Foma Classic paper and higher contrasts: anyone else having issues?

[Ulophot]

I'm fairly new to Foma paper. Yesterday, I printed the first negative that required a significant contrast boost, portrait in soft light. From grade 2 I went up by half-grades, using Ilford filters. Contrast increase from 2-3 was a slim half grade, and progress was even slower above that, with a 4½ print hardly distinguishable from the 3 and 3½.

The only particular unusual feature of my set-up is that I use a coldlight head without the customary 40Y filtration. My film development and printing on Ilford are tweaked to work this way, and, on Ilford papers, quite successfully.

Anyone else have some relevant experience here?

[Mark Sampson]

I'm working through my first box of Foma paper, with the same enlarger light source. It does seem to print a grade softer than Ilford MC Classic. But I haven't used much of the paper yet, and haven't done a real comparison test. Maybe by next week, when I've done another printing session or two, I'll have more to add.

[Greg Y]

Ulophot, I've used a lot of Foma... usually Fomabrom Variant 123. My enlargers are a Beseler 45MXT with a Zone Vi VC head, and a Durst 138 with a color head. I've never run into the contrast situation you describe. I also stock Ilford, Classic, Cold tone & WT. With my negatives, i've always found Foma to produce more contrast than Ilford Classic. Which particular "Foma Classic" paper are you using?

[Ulophot]

Greg, very interesting. I'm using 132, the FB warrm-tone luster surface. My standard is Ilford WT FB Semi-matte. I printed the same neg on this at 2 1/2 and immediately saw the contrast increase.

My first impressions with the Foma relative to to the Ilford about a month ago, with a negative with a bit more density, were that the grade 2s matched fairly closely, contrast-wise, thugh the Foma is considerably slower. So, this session surprised me.

[pau3]

Beware that Foma paper is much more sensitive to safelights than Ilford's. Depending on your darkroom,
you may be experiencing some fogging. Fogging may lower the contrast of the copies. Check (using Kodak's
method) for how long your safelights are truly safe with Foma paper.

[Ironage]

A few years back with a fluorescent cold light not designed for multi contrast and Ilford printing filters I experienced similar results. Pretty sure I needed the 40Y filter, but just bought single grade paper and was very pleased.

[Alan9940]

I've printed hundred of sheets of Foma Variant 111 with my Aristo V54 cold light head and, most recently, with my Aristo VCL4500 cold light head and I've never noticed any particular contrast issues with this paper vs, say, Ilford Classic or WT. The Fomabrom graded paper does IMO reveal higher contrast than I'd expect for the grade marked. I've never used any Foma WT variety.

[Ulophot]

Beware that Foma paper is much more sensitive to safelights than Ilford's. Depending on your darkroom,
you may be experiencing some fogging. Fogging may lower the contrast of the copies. Check (using Kodak's
method) for how long your safelights are truly safe with Foma paper.

Interesting. I can certainly test, though what I was not seeing was increase in overall contrast, so I suspect that this is not the issue. My closer safelight, the one at my enlarger area, tested fine for at least 5 minutes with Ilford (I would not expect to have paper out longer), and these were quick prints with about 25 second exposures.

[_tf_]

I use Fomabrom Variant 112 almost exclusively just now with a Heiland LED head, and haven't experienced any such issues either. But I had to recalibrate AnalyserPro quite drastically to work correctly, for Foma as well as Ilford, due to how the emulsions respond the the LED light; at grades 4 and 5 it took around 4-stop correction compared to conventional head with filters, so my guess would be your issues probably have to do with the characteristics of your cold head.

[Doremus Scudder]

Philip,

I've used Foma 111 VC and the Arista Edu FB VC both together with Ilford MG Classic FB.

I found the Foma and Arista to be slightly less contrasty, but not nearly as much as you describe.

However, in harmony with above posts, I did find that I needed to switch to red safelights with the Foma products. The OC filters I was using caused significant fog in just a short time. I now use Red 1A filters and have not problems. So do the safelight tests to make sure.

Also, check your filters to see if they are faded.

Best,

Doremus

[Ulophot]

Thanks to all, as always. I just emerged from a darkroom session with another couple of negatives, with similar results. I tried turning off the enlarger station safelight but saw no difference.

I then made two sets of graduated test strips without a negative in the carrier:

8 steps of 3 seconds each with Ilford at Gr 2 and 5, opening a stop for the 5
8 steps of 4 seconds each with Foma at Gr 2 and 5, opening a stop for the 5 (addition of 33% as a rough estimate for the slower emulsion; pretty close)

The two Gr 2 strips are quite close. The Ilford Gr 5 shows a steeper curve and a noticeably higher max density, by eye inspection side by side with the Foma. To double-check, I made a D-max test with the Foma then, adding up to 50% to the previous max exposure. Certainly better, showing that I previously hadn't actually reached D-max yet, but still weaker than the Ilford. I may need to try Dektol (or something not BOA -- Brown On Arrival, Multigrade perhaps) and see what happens.

However, I do use amber safelights. I didn't take time to test them with Foma today; I'll do it on the weekend. I do have one red OC bullet safelight filter (barely used), but it will probably be easier to get some red SuperBright LEDs and figure out some dashingly clever way (read, Rube Goldberg had nothing on my creative assemblages) to switch to them when needed. I don't enjoy working in red light all the time.

[Michael R]

Before doing a full safelight test, which is a good idea anyway, you might try doing one run with all safelights off just to see if you get higher contrast (lighter high values).

[Mark Sampson]

My yellow safelights fogged my Foma paper instantly. That's on me, for not reading the instructions.
I did find a red safelight filter, necessary for this paper; it's a mild inconvenience to swap the filters out.
Will report back later this week... I just wish Adox could manufacture their multi contrast paper again. The one box I had produced marvelous prints easily, and it's gone now.

[Huub]

You also might check your development times to reach D-max. I found that the foma paper needs considerable more development time to reach it's maximum black. This longer time increases also the risk of fogging, so a proper safelight test is might give some clues on the issue too.

[Ulophot]

Huub, I will keep that in mind this weekend when I test the safelights (though I have already ordered 2 mini-globe red bulbs and devised a preliminary solution to allow switching from amber to red with a couple of switches, which I'll post when complete) and try longer dev times. Thanks for the tip.

[Ulophot]

UPDATE for those interested:
In response to the dialogue above, I have conducted various experiments. While the proverbial jury is still out on whether or not I need to use red safelights for Fomatone Classic (Foma's very slow, warm-tone paper [see more below]), I have some conclusions on other aspects.

First off, a wide gulf separates this paper from Fomabrom 112 Variant. Not only is the latter neutral in tone; it has a full contrast range, with a very snappy Gr. 5 (using Ilford filters) which Fomatone has yet to produce for me.

Regarding my testing, I first set up red safelights -- and dimly at that -- in response to two recommendations (above).

Second, I added a CC40 Y into my light path above the negative. I expect that it's a bit faded; it's very old, and I used to use it for every print when I was printing a lot. I have a Roscoe 4530 (reportedly CC30 equivalent) on order and will compare. However, it did not improve the high-contrast performance of Fomatone at all. Since making it a staple again would require increasing my film development times, I'm inclined to continue working as I have been, without it.

Comparing a Fomatone Gr. 3 print, which "normalizes" the contrast from the neg chosen—a portrait in rather flat open shade, exposed normally and processed for N), with a Gr. 5, the Gr. 5 comes out as a reluctant Gr. 4. (Again, the Fomabrom at Gr. 5 yielded a print obviously too contrasty, with some dark corduroy shirt textures disappearing into D-max and skin tones boosted into Zone VIII-IX territory).

I chose a second negative for a low-contrast comparison between Fomatone and my standard, Ilford WT. The negative, full range, is an interior portrait, a seated figure ¾ backlit from a window slightly to one side. Shaded skin tones had been placed on Zone IV, leaving the subject's dark T-shirt under an open dark corduroy shirt falling between I and II -- only occasional hints of texture in the negative. The Gr. 2 prints on the two papers are fairly close, but the Foma has a different curve shape. This was more evident in the Gr. 1 prints, in which the Fomatone sang in the skin tones while the Ilford was rather flat. A Gr. 1 ½ on Ilford was a closer match for the Foma, but the highest values showed somewhat greater detail and separation on Foma than the Ilford prints.

Time limitations prevented my testing lower contrasts, but a fuller negative would be wanted anyway. In any case, the Fomatone clearly is a paper ready for long-scale, rich negatives looking for a silky appearance with smooth tones. It will be fun to gain a better understanding of where it does best.

Finally, on D-max. I never used Kodak's single-grade, warm-tone Ektalure, but I recall being told that it was a very rich paper that uniquely responded to development by rendering contrast changes. Fomatone brought it to mind, simply because it responds enthusiastically to longer-than-two-minute development. I didn’t have at hand a good negative to test fully for this, so whether 2.5 or 3 minutes is a good standard with the developer I use remains for me to determine. That said, both times showed distinctly improved shoulder density over two minutes, with exposure time adjusted appropriately.

I continue to find red safe-lighting troublesome, so I will have to see if a simple adjustment to my amber lights will suffice. I tend to work in a dimmer light than many already, partly due to my darkroom configuration. Since Fomatone is about 30% slower than already slow Ilford WT, it may work. I made some preliminary tests, but, naturally, I need to do some very rigorous ones.
That's all for now.

[Ulophot]

I have done my safelight tests now and am delighted to report that I can use my amber safelights with Fomatone Classic. The specifics are that I had to re-orient my enlarger station safelight (the old "bullet" style), to aim horizontally, it away from the enlarging table toward the drymount area.

As noted above, my safelighting is probably dimmer that which some enjoy--just two safelights-- and this adjustment makes the enlarging area light a bit dimmer yet, but still quite workable. I developed the graduated test strip after letting it sit on the paper cutter, half covered, for three minutes, which is plenty adequate for my working procedures.

I attach a darkroom layout plan in case it may be useful for others using this paper, or considering it, to indicate distances. The plan is drawn to scale respecting the layout.

220286

[pau3]

Red LED stripes are cheap, safe with Foma paper and much brighter. You can use a remote with them to adjust the level of brightness, to be completely safe.

[Ulophot]

pau3 (interesting -- my father was Paul Alexander Ulanowsky), thanks, but as I said a couple of times, I find working in the red lighting a strain on my eyes. I don't know why, but it's very uncomfortable. I find the amber far more comfortable, even at reduced levels.

[Doremus Scudder]

So, to draw conclusions from your testing: Fomatone Classic probably just doesn't have the contrast range that the Fomabrom products (or Ilford MG papers) do.

Still, you've got a few grades of leeway, so tailoring your negatives to the paper shouldn't present a problem. You'll only have to be extra careful exposing and developing in really extreme situations. And, there's always bleach-redevelop in staining developer if you need to add contrast to a negative.

Best,

Doremus

[Ulophot]

Doremus, yes to all. While it was a matter of concern -- and perhaps others' results vary, in our chock-full-of-variables medium (why lead a boring life?) -- I am content to have the paper as an alternative to Ilford WT when it may seem appropriate for one reason or another. My use of the high-contrast filters is generally very limited anyway, and for the portraiture I wish to make my primary subject, I have weighted my testing toward dealing with very high-contrast and holding low values, hence my adoption of SLIMT.

However, I did just test some HP5 in very flat light to see if I could approximate the sort of tonality that Deardorfuser is able to get shooting Fomapan 200 at EI 800 on 8x10, in flat light, naturally. I didn't go as far as he, but I did find that doubling my development time gave me an EI 800 negative with substance and texture in dark clothing while keeping a textured white towel in bounds even in an unmanipulated Gr. 1 1/2 print. An extra stop of shutter speed under heavy overcast or similar (I usually shoot at box speed in such flat light and 200 in "normal" and longer subject-brightess-range situations) can cut subject-movement blur potential when I need DOF.

And there is always selenium toning of the negative, which I would likely use before bleach and redevelopment, for simplicity, if for some reason I were adamant on using the Foma.

Soave sia il vento.