought one 25-sheet package; tried it, liked it, then couldn't buy any more. So I can't really offer an evaluation, except to say that it would be a welcome addition to my darkroom.
I'll agree with Mr. Scudder that the Foma is fine paper; its lower contrast is a useful option for contrasty negatives.
As I said before, I hope Adox brings back their MCC110. It was my favorite of all the papers I've used in the last decade.

Patrick Robert James · May 23, 2024

I used 111 for quite a few years after Fotochemika Varycon went the way of the Dodo. I was never really happy with the prints but I could never put my finger on it. Then I picked up an RH Designs Zonemaster meter and in the process of calibrating it I realized that the blacks on the 111 just weren't there. They measured out to a 15% reflectance on my Gretag iOne. Compare that to a 7-9% reflectance on other papers. Then I realized that is what bugged me about it. I switched to Ilford WT which is one of the nicest papers I've ever used. Just wish it didn't cost so damn much. Bergger Variable CM is a good one too. I've used that here and there just for something a bit different although it really isn't much different to Ilford WT which isn't surprising.

I guess I could try some of the other Foma papers but the 111 just doesn't do it for me. It is a shame so many papers have been lost over the years. Wish Adox was still making paper too. Sucks that they aren't.

John Wiegerink · May 24, 2024

Patrick Robert James said:
I used 111 for quite a few years after Fotochemika Varycon went the way of the Dodo. I was never really happy with the prints but I could never put my finger on it. Then I picked up an RH Designs Zonemaster meter and in the process of calibrating it I realized that the blacks on the 111 just weren't there. They measured out to a 15% reflectance on my Gretag iOne. Compare that to a 7-9% reflectance on other papers. Then I realized that is what bugged me about it. I switched to Ilford WT which is one of the nicest papers I've ever used. Just wish it didn't cost so damn much. Bergger Variable CM is a good one too. I've used that here and there just for something a bit different although it really isn't much different to Ilford WT which isn't surprising.

I guess I could try some of the other Foma papers but the 111 just doesn't do it for me. It is a shame so many papers have been lost over the years. Wish Adox was still making paper too. Sucks that they aren't.

What paper developer were you using with the Foam 111?

Patrick Robert James · May 24, 2024

John Wiegerink said:
What paper developer were you using with the Foam 111?

Several kinds. And I use nuclear strength developer.

bernard_L · May 24, 2024

Patrick Robert James said:
I used 111 for quite a few years after Fotochemika Varycon went the way of the Dodo. I was never really happy with the prints but I could never put my finger on it. Then I picked up an RH Designs Zonemaster meter and in the process of calibrating it I realized that the blacks on the 111 just weren't there. They measured out to a 15% reflectance on my Gretag iOne.

???
15% reflectance is 0.82 reflection density. I won't waste time bringing up one of my RD measurements for Fomabrom Variant 111, but the blacks are around 2.0. With 1+2 dilution, D-72.

Arthurwg · May 24, 2024

I would like a paper that approximates Agfa Classic Matt.

seichenur · May 24, 2024

chuckroast said:
This is a double weight paper, but it still feels a little light to me. This emulsion on a slightly heavier weight paper would really be something.

Hmmm... Why do ALL the papers have to be double weight? As you know, centuries ago paper used to be single weight fiber, and most were excellent and with many different textures to offer. Then the double-weight fashion appeared... I understand that double-weight was better for working on large prints, or to be displayed more easily and safely, and why not, just to be more expensive too. Despite this, small prints and photo albums (probably the vast majority of prints in the world) work best with a single weight fiber base. It was cheaper, and also cheaper to get flat, easier to wash, the albums were thinner, well, easier and cheaper for almost everything!
I really hate that "spongy" feel of unnecessary thick papers... and with a fairly similar texture whatever the brand (textured glossy-fine grain matte, that`s all). Well, I have thrown the towel, I´m quite pessimistic about the future of traditional printing. Low quality and insane prices are the killers (at least in my part of the world).

Just wondering how a double weight photopaper could even seem light to anyone... (... no offense, I'm sure I'm missing something... ).

chuckroast · May 24, 2024

seichenur said:
Hmmm... Why do ALL the papers have to be double weight? As you know, centuries ago paper used to be single weight fiber, and most were excellent and with many different textures to offer. Then the double-weight fashion appeared... I understand that double-weight was better for working on large prints, or to be displayed more easily and safely, and why not, just to be more expensive too. Despite this, small prints and photo albums (probably the vast majority of prints in the world) work best with a single weight fiber base. It was cheaper, and also cheaper to get flat, easier to wash, the albums were thinner, well, easier and cheaper for almost everything!
I really hate that "spongy" feel of unnecessary thick papers... and with a fairly similar texture whatever the brand (textured glossy-fine grain matte, that`s all). Well, I have thrown the towel, I´m quite pessimistic about the future of traditional printing. Low quality and insane prices are the killers (at least in my part of the world).

Just wondering how a double weight photopaper could even seem light to anyone... (... no offense, I'm sure I'm missing something... ).

It's old Boomer stuff. I miss Ektalure G ...

In Praise Of Fomabrom Variant III 111 VC FB

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency