Ilford Warmtone Fiber Paper Silver Halides?

[LFLarry]

Does anyone know the type of silver halides used in the current Ilford Warmtone Fiber paper?

I am guessing that Ilford would not disclose this information, but I may be wrong.

I am trying to understand if it is predominantly a chloro-bromide type of emulsion, which I doubt it is, but I wanted to check with the group here and see what we know about the halides used to make this paper.

I am on this journey because I am trying different warmtone papers for contact printing and enlargements.

Thank you,

Larry

[Michael R]

Chlorobromide. All of Ilford’s papers are based on chlorobromide (in different proportions plus other chemicals of course). Possibly even some iodide but obviously the full set of constituents of each emulsion aren’t disclosed.

Virtually all, or all enlarging papers are chlorobromide. In the past there were some “bromide” papers, although they may have also had chloride components.

Chloride is much slower so it is reserved for contact papers such as Adox Lupex.

I would not worry about it and just use it or not based on how it looks and whether or not you can get what you want out of it. There’s too much else going on in contemporary emulsions to make simple statements about the halide mix in relation to a paper’s sensitometry, colour, toning properties etc.


Does anyone know the type of silver halides used in the current Ilford Warmtone Fiber paper?

I am guessing that Ilford would not disclose this information, but I may be wrong.

I am trying to understand if it is predominantly a chloro-bromide type of emulsion, which I doubt it is, but I wanted to check with the group here and see what we know about the halides used to make this paper.

I am on this journey because I am trying different warmtone papers for contact printing and enlargements.

Thank you,

Larry

[paulbarden]

Does anyone know the type of silver halides used in the current Ilford Warmtone Fiber paper?

I am guessing that Ilford would not disclose this information, but I may be wrong.

I am trying to understand if it is predominantly a chloro-bromide type of emulsion, which I doubt it is, but I wanted to check with the group here and see what we know about the halides used to make this paper.

I am on this journey because I am trying different warmtone papers for contact printing and enlargements.

Thank you,

Larry

Try the Fomatone Classic. Its the closest thing to Agfa Portriga Rapid that's still made.

[LFLarry]

Try the Fomatone Classic. Its the closest thing to Agfa Portriga Rapid that's still made.

I am helping a friend of mine, and I told him to get some of the Foma paper on order earlier today, actually.

I thought comparing an obvious choice like the Foma 131 Classic FB to a standard, and less likely paper like the Ilford WT FB might be good to see the differences.

I am excited to see how this turns out.

[sharktooth]

Try the Fomatone Classic. Its the closest thing to Agfa Portriga Rapid that's still made.

Thanks for that tip about Fomatone Classic. Portriga Rapid was my favourite paper back in the day, and I wasn't aware that there was anything similar still available.

[paulbarden]

Thanks for that tip about Fomatone Classic. Portriga Rapid was my favourite paper back in the day, and I wasn't aware that there was anything similar still available.

I have printed the same negative on both (old stock) Portriga Rapid and Fomatone Classic, and the prints are nearly identical. It selenium tones in a similar way too.

[Daniel Unkefer]

Really? WOW! I really miss Agfa Portriga Rapid! I will have to order some Fomatone Classic

[paulbarden]

Really? WOW! I really miss Agfa Portriga Rapid! I will have to order some Fomatone Classic

I'm a bit surprised that few people know about this!

[sharktooth]

I have printed the same negative on both (old stock) Portriga Rapid and Fomatone Classic, and the prints are nearly identical. It selenium tones in a similar way too.

That's really good news, thanks again. I used to use Kodak Selectol developer, but I don't see it any more either. Is there a current alternative for that as well?

[Daniel Unkefer]

That's really good news, thanks again. I used to use Kodak Selectol developer, but I don't see it any more either. Is there a current alternative for that as well?

I do have some Photographer's Formulary Selectol Soft kits

Here it is ready to go: https://stores.photoformulary.com/td-31-substitute-for-selectol-soft/

[Drew Wiley]

Ilford MGWT is great for contact printing. You don't need a traditional slow contact paper per se, or an unusual developer. Nor do you need to know the specific formulation of any of these papers to use them well.

[paulbarden]

That's really good news, thanks again. I used to use Kodak Selectol developer, but I don't see it any more either. Is there a current alternative for that as well?

I use ID-78 (http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/developers/devID78.htm) for my silver gelatin prints. Perhaps that would be a good alternative?

[LFLarry]

Ilford MGWT is great for contact printing. You don't need a traditional slow contact paper per se, or an unusual developer. Nor do you need to know the specific formulation of any of these papers to use them well.

Hi Drew, I totally understand your point and respect your thoughts.

For me, I am targeting and purposely wanting to reshape the halides and take advantage of the natural tendencies of the emulsion type of the paper. For example, we know that a chloride paper, or a paper like the Foma 131 Classic paper mentioned in this thread is a chloro/bromide type emulsion, which means it will have a natural tendency towards warmer tones and have smaller grain, fine detail, etc. The Foma 131 Classic paper is a contact paper as described by foma, but it still could be used for enlargements with longer than normal exposure times. Putting all those clues together can be very important if a person seeks a specific aesthetic. Also, by understanding the emulsion characteristics, if you want to pursue bleaching/reduction and then replacing the halides with say bromide for example using a re-development technique, then you begin to have the ability to create with intention. This level of detail isn't for everyone, but for me, it is important because I seek total control over my work and my vision. Tim Rudman and his books paved the way for this level of detail for me personally because he made the information accessible and supported it with great examples. I think I am able to finally pursue and create at the level I have always that I was capable of, but there is always much more to learn.

Thank you.

[LabRat]

To narrow your choices for bleach/redevelop toning & printing, seek out the remaining fixed grade types... MG types will usually bleach one layer off that will barely redevelop or tone, but fixed grade (single) types will (sometimes) work with just the one emulsion type...

But some fixed grade types will respond poorly to bleach toning, so testing is needed...

(I was doing advanced split toning in the 90's using Portriga-Rapid getting wonderful surprising results, but when the paper was gone, tried MANY different available papers, but most all gave disappointing results, so gave up trying...) :(

Steve K

[jnantz]

hi Larry
if you don't mind being a mixologist and concocting your own developers apug had a resource library and I think Ian Grant, Gerald Koch and others uploaded a variety of vintage "soft and warm tone" developers, toners &c that you might be able to blend.

[Mark Sampson]

Photographer's Formulary offers a developer similar to (long-discontinued) Kodak Selectol. Quite a few others as well, worth a look at their site.

[LabRat]

hi Larry
if you don't mind being a mixologist and concocting your own developers apug had a resource library and I think Ian Grant, Gerald Koch and others uploaded a variety of vintage "soft and warm tone" developers, toners &c that you might be able to blend.

Yea, WT papers often don't have a solid black Dmax or blacks might have a green/blue/yellow etc cast, so a solution is to develop in a neutral tone developer that "cleans up" the casts... The tones print nicely with a real black, expanded detailed midtones + microtones, and detailed brillant highlights... This developer also slightly warms up cold tone papers adding details and cools excessive contrast...

I mix up the old Agfa Neutol formula (aka Agfa 100) and use it all the time for many papers, and it uses a minimum of ingredients, so it's economical to mix...

I don't have the formula handy, but you should find it if you search online...

Have fun!!! ;)

Steve K

[Duolab123]

Yes, Fomatone is a dream paper. It tones like crazy. Kodak blue toner (gold) gives brilliant blue, selenium great, or untoned it's fabulous.

[Ulophot]

LLarry, I'll defer to Paul, who has ore experience than I with the Foma papers, but for what it's worth: Ilford WTF semi-matte is my principal paper. The Foma Classic has a very slightly warmer base, but don't judge it when it first comes out of the fixer, when, in my experience (2-bath fixer) it appears warmer than it will finally.

Unlike others, I have not been able to get full high contrasts out of it, at least the batch I have. I''m reserving mine for high-range negs, but perhaps whenever I run out and get a new batch, things will change.

Foma's surfaces are different. What they call matte in this paper is actually semi-gloss, for some reason. But it's a very nice surface. I tried matte in another of their papers and it had striations; must have been a bad batch.

Toning is very different from WTF both in time and color. In selenium 1:19, it tones before you know it. I have taken to using 1:80 (!) with it so that I can judge the toning process between 2 and 3 minutes. Then it's pretty much done. Foma seems to tone in the high values better than WTF if one is not fully toning; WTF has a tendency to tone less there, which can be bothersome in some images; it depends on how the mid-tones fall.

[LFLarry]

Thanks Philip. That is very interesting about the matte being like a semi-gloss on the Foma Classic paper. I had no idea about that. I have some glossy on order to do a direct comparison to Ilford WT FB Glossy. Thanks for the tip on the toning with the Foma paper. I will test in small strips before toning full prints.

It is funny you mention Ilford WT semi-matte as your principal paper. I recently purchased a print from Tim Layton, and he also uses Ilford WT semi-matte as his primary paper and also for his paper negatives. I was blown away by the quality of his print. The print was of a white horse on a very dark background, and the detail in the horse and the contrast seemed like silver chloride paper. I just placed an order for some of the Ilford WT semi-matte as well.

I am looking forward to testing these new papers and seeing what happens.

The mystery and beauty of the darkroom live on for another day!!!

Thank you,

Larry




LLarry, I'll defer to Paul, who has ore experience than I with the Foma papers, but for what it's worth: Ilford WTF semi-matte is my principal paper. The Foma Classic has a very slightly warmer base, but don't judge it when it first comes out of the fixer, when, in my experience (2-bath fixer) it appears warmer than it will finally.

Unlike others, I have not been able to get full high contrasts out of it, at least the batch I have. I''m reserving mine for high-range negs, but perhaps whenever I run out and get a new batch, things will change.

Foma's surfaces are different. What they call matte in this paper is actually semi-gloss, for some reason. But it's a very nice surface. I tried matte in another of their papers and it had striations; must have been a bad batch.

Toning is very different from WTF both in time and color. In selenium 1:19, it tones before you know it. I have taken to using 1:80 (!) with it so that I can judge the toning process between 2 and 3 minutes. Then it's pretty much done. Foma seems to tone in the high values better than WTF if one is not fully toning; WTF has a tendency to tone less there, which can be bothersome in some images; it depends on how the mid-tones fall.

[JMO]

I have used the Ilford WT semi-matte a few times, and usually liked my results in terms of the tones created, but not so much the semi-matte surface. Another "semi-matte" FB paper I've tried that I've found to be more like what I'd call "semi-gloss" is ADOX's MC-112 (http://www.adox.de/Technical_Informations/MCC_Datasheet.pdf). You might consider giving it a try. I've purchased ADOX 110 and 112 from B&H and Freestyle in the past.

[jtomasella]

Just an FYI, Ilford warmtone gets darker as it dries.

[Drew Wiley]

All emulsions darken upon drying, some more than others.

But one observation about some of the old standbys like Foma paper is that the emulsions have been reformulated somewhat from what you might encounter in toning literature, unless its relatively recent information.

[Ulophot]

Larry, as I have written about before, here, I use a "varnish" with the semi-matte that restores the tonality. Some would never do this, for understandable archival reasons. I am so far convinced that for the time period I can foresee my prints being displayed, there will be no problem. Strand used it; I got it from his best friend. It's here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?142567-Developer-capacity-D-23-and-dilution/page3.

Since the Fomatone is already semi-gloss, the effect is much less, but it does slightly deepen the low values.