Is Fomabrom Variant 111 Worth the Price?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Here you go! I LOVE IT.

It has been one of my main papers for several years and is great to work with. Has a lovely, soft warm tone in Clayton P20 diluted 1+6 and a slightly cooler tone in Dektol diluted 1+2. It tones very nicely and I like it in selenium 1+10 for about 2 minutes, it will fully tone in about 5 at that dilution. In addition, if you use bleach (as Barnbaum likes to do) then this is a very good paper choice.

I also use Adox MCC110 and it is a very nice paper as well but I prefer the Foma. I have been using a lot of the new Ilford and find it terrific. I was not a fan of the older MGFB IV but the new Classic to totally different.

As with any paper, you need to spend a lot of time with it and try different things to really learn what the paper can or cannot do. Some images will look better on one type of paper than on another so it is good to have a couple that you are familiar with.

Good luck.

[Sal Santamaura]

Reticent as I am about Foma products, here goes with a question anyway. Has anyone determined, using the standard black light test, whether Variant 111 incorporates optical brightening agents?

[rcjtapio]

Here you go! I LOVE IT.

It has been one of my main papers for several years and is great to work with. Has a lovely, soft warm tone in Clayton P20 diluted 1+6 and a slightly cooler tone in Dektol diluted 1+2. It tones very nicely and I like it in selenium 1+10 for about 2 minutes, it will fully tone in about 5 at that dilution. In addition, if you use bleach (as Barnbaum likes to do) then this is a very good paper choice.

I also use Adox MCC110 and it is a very nice paper as well but I prefer the Foma. I have been using a lot of the new Ilford and find it terrific. I was not a fan of the older MGFB IV but the new Classic to totally different.

As with any paper, you need to spend a lot of time with it and try different things to really learn what the paper can or cannot do. Some images will look better on one type of paper than on another so it is good to have a couple that you are familiar with.

Good luck.

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.

[StoneNYC]

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.

I can only comment on the FOMABROM Variant 123 and not the version you're looking at, but compared to Ilford WT FB and Ilford Classic FB it seemed to me the WT was sharper than the Variant123 when making side by side prints, and that the exposure time was about double for the FOMA vs WT to my recollection (have to check to be sure I don't have the proofs in front of me) but in those comparisons the FOMA shadow separation/shadow detail was significantly better from the same negative, same batch of chemistry etc same contrast filter just different print exposure time.

I didn't compare the classic to these other two with the same print by it seems the classic and WT are similar in sharpness from what I can tell.

All are semi-matte/semi-gloss type and NOT the full glossy type.

[Arne Croell]

Reticent as I am about Foma products, here goes with a question anyway. Has anyone determined, using the standard black light test, whether Variant 111 incorporates optical brightening agents?

I just checked, it has brighteners.

[Sal Santamaura]

I just checked, it has brighteners.

Thank you very much Arne.

[Drew Wiley]

My main concern would be batch to batch quality control. Let's just say I've had issues with Foma before. Barnbaum goes on these endorsement jags from time to
time, alleging how much better some new paper is than another. I take this stuff with a grain of salt until I've tested the product relative to my own expectations,
not his.