What's wrong with my Foma RC paper?

[pentaxuser]

That's fine in principle - but how often has this worked out the way you intended it to?

How often? I cannot say as I have never kept a tally but trying to ask open questions usually leads to an open dialogue or may even lead to others saying something helpful or asking other helpful questions. In this case everyone except me seems to have understood exactly what dcy meant and a quick answer from dcy would have been fine ( I have no idea where he is in the U.S. so he may only be out of bed now or at work so cannot answer as yet )

What I will say is that this is initially a time consuming method and one which I may often fail to implement as well

Let's go along with the approach though and have a look at the questions you asked:


The problem with this question is that it's only relevant if we (1) assume that 25 minutes of development somehow played a role and (2) we should be looking at the state of the paper to begin with. (1) was not the case as evidenced by the original posts and (2) is doubtful. So this diagnostic question is very tricky indeed as it bears a high risk of setting us off into the wrong direction to begin with.


This merely serves to eliminate an uncertainty that didn't exist in the first place, as the answer was already given in post #1. So the clarification sought doesn't add much to the party.

Well yes, had there been no doubt whatsoever that this uncertainty didn't exist in the first place then you are right but when as late as 6:00am this morning dcy didn't seem convinced that exhausted developer was the problem or not the total problem then is there a way to exhaust that aspect completely even to his satisfaction? Maybe or maybe not based on some short sharp answers given to my question but such answers including dcy's own answer might put any lingering doubts about the developer's exhaustion being largely the answer

Again it's a question of how much time is reasonable to expend to fully answer someone's problem to their satisfaction

So neither of the questions actually gets us ahead. This is not to say you shouldn't ask them or that it's undesirable or anything. I'm just pointing out that the utility is also quite limited and that these questions seem mostly designed to clarify things that you personally seemed to be confused about - not necessarily other people. Again, the intent of helping is really appreciated, don't get me wrong. And sometimes you do hit the spot with some of your questions.

For reasons given already by me they, the questions I asked, might have got dcy ahead in terms of his understanding of the cause or they may not but it was worth a try in my opinion It's all about getting to a dialogue that reaches a conclusion that the thread starter, in case dcy, can buy into. How far you or any person buys into how much time or trouble to invest in this aspect has to be your or their choice

What does work at least in my experience is to formulate some kind of concrete expectation/hypothesis that might explain the situation and then ask probing questions about that. Perhaps even a couple of conflicting hypotheses; that would be swell. Then design the questions to differentiate between them. I sometimes try to do that - although I admit I might be doing it more often. Then again, I find there's usually also utility in directly putting the hypothesis out there and see if it triggers any conflicting evidence. Either approach can work OK.

I agree with the above but wish to point out that often the more one knows about "things photographic" the less tolerant one can become with those not in the same category

An explanation of how and why an atom bomb works to a class of say 12 years old may not be best left to a physicist who designs and make one everyday He may do a great job depending on his understanding of his audience but this may be made more difficult for him simply because of the gulf in knowledge between him and his "pupils" and their ability to grasp the high level of physics and mathematics involved

I have said more about my belief in engagement on a problem in my answer to Greg. Certainly what is to be avoided in any dialogue with 2 or more parties trying to solve a problem is the danger of it becoming a contest in which one or other party feels is then a "win or lose" fight where at the end of it, one party feels "diminished ", smaller in status etc . Easy to say of course but much more difficult to do when in such a dialogue, especially one that is closer to a contest than one or more or the parties involved realises

pentaxuser

 

[Elmarc]

I have experienced something similar in the past with Foma FB paper. While making copies of a particular print, one, or sometimes two consecutive sheets would come out of the developer with the same low contrast that the OP shows. The following sheets would look identical to the first print. I have no idea why this happened and never bothered to contact Foma as the problem was, let's say, intermittent...
I very much doubt that this could be the problem but worth keeping in mind for the future if the problem returns with fresh working developer.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, with the exception of activation process paper - which hasn't been made for many years, and was once used mostly in applications like daily newspapers and photo booths - the developer that is incorporated in paper is essentially a trace amount, used mostly to fine tune paper batches in order to ensure consistent paper speed from batch to batch.
There shouldn't be enough developer in the emulsion to actually develop anything past a very faint ghost of an image, and usually not even that.
It does mean though that modern RC papers with trace amounts of incorporated developer are less likely to keep long past their expected expiry date - at least compared to some of the older, not seen for a long time fibre based papers that may have indeed exhibited slightly more batch to batch inconsistency.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Check the negative orientation projected on the easel and make sure that corresponds to the prints. If the numbers are fine on the projections but backwards on the print, you're exposing the back of the paper. If they're both backward, you have the negative in upside-down.

Get some reliable developer and mix it fresh. Under safelight, cut a strip of each of the papers in question. Toss them in the developer tray, secure your paper in the envelope or paper safe and turn on the room lights. The strips should turn black rather quickly. If one of them doesn't, there's a problem with the paper. I highly doubt that that is your problem.

Now make some test strips on your Foma paper, keep track of aperture and times. Develop your strip three minutes. If it's too light, open up a stop and repeat, if it's still too light, repeat. If things continue to be a problem, and your other papers respond well at much shorter exposures, then there's likely a problem somewhere. I doubt that this will be a problem easier.

You likely simply have exhausted developer.

Doremus

 

[GregY]

How often? I cannot say as I have never kept a tally but trying to ask open questions usually leads to an open dialogue or may even lead to others saying something helpful or asking other helpful questions. In this case everyone except me seems to have understood exactly what dcy meant and a quick answer from dcy would have been fine ( I have no idea where he is in the U.S. so he may only be out of bed now or at work so cannot answer as yet )

What I will say is that this is initially a time consuming method and one which I may often fail to implement as well


Well yes, had there been no doubt whatsoever that this uncertainty didn't exist in the first place then you are right but when as late as 6:00am this morning dcy didn't seem convinced that exhausted developer was the problem or not the total problem then is there a way to exhaust that aspect completely even to his satisfaction? Maybe or maybe not based on some short sharp answers given to my question but such answers including dcy's own answer might put any lingering doubts about the developer's exhaustion being largely the answer

Again it's a question of how much time is reasonable to expend to fully answer someone's problem to their satisfaction


For reasons given already by me they, the questions I asked, might have got dcy ahead in terms of his understanding of the cause or they may not but it was worth a try in my opinion It's all about getting to a dialogue that reaches a conclusion that the thread starter, in case dcy, can buy into. How far you or any person buys into how much time or trouble to invest in this aspect has to be your or their choice

I agree with the above but wish to point out that often the more one knows about "things photographic" the less tolerant one can become with those not in the same category

An explanation of how and why an atom bomb works to a class of say 12 years old may not be best left to a physicist who designs and make one everyday He may do a great job depending on his understanding of his audience but this may be made more difficult for him simply because of the gulf in knowledge between him and his "pupils" and their ability to grasp the high level of physics and mathematics involved

I have said more about my belief in engagement on a problem in my answer to Greg. Certainly what is to be avoided in any dialogue with 2 or more parties trying to solve a problem is the danger of it becoming a contest in which one or other party feels is then a "win or lose" fight where at the end of it, one party feels "diminished ", smaller in status etc . Easy to say of course but much more difficult to do when in such a dialogue, especially one that is closer to a contest than one or more or the parties involved realises

pentaxuser

Pentaxuser, yours is a noble approach (no sarcasm intended). I just ask if a long involved discourse is needed. We're into 3 pages of suggestions. The question was "what's wrong with my Foma paper?"..... but the 25min previously mentioned aside....
-did not make test strip with Foma
-used aperture /exposure time from Multitone print
-possibility of printing through the back of paper
-possibility/likelihood of exhausted developer
-was the safelight appropriate to Foma papers?..... red rather than OC

the likelihood is that there is nothing wrong with the Foma paper

 

[GregY]

Check the negative orientation projected on the easel and make sure that corresponds to the prints. If the numbers are fine on the projections but backwards on the print, you're exposing the back of the paper. If they're both backward, you have the negative in upside-down.

Get some reliable developer and mix it fresh. Under safelight, cut a strip of each of the papers in question. Toss them in the developer tray, secure your paper in the envelope or paper safe and turn on the room lights. The strips should turn black rather quickly. If one of them doesn't, there's a problem with the paper. I highly doubt that that is your problem.

Now make some test strips on your Foma paper, keep track of aperture and times. Develop your strip three minutes. If it's too light, open up a stop and repeat, if it's still too light, repeat. If things continue to be a problem, and your other papers respond well at much shorter exposures, then there's likely a problem somewhere. I doubt that this will be a problem easier.

You likely simply have exhausted developer.

Doremus

Thank you DS.

 

[npl]

Another vote for not starting darkroom printing with a home-made paper developer mixed from scratch.. too many variables, too many mistakes lead to many failures and frustrations that can be avoided simply by not over-complicating things for no reason.

If you can get it, I'd recommend Adox Neutol Eco. An ascorbic-based liquid developer easy to mix and safe to handle and dispose. Two sessions max with the same solution then discard. Dev is cheap, papers and time are not

The best things in life are analog | NEUTOL ECO DEV

www.adox.de

I use fomaspeed variant 312 almost exclusively, never had a problem with it that I couldn't explain by other mistake(s) in my workflow.

 

[dcy]

....so you made the print on Foma using the aperture/exposure settings for Multitone?

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought you were asking about my next test with a non-spent developer.

Yes. I made a print on Foma using the same aperture and exposure settings for MultiTone. I did that a few times. The result for Foma was a barely perceptible rectangle where the image was supposed to be.

 

[Craig]

What's your favorite idiot-proof commercial paper developer that you recommend to new people?

--- preferably something budget-friendly with a long life.

Probably Ilford Multigrade. Comes as a liquid concentrate, but easy to mix and very forgiving to work with. I mix 100ml concentrate to 900ml water for a working strength solution.

If you don't want a liquid, either Kodak Dekol or Ilford Bromphen are powder developers that get mixed to a stock solution and then further diluted for use. I have not used Bromophen much, but I did have it die quickly on me in a similar way to what you seem to have experienced. I've not had that with multigrade.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

I’d suggest Ilford MG as well, you can mix 1+9 in small quantitates and throw at the end of the session of a day or 2. In fact you can buy a 5l version which is super cheap, decant in small water bottles, take the air out, keep the bottles well over a year and use if and when you need it. Although alchemy is fun, it’s best to get a grip of the situation first, as too many variables are hard to fix.

 

[dcy]

Probably Ilford Multigrade. Comes as a liquid concentrate, but easy to mix and very forgiving to work with. I mix 100ml concentrate to 900ml water for a working strength solution.

Done!

I just placed an order for Ilford Multigrade. I also threw in another pack of the same Foma paper in case I run out before I'm done with testing.

Thanks for the advice.

If you don't want a liquid,..

I prefer liquid. Thanks!

 

[Daniel Stuefer]

Partial Update:

Holy crap E-72 is hard to make! That stuff just doesn't want to dissolve. I spent HOURS on this last night and all I could manage was to make the E-72 concentrate, and that's being a bit generous. I never managed to dissolve 100% of the ingredients. So what I have is really a substance that probably mostly approximates E-72 but might be slightly less active.

I have some ideas for how to improve the process next time (use more water from the start and heat it to a higher temp). But for now, this is what I have.

Can't be 100% certain because they all look like white powders, but I would bet money that it's the ascorbic acid. It really really really didn't want to dissolve. At one point I thought it had finally dissolved, so I moved on to the next ingredient. But I should have done a more diligent test ---- I could have turned off the magnetic stirrer and waited a couple of minutes to see if anything precipitated.

Ascorbic acid typically dissolves very easily, the only E-72 ingredient that is annoying to dissolve (if everything is dissolved in the appropriate order) is Phenidone. I typically make a 1% solution of it in Propylene Glycol and put the appropriate amount of that into developers I make. To dissolve the Phenidone, you really need to heat up your solvent (water when mixing directly, propylene glycol if using that), otherwise it won't really dissolve.

Once you have dissolved phenidone, making E-72 is as easy as any other developer - but do note it does not keep very long (well, supposedly 6 months without air in stoppered bottle, so not that short either). If I make it, I don't make stock, but go straight to working dilution.

 

[dcy]

Ascorbic acid typically dissolves very easily, the only E-72 ingredient that is annoying to dissolve (if everything is dissolved in the appropriate order) is Phenidone.

Trust me. I was there. Ascorbic acid was undoubtedly the ingredient that struggled to dissolve. Phenidone was easy (to be clear, I only added it when the water has at the target temperature). If I were to give you the developer I made right now, you would immediately know that whatever the undissolved component is cannot possibly be Phenidone because there's way too much of it.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Phenidone is hard to dissolve in water, alcohol or glycol is easier. Also more than 2% makes is hard and you need to heat up glycol as well to make it easily dissolvable.

 

[dcy]

Phenidone is hard to dissolve in water, alcohol or glycol is easier. Also more than 2% makes is hard and you need to heat up glycol as well to make it easily dissolvable.

Water temperature and the small quantity of Phenidone are relevant here. As said earlier, I was there. You might not believe me, but after the water reached 50C, I did find it easier to dissolve 0.3 g of Phenidone than 19 g of ascorbic acid.

 

[Don_ih]

Ascorbic acid was undoubtedly the ingredient that struggled to dissolve.

Have you considered it's not actually ascorbic acid, which practically vanishes when added to water? Apparently, you can dissolve 330g in one litre of water.

 

[dcy]

Have you considered it's not actually ascorbic acid, which practically vanishes when added to water? Apparently, you can dissolve 330g in one litre of water.

Yes. That is very possible. As I said to koraks, it's hard to be sure because a white powder just looks like a white powder. There are two other white powders that also appear in large quantity in the recipe. However, I was there, staring at the beaker as I poured the ascorbic acid, and I kept staring at it as I waited while it was clearly reluctant to dissolve.

 

[khh]

I will gladly buy something commercial today. That just means it'll be a few days shipping before I can test again. What's your favorite idiot-proof commercial paper developer that you recommend to new people?

--- preferably something budget-friendly with a long life.

I wouldn't hestitate to get any general purpose print developer from the well known companies (Ilford, Kodak, Adox, Foma). In close A/B testing you'd probably see some small differences, but when adjusted to the same contrast the differences would almost disappear. I've been using Ilford PQ Universal and Ilford Multigrade, as those are available in my local store. They've worked fine on all of Foma's papers. I'd just get whichever is cheaper and easier to get locally where you live. I'm actually planning on picking up a few 250ml of bottles of Foma's Fomatol LQN next time I'm stocking up, they're pretty reasonably priced and since it won't be in a half used state as long it should have good keeping properties.

 

[dcy]

Whoo Hoo!! --- UPDATE --- Foma is cleared of all charges

Well... I got news. Today I did the test with my probably-poorly-made E-72. Despite the difficulties I had making it (there literally are solid particles floating around in it!) it evidently was good enough to demonstrate that the problem I saw in my original post was indeed caused the developer ---- Or more precisely, by Foma's paper failing catastrophically when encountering a bad developer while MultiTone simply gave muted tones.

Have a look at the prints below.

Left Print: MultiTone Glossy, 22.5s exposure ---- Sorry, I ran out of Pearl, had to switch to Glossy.

Right Print: Fomaspeed Velvet, with exposures of 22.5s, 25s, and 27.5s.

The two papers were developed together, in the same development tray, for 2 minutes. MultiTone started to show an image at 10 seconds and Foma at 15 seconds. They were they moved together to the stop bath, fixer, and final wash, always together.

It is interesting that MultiTone with a 22.5s exposure is darker than Foma with a 27.5s exposure; and also that MultiTone began to show an image sooner. From the comments I've seen in this thread, I gather that this is more or less expected?

Neither print has the tonality I'd want, but that wasn't the point of this test. The point of this test was to prove that the awful result I saw at first with Foma was caused by a bad developer. I think I have done that.

 

[dcy]

I wouldn't hestitate to get any general purpose print developer from the well known companies (Ilford, Kodak, Adox, Foma). In close A/B testing you'd probably see some small differences, but when adjusted to the same contrast the differences would almost disappear. I've been using Ilford PQ Universal and Ilford Multigrade, as those are available in my local store. They've worked fine on all of Foma's papers. I'd just get whichever is cheaper and easier to get locally where you live. I'm actually planning on picking up a few 250ml of bottles of Foma's Fomatol LQN next time I'm stocking up, they're pretty reasonably priced and since it won't be in a half used state as long it should have good keeping properties.

Good to know! I will keep that in mind in the future and start buying whichever commercial developer I can get most cheaply. Thanks!

 

[koraks]

It is interesting that MultiTone with a 22.5s exposure is darker than Foma with a 27.5s exposure; and also that MultiTone began to show an image sooner. From the comments I've seen in this thread, I gather that this is more or less expected?

Not necessarily expected, but it's entirely normal variation that you get between different papers.

I'm glad you've been able to track down the original problem so you can continue to move forward. Good job!

 

[Don_ih]

I was there, staring at the beaker as I poured the ascorbic acid, and I kept staring at it as I waited while it was clearly reluctant to dissolve.

I actually meant are you sure that what you think is ascorbic acid is actually ascorbic acid?

 

[pentaxuser]

Neither print has the tonality I'd want, but that wasn't the point of this test. The point of this test was to prove that the awful result I saw at first with Foma was caused by a bad developer. I think I have done that.

View attachment 402034

Congrats on solving your problem with the help from all the members. Yes, I think you are right that both prints can be improved but of the 2 I prefer the look of the Multi-tone one As things stand it appears to be that one that is closer to a better print in my view but judging and deciding on the best print incorporates a bit of subjective judgement of which mine is only one

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Indeed. In my post I said that I exposed the Foma paper for up to 25 min, and that after developing for 2 min there was just a hint of a tonal change, and that in the end I extended the development time to 6 minutes.

Thanks, that clears up that aspect completely as others said it would

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

You're likely right pentaxuser, though I was not addressing the issue in such depth.
Although your statement: "Is it only me that is surprised by this? It's great advert for Ilford MG paper and a terrible advert for Foma. I have had much better prints from MG III paper, many years discontinued that dcy managed with Foma" ........ I don't think, that particularly in this case, you can deduce the quality of the enlarging paper from the prints or the process in question.

Thanks and I admit my comment about Ilford papers was a total mistake as I initially assumed without proper thought that Multi-tone was a reference to Ilford Multi-grade which was nonsense

pentaxuser