In Praise Of Fomabrom Variant III 111 VC FB

[chuckroast]

I have been silver printing for upwards of 5 decades on- and off, so I've seen papers from Velox, to Kodabromide, to Polycontrast, to Zone VI graded, to ... well, modern times.


I just wanted to put in a plug for the aforementioned Formabrom. The stuff is just ... well, gorgeous. It has a tonal range reminiscent of the great blue-black papers like Kodak Kodabromide or Bergger VC NB. In some ways it reminds me a bit of some of the old Agfa papers. It tones marvelously in Rapid Selenium Toner diluted 1:40. It barely dries down and it just has a "look" I've not seen in years.

BTW, this is based on having gone through many hundreds of sheets (and dollars!) in the past 5 years or so.

If Foma could make two things happen, I'd consider this a perfect paper (other than bringing the price down :

1. I miss the surface "tooth" texture of the original Zone VI graded papers made by Guilleminot & Boesflung. I've never seen a surface like that before- or since and it was beautiful to behold.
   
   
2. 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.

The darkroom beckons - there are prints to be made ...

 

[Paul Howell]

I print with Foma papers, some are rebanded, others branded, I quite like them, have found that Dectol, Clayton, and Liquodial all work as well.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Zone VI graded Brilliant was unique. Nothing like it ever since. But their VC version, and the second generation product after Calumet bought out Zone VI, were namby pamby, and hardly equal to today's premium VC choices.

Bergger Prestige VC NB worked better for me as a substitute for the old Seagull G graded papers if properly developed and toned for a cold tone rather than warm. Not quite the same image color, but the same richness of depth and impact. I'm referring to the original Seagull G product, not the relatively anemic second version of it, or the likewise disappointing VC versions. Hard to say when Bergger papers will be available again and at what price, since that's all dependent upon Harman, who actually makes it. And all the papers coming out of Harman/Ilford have skyrocketed in price this summer.

I haven't used Foma paper for a long time. When I did, it had more little lint and so forth contaminants in the emulsion than the other brands I used. Since I've also had similar quality problems with Foma film, I'm curious about how good the cosmetic quality control of their papers is at the moment, not just the general look options.

But it would be wonderful to find a reasonable substitute for the old Agfa Portriga look, which the cream base Foma paper FB is alleged to able to mimic, if anyone out there has experience with both.

 

[AZD]

I think I’ve said it before on this forum, but when I returned to printing a few years back I chose this exact paper as a starting point based on price, thinking I’d eventually move on to something “better”. That never happened. More than once I’ve looked at a finished print and thought wow, that can’t possibly be mine… No problems with quality control or anything like that either.

 

[miha]

Bruce Barnbaum once wrote the following:

Fomabrom appears to be the best paper I've ever encountered. Now, stop to consider that sentence. Forte was the truly excellent paper I used exclusively for about 15 years. At the end of those 15 years I found Bergger paper was equal to it. Then I found the Adox MCC 110 paper to be equally excellent. To my amazement, the Fomabrom paper appears to me to be better even than Forte, Bergger or Adox, all of them fabulous papers basically on par with one another.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bruce Barnbaum said the same thing about every paper he was mainly using at any given time. That's what workshop people seeking sponsors are sometimes tempted to do. He said Polygrade V was the best paper he ever used during that same general era (a full 15 yrs, as quoted). Before that, it was Seagull. Those two papers have entirely different looks. It's not that one is better than the other. He's obviously an excellent printmaker in his own right, but I also think some of his advice is downright hard-headed and doctrinaire. No need to give specific examples here. In this case, it's like arguing over paint brushes. Some brands are indeed better than others; but you still need a set of them, and not just one.

The fact is, all of those high-quality papers are capable of superb results once their learning curve is mastered; but each also had it own specific look and range of final image color. One shoe size never fits every foot, in terms of what is best for any given image. I've always found it necessary to keep a selection of papers on hand.

Anyway - AZD - thanks for your response, and I'm looking forward to other quality comments, and will probably try some Foma paper once again pretty soon. At the moment, I'm working through a stash of EMaks paper, one of the last truly superb graded papers, unique in its own right, and the glossiest FB paper I've ever encountered.

 

[chuckroast]

Zone VI graded Brilliant was unique. Nothing like it ever since. But their VC version, and the second generation product after Calumet bought out Zone VI, were namby pamby, and hardly equal to today's premium VC choices.

Bergger Prestige VC NB worked better for me as a substitute for the old Seagull G graded papers if properly developed and toned for a cold tone rather than warm. Not quite the same image color, but the same richness of depth and impact. I'm referring to the original Seagull G product, not the relatively anemic second version of it, or the likewise disappointing VC versions. Hard to say when Bergger papers will be available again and at what price, since that's all dependent upon Harman, who actually makes it. And all the papers coming out of Harman/Ilford have skyrocketed in price this summer.

I haven't used Foma paper for a long time. When I did, it had more little lint and so forth contaminants in the emulsion than the other brands I used. Since I've also had similar quality problems with Foma film, I'm curious about how good the cosmetic quality control of their papers is at the moment, not just the general look options.

But it would be wonderful to find a reasonable substitute for the old Agfa Portriga look, which the cream base Foma paper FB is alleged to able to mimic, if anyone out there has experience with both.

I have not seen any significant issues with the Fomabrom other than you have to treat the emulsion gently when wet or it will chip - kind of like handling Efke film. This is an issue when using tongs - or it can be anyway. I see small slivers of emulsion in my toner and Permawash trays. Again, none of this seems to have damaged the actual images. It seems to be along the edge as best as I have determined.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Edge frilling is generally either due to pH shock, temp transition shock, or handling abrasion. And all those certainly affected Efke film. I always used an especially weak stop bath with Efke 25, and never let the water temp get up to 75F.

But, alas, Foma paper itself seems to be in short supply in this country at the moment. I just got in a big box of MGWT, so no hurry in my case. But I am looking for more cold tone options, or else a neutral tone paper capable of being persuaded to go cold. I had been using MG Cooltone, but the price of a 16X20 50-sheet box just shot up $150 more in a single month. Ouch!

 

[chuckroast]

Edge frilling is generally either due to pH shock, temp transition shock, or handling abrasion. And all those certainly affected Efke film. I always used an especially weak stop bath with Efke 25, and never let the water temp get up to 75F.

But, alas, Foma paper itself seems to be in short supply in this country at the moment. I just got in a big box of MGWT, so no hurry in my case. But I am looking for more cold tone options, or else a neutral tone paper capable of being persuaded to go cold. I had been using MG Cooltone, but the price of a 16X20 50-sheet box just shot up $150 more in a single month. Ouch!

I never use acid stop bath with film and only running water.

My temps for printing are matched within 1-2 degrees F and I do use a very mild acid stop - 6oz 28% acetic acid per gallon working strength. Alternatively, I mix plain white cooking vinegar in a ratio of 1:3 to make working strength stop. Either way, the final stop is slightly over 1% acidic.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have never tried this paper, since I use mainly Ilford. I'm wondering what is the best paper developer to use with this paper. The reason I ask is that I just ordered some from Freestyle and want to give it a try.

 

[GregY]

I've used Fomabrom & variants since Forte disappeared. Of course less so now that it's scarce in N America. Never had issues with edge frilling at all.
JW, I typically use Ansco 130 or LDP..... I think it's a wonderful paper in any developer.

 

[chuckroast]

I have never tried this paper, since I use mainly Ilford. I'm wondering what is the best paper developer to use with this paper. The reason I ask is that I just ordered some from Freestyle and want to give it a try.

It works great in Dektol 1:2, with a nominal development time of 2min.

 

[chuckroast]

I've used Fomabrom & variants since Forte disappeared. Of course less so now that it's scare in N America. Never had issues with edge frilling at all.
JW, I typically use Ansco 130 or LDP..... I think it's a wonderfull paper in any developer.

It was briefly hard to get, but Freestyle seems to have had it reliably available for months now.

 

[chuckroast]

Zone VI graded Brilliant was unique. Nothing like it ever since. But their VC version, and the second generation product after Calumet bought out Zone VI, were namby pamby, and hardly equal to today's premium VC choices.

Bergger Prestige VC NB worked better for me as a substitute for the old Seagull G graded papers if properly developed and toned for a cold tone rather than warm. Not quite the same image color, but the same richness of depth and impact. I'm referring to the original Seagull G product, not the relatively anemic second version of it, or the likewise disappointing VC versions. Hard to say when Bergger papers will be available again and at what price, since that's all dependent upon Harman, who actually makes it. And all the papers coming out of Harman/Ilford have skyrocketed in price this summer.

I haven't used Foma paper for a long time. When I did, it had more little lint and so forth contaminants in the emulsion than the other brands I used. Since I've also had similar quality problems with Foma film, I'm curious about how good the cosmetic quality control of their papers is at the moment, not just the general look options.

But it would be wonderful to find a reasonable substitute for the old Agfa Portriga look, which the cream base Foma paper FB is alleged to able to mimic, if anyone out there has experience with both.

Brilliant VC was trash and a huge disappointment after using graded Brilliant for years before that.

I didn't find a really wonderful VC paper until I discovered some of the Agfa stuff ... only to have them go out of business.

Bergger VCNB was really great too and it was my go-to until it disappeared (more or less).

Then I found this Fomabrom and never looked back. I just looked at some prints I made over the weekend and the color, toning, tonal range and general look is just beautiful.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's really something that can bend from nominal Neutral Tone to actual cold tone that I'm looking for, which Bergger VC NB can do, if it can be found. Regular Ilford MG Cooltone is fine for many such purposes, but not their alleged neutral Classic Tone, which lacks sufficient punch for me, and never really goes cool. Same with the various Agfa MG papers, all of which I once tried.

For warm and split tones, Ilford MGWT is wonderful. But it would be nice to have something over the top punch-wise that can be tweaked entirely cool, like classic ole Brilliant Bromide. And the 25-sheet packaging of Foma and Berrger papers allows one to experiment with those a little less expensively, even if they are darn expensive per sheet. I recall that was how Brilliant was packaged.

Back in graded paper days, about 2/3 of my use was Seagull G, and about 1/3, Brilliant. But I did try numerous other papers. But then the famine of good papers arrived, when anemic substitutes for original Seagull and Brilliant came on the market, all the way until Forte MG came to the rescue. There had been some Ilford Galerie graded all along, but I never found it as versatile as Seagull G. Seagull's own VC papers were hit and miss; and I didn't get all that many exceptional prints with them. When I did experiment with Foma, it was for sake of softer warm tone images. So I guess I have to recalibrate my thinking, and see what they can do for me now.

 

[GregY]

It was briefly hard to get, but Freestyle seems to have had it reliably available for months now.

I buy my paper from B&C & the free shipping is a boon. With the already high cost of paper, add the shipping charges (for 16x20 & 20x24) from California to Canada and the 1.34 exchange rate and Freestyle would put a big dent in the bank account.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've used Fomabrom & variants since Forte disappeared. Of course less so now that it's scare in N America. Never had issues with edge frilling at all.
JW, I typically use Ansco 130 or LDP..... I think it's a wonderfull paper in any developer.

That's good to know since I make my own 130 developer. I also use Ilford developer since it's all that's available locally. I used LPD years back and loved how it kept, but 130 has no problems keeping wise either.

 

[GregY]

That's good to know since I make my own 130 developer. I also use Ilford developer since it's all that's available locally. I used LPD years back and loved how it kept, but 130 has no problems keeping wise either.

John, I use Ilford Multigrade for work prints, small prints & short sessions.....& the paper shines in that as well..

 

[Prest_400]

My grief about the historical papers (Forte, Efke, etc) is that I have been able to try old leftovers of it and just directly lithed them. To give context, my photo club has been good at getting paper donations and we have a "pool" of paper free to use.

I'm working through a stash of EMaks paper, one of the last truly superb graded papers, unique in its own right, and the glossiest FB paper I've ever encountered.

Ah, I have access to a couple boxes of K883 and K888, the latter (glossy) unfortunately light fogged and the former just light fogged. Lith doesn't really care in that case. Matt is not my favourite surface, but I quickly found lith results that I like with Emaks.

My learning self, who had free access to lots of Ilford Multigrade IV RC quicky liked it as well as MGFB for standard B&W silver gelatin printing. MGFW has also been fantastic and the photos I have enlarged on my walls are on it.

As I have been entretained with Lith + RC workprints, I haven't yet tried Foma papers. Their 20x24" is a good deal more affordable than Ilford's and I can foresee working with it in the near future.

 

[John Wiegerink]

John, I use Ilford Multigrade for work prints, small prints & short sessions.....& the paper shines in that as well..

Thank! I'll end up trying the developers I have on hand, which should work just fine. I just checked on B&H's site, and they have Foma111 cheaper than I paid from Freestyle. I'm usually a wise and careful shopper, but missed it this time.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've use Dektol, PF version of Dektol , currently using Clayton, 1:7. I need to reorder, will check out B&H.

 

[Elmarc]

I have never tried this paper, since I use mainly Ilford. I'm wondering what is the best paper developer to use with this paper. The reason I ask is that I just ordered some from Freestyle and want to give it a try.

If you are looking for cold/neutral tones then I can recommend Tetenal Dokumol or Eukobrom.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, here we are nearly a year later, and 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. Interestingly, today I also printed some EMaks graded paper, which has the highest gloss of any fiber based paper I'm aware of (it's no longer made). It was easy for me to nail down the right exposure and development time with the Foma paper, a hole in one, really - a true keeper image (16X20).

The only thing that bothered me was that there was very little shift toward cool using gold chloride toner afterwards. I was using 130 glycin developer, and the tone is noticeably slightly brown, almost like a bit of selenium toning had transpired. So this paper does behave differently than any other "neutral tone" paper I've used, including the Bergger version.

I'll take another look at the prints in better light after they are fully dried down tomorrow. And maybe next time I'll try out my own cold tone tweak of amidol developer instead, to see if it makes any difference. Or I could resurrect my old MQ cold tone formula I used with Polygrade V to see what that does.

By comparison, my EMaks prints were stunningly bold cool neutral black.

 

[chuckroast]

Well, here we are nearly a year later, and 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. Interestingly, today I also printed some EMaks graded paper, which has the highest gloss of any fiber based paper I'm aware of (it's no longer made). It was easy for me to nail down the right exposure and development time with the Foma paper, a hole in one, really - a true keeper image (16X20).

The only thing that bothered me was that there was very little shift toward cool using gold chloride toner afterwards. I was using 130 glycin developer, and the tone is noticeably slightly brown, almost like a bit of selenium toning had transpired. So this paper does behave differently than any other "neutral tone" paper I've used, including the Bergger version.

I'll take another look at the prints in better light after they are fully dried down tomorrow. And maybe next time I'll try out my own cold tone tweak of amidol developer instead, to see if it makes any difference. Or I could resurrect my old MQ cold tone formula I used with Polygrade V to see what that does.

By comparison, my EMaks prints were stunningly bold cool neutral black.

I'm pleased you got to see what it can do.

Fomabrom Variant 111 certainly does not have the blue black look of old Velox or Kodabromide, and more's the pity. But it does remind me of Bergger VC NB, at least when Selenium toned.

It's easy to overtone too - again using KRST - and I had to dial up the dilution to 1+40
to get reasonable color changes in the 3-5 min toning range. This is really noticeable in the darker tone areas of the print.

If you find a way to make it look like Kodabromide, do share

 

[John Wiegerink]

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. Oh, and learn how to deal with its fast speed. With my Ilford 400 multigrade head, my printing times were far too short. Had to use lower wattage halogen bulbs.