Why do my lith prints have the measles?

[ckagy]

I've run into a problem with lith prints and need to turn to the collective wisdom of the crowd. I am making (attempting to make) lith prints using Arista's liquid lith chemicals, and Arista EDU ultra FB VC paper. My first few batches of mixture, and the resulting prints, came out fine except for the usual beginner issues of snatch point, ect. Now, I'm suddenly seeing stuff like this:

What on earth is going on? I haven't changed paper. I haven't changed chemicals. I tried changing dilution from 1:24, and then 1:15 because I was getting REAL long developing times but still these spots. I ran my trays and beakers through the dishwasher, but I still get the same symptom.

I'm sure - well, I HOPE - others have seen this and can help me figure out what's happening. Maybe even point me in a direction or give me an idea of what I need to change or correct. Any input is most welcomed.

Thanks,
-Chris

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That paper is Fomabrom Variant 111 if it's glossy, and Variant 123 if it's semi-matte. You can search for results with those two papers if that helps. Other than that I am not of much help to you, as I use mainly old Agfa papers and Ilford Warmtone for my own lith printing attempts.

Good luck!

 

[mooseontheloose]

Perhaps try either a different paper or different lith developer? My guess is the paper, although I've never seen anything like that before.

 

[SMBooth]

That paper (Foma 111)just doesnt lith properly, simple as that. Warm tone paper like there older 131 was great.

 

[AgX]

But he has got fine results at the beginning and did not change paper nor chemicals when that pattern ocurred.

 

[SMBooth]

Then it all must be OK then.

Personally I think something in the paper affects the developer, if yhe makes a fresh developer it properly will work then start failing again. Only way to see is to try it.

 

[removedacct3]

There is a Lith Printing group on Facebook where this problem has been discussed. Tim Rudman is one of the participants and he has contacted Foma about this issue. He uses the FB group to keep us up to date.

 

[M Carter]

Foma changed all their gelatine bases some time ago. We're just getting to that stock now.

I did some great lith prints with 123, and it's a popular lith paper. Then I bought a new package and it's crap. Foma is working on getting at least one of their emulsions back to lithability. The best thing to do is get on the FB lith group (Tim Rudman and Wolfgang Moersch are regulars there), and google Tim's site and signup for his newsletter.

I gotta say though, someday a client will see that effect and want it (it's kinda cool on the first scan) and you won't be able to do it again!

Foma before and after - same damn printing session:

 

[ckagy]

Folks, the contact with Tim Rudman paid off, and he confirmed that this artifact is typical of the Foma emulsion problems and likely not a result of my process. This time it doesn't appear to be operator error!

Foma is reformulating their paper emulsion and running a batch in April.

Thanks again, all.

Best,
-Chris

 

[AgX]

But you stated not to have changed the paper.

Thus you changed the batch?

 

[ckagy]

But you stated not to have changed the paper.

Thus you changed the batch?

I don't believe I changed the batch. I have a single box of paper, but I don't know that I can confirm all the paper in the box is from the same batch.

My final working hypothesis had to do with the quantity of fluid in which the paper is submerged. I started down this path because a 4x5 contact print I did (earlier) had no splotches, but the 8x10s now do. I hadn't tried a contact print in a while. I've been developing both in a litre of solution diluted, as I said, either 1:24 or ~1:15. Last night I tried developing 8x10 in 2L of solution at ~1:15 dilution, but got the same effect.

At this point, I'm going to wait for the new paper and try again.

 

[AgX]

I gotta say though, someday a client will see that effect and want it (it's kinda cool on the first scan) and you won't be able to do it again!

Yes, with the right subject it could be useful.

Got lemons? Make lemonade!

 

[M Carter]

With the test I posted above, I didn't consider it a "paper change" until I thought it over. I was like "its brand new 123!" I guess I expected this stuff to be like coca cola or windex...

Keep in mind, Foma is not (to my knowledge) repairing their entire line of paper. The popular 123 doesn't seem to be destined for a revised emulsion. Keep tabs with Tim Rudman to be sure.

Sadly, this change affected Bromoil printing, in my experience - suddenly very hard to get a good density of ink down, and 123 seemed to be the top widely-available paper for the Bromoil process.

 

[ajsikel]

from the experience we had along on the fb lith group the snowball measles occurs on fomabrom variant 112 , which is matt, and that case was discussed there thoroughly.
Recently, however, the type occured also on my fomabrom C112 , matt fixed grade paper, and fomatone 542, also matt;
https://www.facebook.com/groups/315339078572684/

the thread on FB:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/315339078572684/permalink/627570514016204/

you can find more examples of these images or discussion by searching the group.

Im not sure if the linking to fb groups is allowed, but I hope this case I might me forgiven since it is highly educational.
regards

 

[ericdan]

I experienced the same problem with Fomatone MG131 and Moersch Easy Lith.
It happened with a few sheets from the same box of paper but on different days.
I don't think it's the paper or the chemistry. It must've had to do with the mixing or the old brown added. Or whatever was in the air that day.