Foma classic 131 VC FB matte - Print color

[esearing]

Per Foma description: produces notably warm tones that range from brown-green to warm-brown depending on processing.

I printed this paper for the first time yesterday in Ansco 130 and TF5 fixer. The tone for me is noticeably green when wet but dries more neutral grey green.
I have seen conversations about users getting that nice warm brown tone. What processing are you using that turns this paper warm brown? I can do it with Thiourea or other chemicals but wondering if there is a short cut by using a different developer/fixer combination.

For those of you about to try it, expect to double to triple your print exposure times. Its a very slow paper.

Wet test print, in gray tray, tongs are wet bamboo brown with red tips.
243624

[notorius]

I have been using this particular paper a lot in the past. I could achieve nice tones when using Foma GD-L 1+5, not very fresh solution, the developer went brown itself but gave nice tones and worked very well and for a very long time. However the greenish hue was always present until I souped the prints in selenium toner(no bleach). Only after that I got warm brown tones. See examples here (https://flickr.com/photos/notorius1/23247409899/) and here (https://flickr.com/photos/notorius1/15050853900/).

edit: Just to be sure. Fomatone 131 means glossy. You need 132 for matte surface...

[paulbarden]

Agree with notorious - this paper takes on a beautiful “brown” tone when toned in Selenium. Use a weak dilution and go carefully; it can get too intense if you’re not watching closely. It’s quite easy to get rid of the olive tones with Selenium.

This is my favorite printing paper - it’s as close to Portriga Rapid as we can currently get.

[esearing]

Thanks - will do some testing with selenium.

[Ulophot]

Try 1:80. Even so, you'll find a marked shift by 2 minutes and rapid change thereafter.

[Duolab123]

Fomatone is remarkably warm and responds very quickly to very dilute Se. And others.

[Chuck Pere]

You might try some warm tone developer.

[paulbarden]

I can attest to the fact that a warm tone developer does nothing to alleviate the olive tones this paper exhibits. The best way to shift it towards brown is with very dilute Selenium. Been there, done that, as they say.

[esearing]

Y'all were right. The 131 glossy paper tones to a lovely warm gray-brown maybe slightly reddish in Selenium that is much warmer and more subtle than a Thiorurea toner, Kalitype, or Salt print. This is the tone I have been seeking for many years. I mixed my 20 year old selenium 1:40 and tested at 5 minutes and 10 minutes. The tone was almost fully changed at 5 minutes, so for the final print I went with 7 minutes. This paper is not as glossy as the ilford and bergger papers so gives me a new option in the tool kit.


Something I noticed in my second printing is that I need a stronger contrast grade to keep the whites from going yellow than I might need with Ilford's warmtone papers. My new darkroom is not nearly as light tight as I had hoped so may be influencing my results. Adjacent rooms have west facing windows that just seem to bounce light around under and around the doors. The florescent fixtures may not go dark right away either.

[Sal Santamaura]

...This paper is not as glossy as the ilford and bergger papers so gives me a new option in the tool kit...

The thread title is "Foma classic 131 VC FB matte - Print color", yet you're comparing its surface shine to "glossy" papers. Do you mean that even the Ilford and Bergger matte papers are shinier than this matte one? Or, since I can only find listings for Foma 131 FB as a glossy paper, was the thread title intended to convey that, although rated "glossy," it's less shiny than Ilford and Bergger "glossy" papers? Or? Thanks in advance for clarifying.

[paulbarden]

Y'all were right. The 131 glossy paper tones to a lovely warm gray-brown maybe slightly reddish in Selenium that is much warmer and more subtle than a Thiorurea toner, Kalitype, or Salt print. This is the tone I have been seeking for many years.

I'm pleased to hear that worked for you! It's my favorite paper/toner combination. It can be quite beautiful.

[Drew Wiley]

I thought the whole marketing point of that particular paper was its ability to achieve an olive tone reminiscent of certain long gone classic papers like Agfa Portriga. But if you're trying to tame the green a little, it would make more sense to try a cooling gold toner equivalent to dilute GP-1, and not selenium by itself, or selenium at all. In papers which brown too just too fast, a dilute version of Kodak Brown toner acts more gently. But you'd have to mix up that yourself from scratch, since it's no longer commercially available.

[esearing]

I thought the whole marketing point of that particular paper was its ability to achieve an olive tone reminiscent of certain long gone classic papers like Agfa Portriga. But if you're trying to tame the green a little, it would make more sense to try a cooling gold toner equivalent to dilute GP-1, and not selenium by itself, or selenium at all. In papers which brown too just too fast, a dilute version of Kodak Brown toner acts more gently. But you'd have to mix up that yourself from scratch, since it's no longer commercially available.

It definitely is green-gray untoned and might be pleasing if the image has a lot of dark tones. To get olive warm tones I generally use Ilford MGFB , develop with Ethol LPD or Ansco 130 diluted 1:3, bleach it completely, then redevelop with Pyrocat-M or IT-8 which is a similar cachetol receipe. It will be interesting to see how this paper bleaches and reacts to redevelopers like thiourea and cachetol .

[Drew Wiley]

I've leveraged MGWT myself to get a look reminiscent of Portriga, but it's not really the same. It doesn't necessarily need to be; some of the same negatives have come out even better reprinted on MGWT. Jes' sayin' it is different. But I wonder how many people have hoarded enough Olive Tone Spot Tone to allow them to coast along the retouching Interstate the duration? I often need at least a drop or two of that in the mix when spotting MGWT prints, and sure as heck am not going to sell of any of my remaining little bottles.

[paulbarden]

I've leveraged MGWT myself to get a look reminiscent of Portriga, but it's not really the same. It doesn't necessarily need to be; some of the same negatives have come out even better reprinted on MGWT. Jes' sayin' it is different. But I wonder how many people have hoarded enough Olive Tone Spot Tone to allow them to coast along the retouching Interstate the duration? I often need at least a drop or two of that in the mix when spotting MGWT prints, and sure as heck am not going to sell of any of my remaining little bottles.

I have never, ever gotten a print from MGWT that I liked. I've found it to be barely on the warm side of neutral, no matter how I treat it. How the heck did you get it to (nearly) emulate Portriga???

[Drew Wiley]

Strange. I've never gotten a disappointing print from MGWT, and have found it to be a highly versatile truly premium paper with respect to both great DMax and excellent toning properties, provided one is not seeking a true cold tone look. It is, after all, on a slightly cream base. Let me think about this a little, since achieving a Porta-like look was so easy for me that I never took any notes. I routinely develop it in 130 glycin. I would have wanted the silver a little under completion, so perhaps pulled the print out of the 1:3 developer a bit prematurely, like at one and a half minutes, but gave more punch of black to the shadows using a bit of colorhead contrast boost like an added 15M. After development, I would have used my own tweak of GP-1 gold toner (about 1/4 the strength of the official formula), and a little longer than usual, perhaps up to 4 min in order to shift the image color a little deeper neutral black in the shadows, yet a little more bronze in the midtones. NO selenium toner! Everything is so spontaneous these days that I don't tend to consciously strategize it anymore. I pretty much get exactly what I want, almost every time. I use certain other papers too, of course, as needed.

[paulbarden]

Strange. I've never gotten a disappointing print from MGWT, and have found it to be a highly versatile truly premium paper with respect to both great DMax and excellent toning properties, provided one is not seeking a true cold tone look. It is, after all, on a slightly cream base. Let me think about this a little, since achieving a Porta-like look was so easy for me that I never took any notes. I routinely develop it in 130 glycin. I would have wanted the silver a little under completion, so perhaps pulled the print out of the 1:3 developer a bit prematurely, like at one and a half minutes, but gave more punch of black to the shadows using a bit of colorhead contrast boost like an added 15M. After development, I would have used my own tweak of GP-1 gold toner (about 1/4 the strength of the official formula), and a little longer than usual, perhaps up to 4 min in order to shift the image color a little deeper neutral black in the shadows, yet a little more bronze in the midtones. NO selenium toner! Everything is so spontaneous these days that I don't tend to consciously strategize it anymore. I pretty much get exactly what I want, almost every time. I use certain other papers too, of course, as needed.

This makes me wonder if I'd get better results if I pulled it from the developer sooner. It has been my practice to go to full development (3 min), and perhaps I'm doing myself a disservice by doing that. I've only used gold chloride toner on my salt print work, never my developing out papers, assuming it would only cool them. Is that not what happens with MGWT??

[Drew Wiley]

Most gold chloride toning formulas waste gold like crazy. It takes just a tiny amount. The amount of time of toning should be tailored to the intended look of the image itself. I tone anywhere between 30 sec and 4 min, but typically around a minute. If I plan to split-tone the image, then longer, at least 2 min. And instead of using selenium toner in relation to MGWT, I prefer more controllable direct brown toner, likewise used very conservatively. That basically consists of only liver of sulphur and sodium carbonate; but with premixed Kodak Brown Toner gone now, you need a little bit of alchemy voodoo too, to get the level of activity you wish.

Otherwise, yes, gold chloride tones toward the cool side, but differentially with this MGWT, to the effect the toning can go from merely deepening the darker values, to slightly bronzing them, to actually blueing them, all while the highlights stay warmer, depending on the freshness of the glycin itself, or lack thereof. Older glycin behaves differently than fresh.

I have played some with Bergger VC papers too, which can be hard to get; but I haven't worked with Foma papers for a long time, so am eager to see how they respond these days. I'm not interested in the matte variety, however.

[esearing]

My experience MGWT does give a softer tonality if you overexpose and pull from the developer early but that demands a lower key image or it is otherwise dull with highkey images. I have used polysulfide toners to warm it more, Thiorurea with a heavy mix toward 80 SH/20 T to give a rich dark brown, and even used Nelson's gold toner in a hot bath to make it a mix of dark browns in the shadows with reddish-brown midtones. Myy usual bleach + redevelop in pyrocat M shifts to olive warm gray. It is quite versatile and generally my first choice for my typical woodland and waterfall scenes.

[Michael R]

This makes me wonder if I'd get better results if I pulled it from the developer sooner. It has been my practice to go to full development (3 min), and perhaps I'm doing myself a disservice by doing that. I've only used gold chloride toner on my salt print work, never my developing out papers, assuming it would only cool them. Is that not what happens with MGWT??

I doubt pulling the paper earlier will do much and could potentially cause problems, although it is worth a try. Another thing you might try (if you haven’t already) is extending washing time (ie don’t use a hypo clear) - if water is in short supply an extended soak with agitation after the wash might also work. Ilford always recommended longer washes with this paper for warmer tones (within reason of course - obviously don’t leave prints soaking for hours). This would seem to hint at the paper possibly containing “unanchored” brighteners (even though the paper is warm white as opposed to bright white). Worth a try. However on balance I agree - I never found MGWT to look like Portriga.

[paulbarden]

I doubt pulling the paper earlier will do much and could potentially cause problems, although it is worth a try. Another thing you might try (if you haven’t already) is extending washing time (ie don’t use a hypo clear) - if water is in short supply an extended soak with agitation after the wash might also work. Ilford always recommended longer washes with this paper for warmer tones (within reason of course - obviously don’t leave prints soaking for hours). This would seem to hint at the paper possibly containing “unanchored” brighteners (even though the paper is warm white as opposed to bright white). Worth a try. However on balance I agree - I never found MGWT to look like Portriga.

I'm on a well: I cannot wash for extended times. But thanks for the suggestion. Maybe a long final rinse in RO water will do something.

[Michael R]

I'm on a well: I cannot wash for extended times. But thanks for the suggestion. Maybe a long final rinse in RO water will do something.

Well, either way I agree regarding Foma Classic. It's a beautiful paper in my admittedly limited experience with it.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - Nearly all VC papers including MGWT seem to be worthless for "snatch" pulling very prematurely. But the distinction between 1-1/2 and 2 minutes, for example, is comparatively minor. It's all based on the density values of the original neg of course, along with the specific exposure light mix; but in my case, even 1-1/2 min can often deliver nearly to completion development of blacks, yet a remainder of slightly immature tones worth experimenting with. Not that I often do that. I most often give 2 to 3 min in 1:3 130 Dev. Exactly how toners will perform afterwards is a more complex question. I don't like to go heavy-handed with them at all; but more subtle results can require a bit of experimentation, and that is what a test or scrap print is good for first.

The point is not to replicate Portriga, in this conversation, but simply to provide an analogous visual feel to the print, including some of the olive tone. But MGWT actually comes out with an even richer suite of subtle tones if you tackle the problem appropriately. I might use only a single toner, but sometimes up to three. But as I just hinted, nuance is the name of my game. I don't like over the top.

I designed and built my own slot washers, and they are more water efficient than the commercial ones, but probably also more effective in getting the wash done well.

But if I get around to experimenting with Foma paper soon, I'll have to remember to substitute a red safelight for my ordinary orange-amber one. I use a momentary-contact rubberized waterproof footswitch, so never leave the safelight on except briefly anyway.

[esearing]

I doubt pulling the paper earlier will do much and could potentially cause problems, although it is worth a try.

As Drew alludes to, we are trying for subtle changes (not necessarily color changes). My impression of portriga is a deep warm brown not olive, but I may have only ever seen toned prints.

Developer dilution plays a role - Normally I mix Ansco 130 1:1 but if I wish to pull early I will often mix it 1:3 to slow development into the 3-4 minute range. So if full dev is 3 minutes then pulling at 2 minutes does indeed make a difference in the mid to high tones. This works especially for images that have more mid range tones vs those with strong black vs white and when the paper grade is fixed.
With variable grade paper and my current enlarger I can almost achieve the same by increasing or decreasing green time vs blue time in 1/6th increments. IE grade 2.5 vs 2.6
Water bath will work same way but I never got consistent results.
Pre Flashing does the opposite in that it fills in the middle tones more, as does leaving it in the developer longer than 2 minutes for a standard dilution.
RC papers do not seem to respond well to any of these techniques in the same way that fiber papers do.

A few seconds in a bleach bath can also brighten the whites when needed.

[paulbarden]

As Drew alludes to, we are trying for subtle changes (not necessarily color changes). My impression of portriga is a deep warm brown not olive, but I may have only ever seen toned prints.

Portriga Rapid natively has/had an olive/brownish color untoned, so if you're impression of the prints you've seen is a definite brown hue, then yes - you are likely viewing toned prints.
I made hundreds of exhibition prints on Portriga Rapid for Deborah Samuel in the mid-eighties, and we never toned those prints. They had an olive/brown color that was distinctive and quite obvious. My impression of the Fomatone Classic that I use today is that it very closely emulates the look and behavior of Portriga Rapid (aside from the fact that Fomatone is a VC paper), though its greenish hue is very slightly more obvious than Portriga Rapid was. Both papers respond similarly to Selenium toning. IE: dilute the toner quite a bit, and be careful not to go too far, or you can end up with some ugly red/green split toning.

[esearing]

be careful not to go too far, or you can end up with some ugly red/green split toning.

Now you know I will have to try and obtain that for a Christmas image.

Gonna try some thiourea in the next couple of weeks to see what it does as far as a sepia tone using a 60T/40SH mix.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh my ... reminds me I gotta leave the computer and get to my afternoon experimentation with my home brew equivalent of Kodak Brown Toner. Getting a matching brown effect was easy on my first round; now I'm going to dial the concentration back and try for some split tone effects on expendable prints. Nice rainy day project.

The greenishness of Portriga than many of us found standard was probably also due to the fact many of us once used Dektol, which has a greenish bias with most papers. I gave up on Dektol long ago for that reason; but there are times I miss the native olive-black tone of Portriga per se.

[Mark Sampson]

This is all very interesting. This week I just bought a package of the Foma 131. I've begun printing a negative that calls for a warm tone; had to stop before finishing it, but the test print shows no greenish tone (which is good). We'll see how a finished print tones in selenium. It's still set up so I might have an answer by tomorrow. It's worth trying all of the few FB papers still available!

[paulbarden]

Does anyone here have experience with the Formulary 106 warmtone developer, used on either the MGWT or Fomatone papers? I've used Dektol (greenish tones) and Ilford ID-78 (no perceptible advantage over Dektol, color-wise) and been less than pleased with the results. I'd like to find a developer that gives distinctly brownish hues on these papers, and I'm wondering if one of the Glycin formulas may work better?

[Michael R]

For Fomatone you might consider trying Fomatol PW, which Foma recommends specifically for warm brown tones (as opposed to green-brown) from this paper. Unfortunately we don’t know what is in that developer (the MSDS tells us little) except that it does not contain hydroquinone. I just received a paper order including Fomatone and had planned to try various things with it but haven’t had the time yet. I can’t say whether or not MGWT would respond the same way as Fomatone.

[esearing]

Does anyone here have experience with the Formulary 106 warmtone developer, used on either the MGWT or Fomatone papers? I've used Dektol (greenish tones) and Ilford ID-78 (no perceptible advantage over Dektol, color-wise) and been less than pleased with the results. I'd like to find a developer that gives distinctly brownish hues on these papers, and I'm wondering if one of the Glycin formulas may work better?

I wrote a review back in 2017 that the 106 has no warm tone effect on modern papers MGWT especially. My review is on the PF site on the 106 product.

No Brown tone on Modern Papers 3 Star Review
Posted by Eric Searing on 30th Sep 2017

The tech info for this developer needs to be updated since it references papers that have not been made in more than 15 years. This formula does not produce brown tones on modern silver based enlarging papers. It does have one feature when used with current warm tone papers; The paper must be exposed longer than a standard developer to achieve max black in development. This comes in handy with thin negatives or dark scenes. The extra time allows for more manipulation. It does produce a slightly warmer tone on the Bergger CB variable Contrast Warm Tone paper than others I have tested. The original Ansco formula I found for brown tone developer did not contain glycin, but contained more Hydroquinone. Not sure it would make a difference.

[Michael R]

Generally speaking, the old direct development tone “controls” are less effective/ineffective with most contemporary papers. Subtle changes are still sometimes possible, and that might be enough, but unfortunately there is no reputable modern literature and/or objective evidence-based information on any of this, which means it is essentially up to the user to try things.

Sometimes you can get current papers to shift just enough in interesting ways, but often this requires much more substantial changes to developer formulas than the small adjustments of a bygone age. Those old things like making little changes to the amount of bromide or carbonate, or the relative concentrations of developing agents… generally not useful anymore (if they ever really were, but that’s another story).

Glycin may or may not change anything in a particular case - and this would depend on the rest of the formula of course. But it is a somewhat problematic compound in that as far as I know Formulary is the only easily accessible source and it does not keep well in dry form so you never really know what you’re getting. I’d try other things first but that’s just me.

The Fomatol PW seems like a relatively inexpensive experiment, at least in the case of the Fomatone Classic paper.

[paulbarden]

Generally speaking, the old direct development tone “controls” are less effective/ineffective with most contemporary papers. Subtle changes are still sometimes possible, and that might be enough, but unfortunately there is no reputable modern literature and/or objective evidence-based information on any of this, which means it is essentially up to the user to try things.

Sometimes you can get current papers to shift just enough in interesting ways, but often this requires much more substantial changes to developer formulas than the small adjustments of a bygone age. Those old things like making little changes to the amount of bromide or carbonate, or the relative concentrations of developing agents… generally not useful anymore (if they ever really were, but that’s another story).

Glycin may or may not change anything in a particular case - and this would depend on the rest of the formula of course. But it is a somewhat problematic compound in that as far as I know Formulary is the only easily accessible source and it does not keep well in dry form so you never really know what you’re getting. I’d try other things first but that’s just me.

The Fomatol PW seems like a relatively inexpensive experiment, at least in the case of the Fomatone Classic paper.

Thanks, folks, for the input. I'm coming to the conclusion that what I want can't be had except by jumping through one or more toning hoops. Gawd I miss Portriga Rapid.

[esearing]

UPDATE -
Printed the same image on Ilford MGFB WT Pearl and found the exposure time to get the same results was 1/3 stop longer for Ilford than Foma 131. The color cast of the Ilford is still slightly green gray but secondary processing in selenium gives a very purple tone. Not sure if I like the pearl finish or not. I do prefer it over the offwhite paper tone of the FOMA.

I also tested against Ilford MGFB Classic Glossy and found that this paper is much faster than the others buy nearly 1.5 stops. The contrast is a bit more for the same grade and dark underbrush details are lost to complete blackness. Color tone is more neutral but still leans green. The florescent lighting in the basement really brings it out.

[Drew Wiley]

Fresh off-white glycin has less staining effect than older oxidized glycin - very little change once it turns tans, but as it drifts down into mocha and finally a dark chocolate color, the staining gets more pronounced, until it's finally overall intolerable. It's easy to keep glycin powder fresh - just freeze it in its still-seale bottles. I only have only one 100g bottle of powder on the shelf at a time, which acts consistently for at least 6 months, or really, most of a year. There are reserve bottles in the freezer.

[esearing]

The Glycin in the Formulary 130 paper developer seems to make images colder when mixed fresh even if the glycin has some color to it. I tend to keep some around that is a year or more older (and dark brown) and mix it with fresh 130 to give more neutral tones with no perceptible paper staining even if the developer mixed is a light tan in the tray. With Bergger VC FB paper I get a much colder tone when freshly mixed vs aged 130 than I do with the ilford products.

I see no differences when adding additional metol or bromide to the developers in the few times I have tried it. Images still form between 30 and 45 seconds and I let them develop to 90 seconds usually.

I plan to do more experimenting with the Foma paper now that I have a full sized darkroom so will try to take notes and do comparisons to the Ilford products.