Fomalux in amidol is really nice, and the ability to use a water bath is handy, as it's quite a contrasty paper. Fomalux is nice in Ansco 130 and Ilford Warmtone developers too.
Reading the Fomalux data sheet, it sounds like the emulsion, being silver chloride, is much slower than conventional paper. Which implies a high-wattage lamp and/or UV light source would be needed for contact printing.
Fomalux, as well as Lodima, does require longer exposures than normal with an enlarger. But a simple lightbulb hanging from the ceiling can provide sufficient light. A UV setup, as for pt/pd printing, would be too much exposure to easily control.
One of the nicer features of these silver chloride papers is that can work/print in relatively high light such as given by buglight. This enables you to selectively develop specific areas after a water bath - I use either cotton swab or paint brush dipped in developer.
Azo if you can find it, or Lodima, which is also a great paper. I also use a K&M point light source which yields very sharp prints. There's one for sale on eBay right now, but it looks pretty used. I'd buy it but I already own 4. Here's the link so you can see it. Point light sources make the best contact prints IMHO.
I just did my first sets of contact-prints last weekend, 4x5s on 5x7 paper, held down with just the betterscanning ANR glass from my scanner, I let the edges burn to a nice black.
So far just MGiv Pearl, cheap and cheerful in a box of 100, same as I use in 8x10s for enlargements (only the best ones make the grade to bother with the extra washing/flattening bother of FB Matt).
Firstly, wow, contact prints look so much better than the scans (they were some rather thin negs which don't scan well, APX100 shot at ei100 but then devved in Perceptol for ei50, oops. Grade 5 saved them and they look all dark and moody and cool).
So now I'm wondering whether I should start trying out other papers yet, there's a box of Warmtone that tempts me every time I go to my camera shop.
Speaking of contact-printing, I'm curious to know what everyone else does for edges?
In a way I like it that the edge of the negative shows on the contact print, but I wouldn't mind having a 'clean' black border. So I'm going to cut out an exact template of the image-area, and contact-dodge this to burn in the borders. But if I put it on the glass without moving the neg, it might take ages to burn through a dense border, and the glass might flare and burn the image too. If I lift the glass, the neg will move and I won't know where to dodge.
Would doing something like this work? Contact-print-image, dev, stop, dry, then contact-dodge the image with the rectangular-template under glass and then final dev, stop, fix?
Or does everyone just use a real holder and have white edges?
Times shouldn't be too short if you are exposing under the enlarger rather than a plain light bulb. Stop down the lens as you would for an enlargement - no, it won't affect sharpness or anything but it will lengthen your exposure times, with the bonus that you are free to go all the way down to the smallest available opening on your lens without worrying about diffraction affecting sharpness. If times still aren't long enough you can add some neutral density filtration (get some cheap color printing filters and add equal amounts of all three colors. Note that this MIGHT affect your contrast a little anyway since they aren't pure or perfect but probably not enough to matter.
Focus doesn't matter a bit whether you do or don't.
With contact printing you do have a bit of difference when the relative size of the aperture is changed - smaller or more distant equating to more of a point light source. Sometimes this matters, sometimes not. For this reason l like to have the option of ND filters on hand too, though I don't personally contact print that often.
you don't focus with a K&M point light source. there's no aperture. the normal K&M unit has 6 light intensity levels. combined with a timer and stabilizer, you can control exposure. you can also raise or lower the light housing to control exposure or allow for, let's say, a larger negative.