Originally Posted by
rcjtapio
Thank you Eric for the feedback. I will be working with this paper this year (Variant 111 Glossy). Here are the things I like about it:
1. All papers have their density range, which you need to develop your negatives to fit. The old Ilford FB MGIV (as well as the warm tone) had a much smaller DR than the new Ilford Classic. Classic needed denser negatives (longer time development of the neg) to print with the same filter as FBMGIV. The Fomabrom also has a bigger DR than the MGIV, but not as much, so the Fomabrom is in between. Slightly less development needed for the negatives to print with Fomabrom than needed for the Classic.
2. When I needed more contrast, the Fomabrom seemed to respond better than the Classic using #4 filters & higher.
3. I could be crazy, but I think the Fomabrom image looks "sharper," much like using an unsharp mask. I need to work with the paper more to see if that observation holds up. In a way, that is why I was looking for users of this paper to see if they noticed the same thing????
The downside is it appears not all sources carry 11" X 14" sheets, but rather the more expensive 12" X 16"....so availability is a concern.....and once you like a paper, you hope it is around for a few years. I appreciate Ilford making a commitment to our world & still would like to support them when I can.
Bookmarks