Fomatone Classic (warmtone) fiber and safelights/contrast

[Ulophot]

for some reason I am unable to find with Google a post I know I made concerning contrast problems with this paper, i.e, not getting above about Grade 3 or so. Several suggested safelight fogging and I have done my due diligence there. However, I just came across an older thread from elsewhere that mentioned the same problem with even red safelight and that switching to Paterson's brown-amber one solved the problem.

This filter is apparently not made any longer. Anyone have experience with this or have a spectral curve for this paper? I can't seem to find one. Maybe I can experience with a brown Lee or Rosco gel covering my amber lights.

[Michael R]

If you are using an amber safelight/filter note:

1) Foma recommends safelighting with a cutoff at 610nm. That would indicate amber is not the best choice. Red would be better. For example, here is the transmission/absorption curve for a Kodak OC amber safelight: https://www.kodak.com/content/produc...-Filter-OC.pdf.

If it is true that brown/amber is working for some people, a low light level is probably what is helping.

The relative spectral sensitivity of the paper is in this tech sheet: https://www.foma.cz/en/fomatone-MG however this is of limited use

More generally:

2) If you are using bare amber LEDs it could be problematic

3) If it is light filtered through a random/generic amber material it could be problematic

4) Filters fade with use

*What you really need to do first is a proper safelight test: https://www.kodak.com/content/produc...nation-K-4.pdf

This will tell you if you are losing contrast due to safelight exposure.

[Ulophot]

Michael, thanks for the spectral data and the Kodak test. I use amber safelights because I find red light bothers me. I am using SuperBright amber s11 bulbs in Kodak bullet safelights: the one by the enlarger is extra diffused to knock down the output; the other, at the fix end of the sink about 6 feet from the dev tray, passes through a Kodak OC as well. I have no trouble with Ilford.

With Fomatone, I found that I needed to aim the lights complete away from work areas. After a half-covered test including a Zone VIII paper exposure and no exposure area, after 5 minutes of post-exposure safelight exposure at the enlarger area and three minutes under safelight at the fix end of the sink (i.e., closer than the developer tray), the uncovered exposed as well as non-exposed print areas are indistinguishable from covered half. That would seem to me fairly conclusive, but clearly there is still a problem somewhere.

I will try running the Kodak test you provided and see if there is any difference in result.

[Doremus Scudder]

Philip,

My experience with Foma papers is that red safelights are necessary; amber safelight filters (e.g., Kodak OC, Ilford 902 and, presumably, the Paterson brown/amber) as well as amber LEDs fogged the paper quickly.

A quick down-and-dirty test to check if you can get more contrast out of the Foma warmtone paper is to simply make a print with safelights on and then the same print immediately after the first with the safelights off. If there's a difference, then further safelight testing is certainly in order.

The above test is no substitute for the Kodak safelight test, which gives you a lot more data about which safelights are safe and how long the exposure can be to a given light source.

Still, if you can't get more contrast out of the paper when making prints in the dark, then there just isn't any more to be had.

Note that making prints in the dark also eliminates the possibility of the Herschel effect (red light sometimes fogs blue-sensitive emulsion/emulsion components with extended exposure, even though the emulsion isn't sensitive to that part of the spectrum primarily - see discussions here and on Photrio by Ian Grant and check out the Wikipedia page).

Best,

Doremus

[Pieter]

I have found Kodak amber safelight filters on the auction site and have been able to use them by replacing the red filter on the safelight sold by freestyle https://www.freestylephoto.biz/62012...5-Red-w-Dimmer

You could also spend more money for one the Heiland Electric safelights. But they work well.

[Ulophot]

Hi, friends. A member found my original thread on this, https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-having-issues, to which Doremus and others replied.

I don't write everything in every post, and obviously you can not read my mind, so sometimes things fall between the cracks. I did order the red s11 LED bulbs a few months ago and run tests with them, but they gave no better results, so I sold them to another member.

I like the Foma paper enough as an alternative for some images that I will pursue this a bit further; I'm not sure I'm ready to start working under red lights. My testing has included exposing the paper with the enlarger area safelight off and only the bounced light (off a gray wall) from 7 feet away during exposure and the print upside down in the developer at 5'. Since I don't see any fogging with the test mentioned, albeit not the Kodak one, I have my doubts that my very dim safelighting is really losing me two grades of contrast. I can't figure out how no fog at the high end translates to a soft image.

Interesting that some report greater contrast with Foma than Ilford, though I am using the Fomatone, not the neutral-toned emulsions. I am cautiously inclined to think that I got a box that is a dud. Too bad I ordered 100 sheets. But it's very nice for long-scale negs, with nice separation in the high values.

So, we'll see. Thanks for your contributions.

[interneg]

With Fomatone, I found that I needed to aim the lights complete away from work areas. After a half-covered test including a Zone VIII paper exposure and no exposure area, after 5 minutes of post-exposure safelight exposure at the enlarger area and three minutes under safelight at the fix end of the sink (i.e., closer than the developer tray), the uncovered exposed as well as non-exposed print areas are indistinguishable from covered half. That would seem to me fairly conclusive, but clearly there is still a problem somewhere.

You may well be effectively pre-flashing the paper. From recall, Ilford suggest a safelight at least 30nm higher than the apparent cut-off of the sensitivity - and the slow speed of Fomatone may be disguising what would otherwise be more recognisably a sub-threshold exposure.

If you have ever used materials that demand a #1 or #2 safelight, the #1A red always seems shockingly bright...

[LabRat]

The multi grade WT papers generally will not give higher contrast (above grade 3 to 3 1/2) due to their finer grade/slower emulsions, so probably the issue there...

The safe light factor is less, as the papers are slower than cold tone papers, even to safelight exposure...

You might try a less dilute paper developer if you are getting used to this paper, as WT papers take some getting used to, and finding negs/scenes to match paper characteristics...

Don't give up, yet... ;-)

Steve K

[koraks]

Foma MG Classic 131 vs Ilford MG FB WT
Fomatone is pretty close to MGWT in terms of max contrast, but grade 0 is pretty different for both papers. You can compare with neutral tone emulsions based on their datasheets, but the pattern is likely similar.
Foma papers require red safelights, other papers can tolerate amber as well, but red is always a safe choice. Looking for a recommendation to use amber safelights with b&w emulsions is really looking for an unjustified affirmation of a pre-existing preference for amber, I'm afraid. The longer the wavelength, the safer. Which of course is only logical.

[Ulophot]

For any who offered help on my quest to solve the problem of inadequate high contrast with Fomatone Classic, this informational-only update, as always with my appreciation for the assistance offered up to now.

As promised I have rigorously run this evening the Kodak safelight safety test, which it was recommended I run in addition to the ones I had already described, with this paper. The result confirms my previous results, to wit, that with both an OC filter with 15W bulb, and with another safelight using Superbright LEDs' S11 amber bulb, no paper fogging is occurring at the adjusted, dim level at which I use them.

In the coming week I expect to have an LED diffusion head built by a friend, adapted from the plan provided earlier by member elgatosuizo, using an RGB panel. Once I find the balance that yields a standard Gr 2 contrast, I'll see if my Ilford filters will yield the higher contrast I am missing with this paper now. If not, perhaps it is due to faded filters and they will need to be replaced. I'll keep my detective hat on.

I'll pass on any discoveries for any interested. Meanwhile, this is, I repeat, informational only.