Ilford FB Warmtone Semi-Matt vs. Fomabrom Varient 123- experiences?

[Richard Jepsen]

Ilford has excellent quality control. Foma & Fotokemika are a step behind. Storage is a factor as papers age in storage.

Kodak and Ilford are tops. I experienced paper black spots with one box of Varycon paper. With Foma paper I recall only one quality problem. I am happy with the quality of Foma or Fotokemika papers. EMAKs graded is outstanding.

I suppose the tonal scale is set by the filter grade. Or is there something else, a 'non-linear' aspect so to say?

Some papers produce more steps in a step wedge or distribute the tones differently. ILford WT has a long tonal scale with ability to record a zone 7 vs zone 6 1/2 print tone vs other papers. Its not a question of better or worse....just different. Adox Premium WT tone scale is similar to Agfa MCC and requires a red safe light per box directions. The Adox Premium WT paper surface and tint look like Kentmere fineprint glossy stock paper. The Adox papers are fast, have short recommended development times of 60s, and warnings to limit exposure to a safelight. I experienced unexpected safelight fogging with Adox MCP 312 and Variotone Premium using the recommended safelight. I need to adjust paper safelight exposure by time or distance. It was not a paper problem.

I reviewed my recent prints on Fomabrome 123 toned in selenium. The print tone was more neutral than recalled. The paper provides adequate midtones but not deep blacks. I have limited experience with 123 but plan to purchase more.

[Sim2]

Hallo,

One thing to possibly note with MGWT - I think you mentioned in your original post that you tape the wet paper to glass to dry? I used this technique with great success with standard MG paper but when using MGWT the paper got glued to the glass and had to be soaked to lift it off the glass. I was using archival artists watercolor tape for this. I did read somewhere, and can't remember where, that the base soaks or draws the adhesive from the paper tape under or into the print paper. Anyway, taping MGWT was a resounding failure for me! *other users experience may differ*

Knowing the cost of 20x16 MGWT paper perhaps a trial pack of 25 10x8s might help in finding out if the paper suits your workflow as well as the final appearance?

Sim2.

[sandermarijn]

One thing to possibly note with MGWT - I think you mentioned in your original post that you tape the wet paper to glass to dry? I used this technique with great success with standard MG paper but when using MGWT the paper got glued to the glass and had to be soaked to lift it off the glass.

Yes indeed I watercolour tape my FB papers to glass to dry. Never had a problem with any paper. But if what you have found is generally true then I will most certainly not use Ilford MGWT. I didn't read any of this in the Ilford data sheet, but I will read again, and use Google.

Thanks a *lot* for reporting this Sim2 (regardless of whether you're alone in this or not).

Can others comment on this (potential) issue?

[sandermarijn]

Well, I Googled around but have been unable to find any info on drying Ilford MGWT to the air while having it watercolour-taped down (face up) to glass.

The Ilford MGWT datasheet makes no mention of this drying method being a problem. However, in the paragraph "Drying" it reads:

"After washing, squeegee prints on both sides to
remove surplus water. Prints can be clipped back-
to-back to minimise curl and air-dried at room
temperature, or glazed/ferrotyped, or heat-dried.
However, the use of belt print dryers and
photographic blotters is not recommended as there
is a risk that prints will stick to them. If a belt print
dryer must be used, fix the prints using a
hardening fixer; however, this will have the
drawbacks explained under ‘Fixation’."

Contrast the above section to the fact sheet for Ilford MGIV FB (again under "Drying"):

"After washing, squeegee prints on both sides to
remove surplus water. Prints can be clipped back-
to-back to minimise curl and air-dried at room
temperature, or glazed/ferrotyped or heat-dried."

Here no warning mention is made against using belt print dryers and photographic blotters. I am not familiar at all with these devices and therefore cannot say if them being mentioned has any relevance to taped-down drying on glass at room temperature. It feels slightly suspicious nonetheless.

[Mark Fisher]

The Fomabrom I use is the glossy finish. I was unaware that the finish affected the tones. That might explain why I've seen some really well controlled lith prints in Fomabrom when I have a really hard time with that paper....it is a different paper!

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The Fomabrom I use is the glossy finish. I was unaware that the finish affected the tones. That might explain why I've seen some really well controlled lith prints in Fomabrom when I have a really hard time with that paper....it is a different paper!

Indeed. The velvet surface I believe has meant that Foma has had to alter the emulsion as well. It's the only way the Foma 123 lith results can be explained, and how smooth they are compared to the 'salt and pepper' Foma 112 prints.

[sandermarijn]

One thing to possibly note with MGWT - I think you mentioned in your original post that you tape the wet paper to glass to dry? I used this technique with great success with standard MG paper but when using MGWT the paper got glued to the glass and had to be soaked to lift it off the glass. I was using archival artists watercolor tape for this. I did read somewhere, and can't remember where, that the base soaks or draws the adhesive from the paper tape under or into the print paper. Anyway, taping MGWT was a resounding failure for me! *other users experience may differ*

I've asked around on APUG about this, and from that I have become reasonably convinced that if properly handled Ilford MGWT will not pose a problem to the 'watercolour tape method'. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

At the moment I'm still flip-flopping somewhat so far as actually choosing a paper is concerned. I think the choice will be for Ilford MGWT in Semi-matt eventually, but I want to give my mind a bit more time to cool down first.

Regardless, thanks for the information APUG has provided me & all the others with- it's been very helpful.

Sander

[Bruce Osgood]

At the moment I'm still flip-flopping somewhat so far as actually choosing a paper is concerned. I think the choice will be for Ilford MGWT in Semi-matt eventually, but I want to give my mind a bit more time to cool down first.

Sander

Hopefully it will not be the last paper you buy. The point is to buy something and learn to hate it and move on... Join the crowd.

[sandermarijn]

Hopefully it will not be the last paper you buy. The point is to buy something and learn to hate it and move on... Join the crowd.

How does that align with the advice (that everyone touts and nobody seems to follow ) to stick to one film and developer and learn to exploit that till the end of a decade?

I guess your point is not so much in buying and moving, but rather in the "learn"-part, in which case all advices point in the same direction.

Buy, learn, share, move on. Got it!

[sandermarijn]

One month down the road and I'm still mostly where I was: contemplating. It's not easy to decide between all these papers. I've made some small progress though.

APUG'er jelke and I did a small paper exchange. He received Kentmere, I got some of Jelke's Adox Variotone (Glossy). I tried it out over the weekend (dismal weather here). And whow, this Adox/Moersch/Harman Variotone paper is really good!

I made four prints (18x24cm/7x9.5") of the same 35mm Neopan 400 negative, a reference negative that I know well. Two of the prints were left untoned, the other two were Selenium toned, for 4' and 10' respectively (Adox Selentoner 1+15).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Some observations:

- Adox Variotone has an excellent tonal scale, from full black to brilliant white, and with subtle detail in the shadows. Untoned it is definitely nicer to my eye than my to-go-to paper, Kentmere FPVC (Glossy is the only finish still available). I did not make a direct comparison (same everything) between Variotone and Kentmere, but I have printed my reference negative on Kentmere in another size (30x40cm/12x16") before. Kentmere has muddier shadows and not as nice a tonal scale. That said, the difference isn't huge; both are fine papers on their own.

- Adox Variotone is tough. It's thick- as thick as Kentmere, and both are thicker than Adox MCC 110. I like thicker papers. Variotone doesn't kink easily; I tried and found it pretty much idiot-proof. This paper is 'mechanically' excellent.

- Adox Variotone Glossy's surface looks roughly the same to me as Kentmere FPVC Glossy. I dried all four sheet of Variotone to room temperature air (overnight). This gives a nice egg-shell finish. Very familiar, no surprises here.

- About toning in Selenium then:

APUG'er MarcoB 'warned' me in advance that Selenium works a bit differently on Kentmere than it does with most other papers. He was right! Selenium gives Kentmere a very visible boost in contrast/punch, by noticeably darkening the shadows, changing the tonal curve there quite a lot. Selenium is almost a must-use for Kentmere FPVC, it really helps you get the most out of this paper.

In the case of Adox Variotone the results are more subtle. There is no such dramatic increase in Dmax, not such an extra punch. In fact I couldn't see much of a change in contrast at all; maybe I'm spoilt with Kentmere in this respect.
The colour effects are also different. Kentmere turns purple-reddish, Variotone goes more towards brownish. Both discolourations are appealing, I wouldn't call one better than the other.

I toned one Variotone print for 4', another for 10'. There is a small difference, but most of the toning seems to happen in the first few minutes. Even with a untoned print kept next to the toning print it I found it difficult to know when the change in colour was still happening and when it had slowed down; I should have toned a bit shorter for meaningful results. Now both times gave more or less the same result.

Kentmere and Variotone tone (i.e. change colour) about as fast, but because Variotone's change in appearance is less towards the punchy, the toning process seems to happen slower- I don't believe it really is slower, only different (i.e. change in colour rather than Dmax).
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Below are uncorrected flatbed scans of three Variotone prints of my reference negative (29 June 2008, Sarek N.P., Sweden: view towards the valley Njoatsosvágge, from a location near Sähkok mountain). The first is untoned, the second Se-toned for 4', the third for 10'.

Not all three prints were exactly identically exposed, I did some burning of the sides and sky, and this wasn't very exact; these prints/scans are really just a play-around, not science. The colour of the scans on my laptop screen (uncalibrated, again no science) matches those of the actual prints quite well.

What am I trying to show? That Adox Variotone responds well to Selenium, that is turns a brownish colour rather than Kentmere's purple-red, that Se-toning does not so much affect the overall contrast (not as much as with Kentmere that is), and that the tonality of this paper is fine (and excellent if you were to look at the prints themselves, instead of at scans).

1. Adox Variotone, developed in Amaloco AM6006 (neutral developer), no toning


2. Adox Variotone, developed in Amaloco AM6006 (neutral developer), toned in Selenium 1+15 for 4'


3. Adox Variotone, developed in Amaloco AM6006 (neutral developer), toned in Selenium 1+15 for 10'


Variotone is an excellent paper that tones well in Selenium. Kentmere is also a fine paper, one that tones differently, not worse or better. Variotone has the edge in terms of tonality but I find Kentmere a fine paper in its own right (it *requires* Selenium toning though).

I think I will be perfectly happy working with Kentmere FPVC Glossy for some time to come. Or maybe not .