What's wrong with my Foma RC paper?

[dcy]

Yesterday I decided to try Foma's Fomaspeed paper. After a painful night, I think I can prove that something is seriously wrong with my paper.

Left Photo: My usual paper --- MultiTone Pearl, 45 second exposure, developed for 2 min.

Right Photo: Fomaspeed Multigrade paper, Variant 313 (Velvet). The exposures on the stripes are in *5 MINUTE* increments, from 5 min to 25 min. While developing, at the 2 minute mark you could barely see a hint of the darkest stripe, so I extended development to 6 MINUTES.

Other notes:

1) Yes, by the time I got to this point the developer was clearly exhausted, as seen in the first photo. But that was the last bit of developer I had and I just wanted to get the test done and go to bed.

2) The exposure was done with a halogen light source and no filters. --- I normally use an LED light source that is much brighter, but LEDs don't have a blackbody spectrum and I wanted to have a broad spectrum to mitigate the possibility that the two papers have different spectral sensitivity.

I bought the Fomaspeed paper a maybe 10 months ago. It's been sitting in my closet, unopened, at 20°C, with no humidity or spills, or anything. Exactly the same spot where I keep the MultiTone paper.

So... did I just get a bad batch?

 

[MattKing]

Too many variables, I'm afraid.
Exhausted developer, switched light source, switched paper.
Get some new developer and make a reasonable print with your old light source and paper.
Then take a strip of each paper, put them side by side in the easel, cover the FOMA paper and expose the Multi-Tone the correct amount. Then cover the Multi-Tone and do a test strip with a range of exposures that includes the exposure that worked with the Multi-Tone.
Develop them together and compare.
Two points - from someone who hasn't used any FOMA printing paper in this millennium, and probably not in the last.
1) the two or more emulsions in the FOMA paper may or may not have a distinctly different spectral response and speed when compared to the two or more emulsions in the Multi-Tone; and
2) I seem to recall that some of the FOMA papers fog under safelights that are okay with most other papers. The FOMA users here know more about that.
WRT the discontinuous LED spectrum, that doesn't necessarily create an issue, other than it probably means that the Ilford contrast grade table is probably inconsistent with how the contrast spacing will be with a paper.
I have a variable contrast head on my enlarger. If I swap in an LED bulb to it, the numbers on the contrast setting dial don't correspond with the linearity of the contrast behavior of the paper - but I can achieve approximately the same contrast range. I don't use an LED bulb usually, because the ones that fit are relatively low in power.
The suitability of an LED bulb is much more a problem when printing colour prints.

 

[FotoD]

Mix some new developer and try again. Formaspeed works well with a 4000K LED by the way.

 

[Rick A]

I use both, but using mostly Foma these days. Your issue is most likely spent developer. My tests with Foma and Multitone leads me think they may be the same, as in Foma coats paper for InkPress (Multitone).

 

[dcy]

I use both, but using mostly Foma these days. Your issue is most likely spent developer. My tests with Foma and Multitone leads me think they may be the same, as in Foma coats paper for InkPress (Multitone).

It can't just be about spent developer. I went back and forth between the two papers many times. Every MultiTone produced a "reasonable" image (i.e. like the one I posted) and every Foma acted like it was hardly even exposed at all.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes it might have been worth asking what else beside the Foma paper might have gone wrong and some ways to narrow down the cause or causes have been given

You can argue against each cause suggested as it is presented or try to eliminate each suggested cause by doing what Matt has suggested

pentaxuser

 

[dcy]

Too many variables, I'm afraid.
Exhausted developer, switched light source, switched paper.

They both got the same light source, both the original LED and the wimpy halogen one I tried last.

Perhaps I should mention that I went back and forth between the two papers many times. So, "in average" the Foma paper got the same exhausted developer.

I will make new developer (perhaps Foma is more sensitive to a bad developer?!) and your idea of developing them together is a good improvement over my attempt going back and forth.

I finished my bottle of commercial developer. I have the ingredients to make E-72, so I think I'll give that a try and hopefully I won't end up ruining MultiTone too.

WRT the discontinuous LED spectrum, that doesn't necessarily create an issue, other than it probably means that the Ilford contrast grade table is probably inconsistent with how the contrast spacing will be with a paper.
I have a variable contrast head on my enlarger. If I swap in an LED bulb to it, the numbers on the contrast setting dial don't correspond with the linearity of the contrast behavior of the paper - but I can achieve approximately the same contrast range. I don't use an LED bulb usually, because the ones that fit are relatively low in power.
The suitability of an LED bulb is much more a problem when printing colour prints.

Oh, that's a relief. When I asked on Reddit a long time ago, if I remember correctly, I was told that using LEDs was a mistake. But it was the only source I could get to work without tearing my hair out.

 

[dcy]

You can argue against each cause suggested as it is presented or try to eliminate each suggested cause by doing what Matt has suggested

The reason I made a reference to a painful night was that all of it was spent doing tests and trying to rule out possible causes. This is not to say that I was successful at ruling out possible causes. I'm just saying that all of my effort has gone into attempting to rule out causes.

If you see my response to Matt's comment (which I sent after you wrote your message, so I'm definitely not saying that you would have seen it), you will be glad to see that I will indeed follow Matt's advice.

I'm just letting y'all know ahead of time that I already did spend a lot of time trying to normalize variables. Both papers got the same light sources many times (both my usual LED and my wimpy halogen). I also went back and forth between them, so "in general" the Foma paper didn't get a more exhausted developer than MultiTone. Every time I switched to Foma, it was as if the paper was barely being exposed. Then I'd switch back to MultiTone and it'd behave reasonably again. Back and forth, many times.

 

[MattKing]

Here is a link to the technical data sheet for the FOMA paper https://www.foma.cz/en/fomaspeed-variant
From the old information that I've been able to find about the Multi-Tone paper, it probably is designed to be both more sensitive than the FOMA, and develop more quickly than the FOMA.
But in each case, the differences should be much smaller than you are seeing.
Did you buy the FOMA paper from new stock at a retailer?

 

[AZD]

Hopefully not throwing this topic off course, but do we know whether each paper includes developing agents? I believe this was, maybe still is, common in RC papers. So maybe - maybe - one paper could develop more fully in aging developer due to continued activation of incorporated developing agents, while the other is not doing this, or less so.

In any case, fresh developer will help sort it out.

 

[dcy]

Here is a link to the technical data sheet for the FOMA paper https://www.foma.cz/en/fomaspeed-variant
From the old information that I've been able to find about the Multi-Tone paper, it probably is designed to be both more sensitive than the FOMA, and develop more quickly than the FOMA.
But in each case, the differences should be much smaller than you are seeing.

Thanks. I would be interested to see the old information you found for Multi-Tone. I've had a hard time finding anything at all about it.

Did you buy the FOMA paper from new stock at a retailer?

I'm not sure how to verify that... I bought it online from B&H photo last December. Same delivery where I got the MultiTone.

 

[Bill Burk]

Are you exposing the back of the paper? (Or why is the number of the engine backwards?)

 

[GregY]

Here is a link to the technical data sheet for the FOMA paper https://www.foma.cz/en/fomaspeed-variant
From the old information that I've been able to find about the Multi-Tone paper, it probably is designed to be both more sensitive than the FOMA, and develop more quickly than the FOMA.
But in each case, the differences should be much smaller than you are seeing.
Did you buy the FOMA paper from new stock at a retailer?

From having used both Multi tone & Foma I have found them to be quite different, especially in the final appearance. I get more contrast from Foma....both in RC & FB.

 

[GregY]

The reason I made a reference to a painful night was that all of it was spent doing tests and trying to rule out possible causes. This is not to say that I was successful at ruling out possible causes. I'm just saying that all of my effort has gone into attempting to rule out causes.

If you see my response to Matt's comment (which I sent after you wrote your message, so I'm definitely not saying that you would have seen it), you will be glad to see that I will indeed follow Matt's advice.

I'm just letting y'all know ahead of time that I already did spend a lot of time trying to normalize variables. Both papers got the same light sources many times (both my usual LED and my wimpy halogen). I also went back and forth between them, so "in general" the Foma paper didn't get a more exhausted developer than MultiTone. Every time I switched to Foma, it was as if the paper was barely being exposed. Then I'd switch back to MultiTone and it'd behave reasonably again. Back and forth, many times.

Have you tried giving the Foma more exposure?

 

[MattKing]

Are you exposing the back of the paper? (Or why is the number of the engine backwards?)

Bingo!
You won't believe how much better your prints will look if you have the paper surface the right way up
This may not be what you are doing, but that really would explain the problem.
And you certainly wouldn't be the first to make the mistake.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use both Multi Tone and Foma, RC and FB, Foma is slower than Multtone RC, the FB is even slower and I use higher stock to water ratio when using Foma. Currently I use Dektol, with Multitone 1:2 with Foma VC RC 1:1.5, When I switch back to Clayton with Multitone 1:9 with Foma I will use 1:6 or 1:7.

 

[GregY]

Are you exposing the back of the paper? (Or why is the number of the engine backwards?)

The engine # could backwards because the negative is in the enlarger emulsion side up.

 

[dcy]

Are you exposing the back of the paper? (Or why is the number of the engine backwards?)

That possibility did occur to me; especially since it's my first time using this paper. But I did look to make sure that the image was appearing on the same side that I had exposed.

I didn't notice that the train is backwards! But if you look at the two photos, you'll see that it is backwards in both prints. So clearly I messed up when orienting the negative.

 

[dcy]

Have you tried giving the Foma more exposure?

The longest exposure I tried was 25 minutes (darkest stripe in the sample I posted). At that point I was getting tired. But if using fresh developer doesn't help, I can plug the enlarger directly into the outlet and try a really long exposure.

I finished my bottle of commercial developer. I'm going to make E-72 concentrate tonight. Right now I'm reviewing the instructions for how to make it. Never used it before.

 

[dcy]

The engine # could backwards because the negative is in the enlarger emulsion side up.

Yeah. Notice it's backwards in both prints. So I put in the negative backwards.

 

[MattKing]

Did you have both types of paper upside down ?

 

[koraks]

1) Yes, by the time I got to this point the developer was clearly exhausted

That's also really what the foma print looks like - a case of really dead developer. The giveaway is the how some of the shadows are trying to emerge on the left edge of the print, creating a bit of infectious development, suggesting that you have a trace amount of hydroquinone still being active, but not much else. The subtle wavy pattern across the print is also a clear sign.

The reason why one paper may develop better than another under these conditions is that the paper on the left may have (more) embedded developer. IDK how much embedded developer there is in Fomaspeed; I guess there's some, but under the marginal conditions you're now using your papers, subtle differences may end up having big effects.

Try again with fresh developer.
Also, given how rapidly your developer seems to be dying, there's reason IMO to review your choice of materials and way of working. It's really not normal for print developer to go belly-up this fast. I do recall your having said somewhere else (IIRC?) that you were working from a half-full bottle of developer concentrate that had already discolored significantly; is this correct or am I mixing up posts/people now? In any case, poorly stored and basically dead developer concentrate could be a very big part of the story here.

 

[GregY]

Yeah. Notice it's backwards in both prints. So I put in the negative backwards.

Any luck with the Foma?

 

[pentaxuser]

In terms of dcy's problem, can anyone with the requisite experience say what a 25 minute immersion in developer and the subsequent lack of picture says about the the state of the paper? It sounds like "it's dead, Jim, dead" as Dr McCoy used to say. On the other hand it might mean that the developer and paper is fine but the exposure under the enlarger was way too short

dcy, I take it that "exposure " in the case that you mention is exposure to the developer and not under the enlarger?

How long does the Foma paper need under the enlarger before it goes black?

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

In terms of dcy's problem, can anyone with the requisite experience say what a 25 minute immersion in developer and the subsequent lack of picture says about the the state of the paper

Did you read my #22? It says something about the developer, not the paper. There's in all likelihood absolutely nothing wrong with the paper.

How long does the Foma paper need under the enlarger before it goes black?

Evidently depends on the configuration of the enlarger, but no paper will go black unless it receives sufficient development. Since the exposure was evidently sufficient to yield a very, very flat image, the problem was almost certainly with the development, not exposure.

People are always quick to blame the materials, but in reality, defects in (fresh) paper and film resulting in the sort of outcomes shown here are so exceedingly rare that no confirmed examples from the past 10 years or so come to mind at all.