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

[sandermarijn]

Dear All,

I'm looking for an alternative to Kentmere Fineprint FB Glossy in 16x20"/40x50cm, which is the size paper I almost exclusively use for printing 120-size (6x6cm) negatives.

What I like(d) about this paper:
- it dries very flat if taped down to glass (face up),
- it tones very nicely and controllably in Selenium,
- the surface shine after drying is nice (although I prefer a more matte finish- see below),
- how it handles contrasty negs printed at up to grade 2.

What I like less:
- it goes a bit muddy with low-contrast, subtle negatives,
- it doesn't print as well at higher grades (although I usually don't go beyond 3.5 anyway),
- it doesn't have the sparkle & subtleness of good old Agfa MCC 111 (my mainstay up to several years ago),
- I prefer the 'Finegrain' finish (Kentmere lexicon for 'matte') over Glossy, but Finegrain is out of production and out of stock.

So what I'm looking for now is an FB paper that tones well in Selenium, has a Kentmere Finegrain like texture, and has the subtle tonality & excellent low-to-high grade response of Agfa MCC. At the same time I also won't mind trying a warmer-toned paper (read: warmer than Adox MCC 110) that allows room for obtaining different degrees of warmth & tone, as determined by paper developer and toning process.

While money is an issue I will not, in this case, allow it to be. I used to think differently but have recently come to believe that I should save on cameras, lenses, film and chemistry, definitely not on paper.

With all the above in mind I have narrowed down the choice to two papers:
1. Ilford MG FB Warmtone ("24K") Semi-Matt (link to Ag in the UK),
2. Fomabrom Varient 123 (white base, but not super-white, with a Semi-Matt or 'Velvet' texture- link).

I am leaning a tiny (and I mean really tiny!) bit towards the Foma paper because it has good (though limited) rep here and elsewhere, while being cheaper (old habits die hard, sigh) than Ilford. What's holding me back is fear of lack of quality control by Foma. Also, I have not been able to find out if this paper dries flat (if kept taped down during drying), if the thinner base (180 g/m^2 vs. 255 for Ilford) makes a huge difference in handling (kinking) and 'quality-feel', and how 'archival' it is (assuming the fictitious perfect printer). Basically what it comes down to for me with this Foma paper: it looks great on paper (sorry), but how reliable and practical is it in real life?

I have burnt my hands badly and repeatedly on Foma film in 120, while I have only praise for Ilford products (or what I've tried at least) and for their service- Simon is terrific. Hence my doubts about the Foma brand.

So my limbo relates to:
(1) how the ideal-world, on-paper qualities of the respective papers turn out in real life, and
(2) doubts about quality control in the case of Foma.

I welcome comments (preferably personal user experience) on either paper. I'm also open to suggestions outside the two.

BTW, I'm in Netherlands, where it is not possible to obtain either paper at a good price (or at all). I am willing to spend money, but it should be for the paper first and foremost, not for the shop owner- no offence to anyone. Therefore I will order from the UK, probably from Ag (I love their website for the commitment it radiates). Shipment to Netherlands is GBP 17. This means that I will want to think twice before ordering, and if I do, I'd rather order for a substantial amount (100-200 euros/GBP). IOW, I want to get it sort-of-right first time ordering, for which I need you fellow APUG'ers feedback on these papers!

PS. I prefer replies based on actual personal user experience, not so much from what others/books/pdf's say.

Thanks a lot for reading/answering this somewhat convoluted post!!!

Best, Sander

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The Foma 123 is as close to the old Agfa MCC 118 you're going to get surface wise (and Kentmere fine grain). It's also similar in paper base color.
Side by side prints show a remarkable similarity.
However, I'm not sure how it tones in selenium on its own. The samples I've seen have been toned indirectly in Kodak Sepia II first, which makes it a LOT more responsive to a second bath in selenium.

Ilford MGWT, in my mind, isn't at all like the Agfa paper, and surface wise you get a very smooth silky product with the Ilford, which isn't at all anything like the fine grain surface, (or Velvet as they call it), of the Foma 123. It does tone rather well in selenium, though...

Choices, choices... If you want something close to Agfa, the Foma 123 is your choice. But MGWT probably responds better to selenium.

[sandermarijn]

Thanks for sharing Thomas.

I'm not familiar with Agfa MCC 118 (and never will be, alas), but if it is like Kentmere Finegrain then I can imagine what it was like. I have >100 sheets of 12x16" Finegrain in the fridge and sort of covet it for its texture.

Most interesting I find your remark that Ilford Warmtone Semi-matt (you are talking Semi-matt right?) is different from the texture of the 'class' of Agfa MCC 118/Kentmere Finegrain/Fomabrom Varient 123. Can you elaborate?

I've read elsewhere that Fomabrom 123 tones well in Selenium, so I'm not primarily worried about that aspect of the paper. It's rather reliability and workability (paper thickness) that I seek reassurance for.

[R.Gould]

The Foma 123 is the closest to the old Finegrain surface that you can get, I think they must use the same paper stock as the old Kentmere Finegrain. which was one of my all time favorites, the Ilford semi mat is a different beast, much smoother and more ''Matt'' than the old finegrain, the foma is thinner than the foma, and there is quite a price difference between the two, I personally prefer the Foma.
Richard

[sandermarijn]

I'm just pasting this in for my own (and others') reference (taken from this thread):

Coding of FOMA photographic papers
Numerical code with three digits

1st digit = base type
1 – double-weight
2 – single-weight
3 – resin-coated(RC)
4 – resin-coated(RC) (110g per sq.m)
5 – natural

2nd digit = base whiteness
1 – extra white
2 – white
3 – cream-coloured
4 – chamois

3rd digit = surface type
1 – glossy
2 – matte
3 – velvet
4 – lustre
5 – pyramid grain

This stuff is confusing to me, particularly as not every manufacturer seems to use three-number designations (Kentmere, Ilford), or not the same ones (Agfa).

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The Kentmere Finegrain / Agfa MCC 118 / Foma 123 (and Fotokemika Varycon matte, if it matters), all have this slightly pebbled surface.
Ilford Warmtone semi-matt has a completely smooth surface without any texture at all. It's very beautiful in its own right, but isn't at all like the other three (or four). When you run your hand across the MGWT it's like a very smooth flat surface. The other four have these little pebbles that make up the surface texture, and it looks kind of like as if you sprayed fine water droplets onto a flat very cold surface, and they froze, like frost on your car's windscreen. If you have Kentmere Finegrain, you know what the texture feels like. If I remember correctly, the Kentmere paper was slightly 'rougher' than the others, but behind glass I think they all would look pretty much the same.

[sandermarijn]

The Foma 123 is the closest to the old Finegrain surface that you can get, I think they must use the same paper stock as the old Kentmere Finegrain. which was one of my all time favorites, the Ilford semi mat is a different beast, much smoother and more ''Matt'' than the old finegrain, the foma is thinner than the foma [Ilford- Sander], and there is quite a price difference between the two, I personally prefer the Foma.
Richard

Thanks Richard, that is *very* useful information. Your description of the textures makes me lean more towards the Fomabrom 123.

It's almost a pity that five envelopes of 10x Foma totalled are cheaper than one 50-sheet box of Ilford. (I much prefer boxes.) But no, I just told myself to ignore the pricing issue. Why this obession of mine wanting to be cheap all the time? One 50-sheet box should last me a long time (about a year I reckon).

[sandermarijn]

The Kentmere Finegrain / Agfa MCC 118 / Foma 123 (and Fotokemika Varycon matte, if it matters), all have this slightly pebbled surface.
Ilford Warmtone semi-matt has a completely smooth surface without any texture at all. It's very beautiful in its own right, but isn't at all like the other three (or four). When you run your hand across the MGWT it's like a very smooth flat surface. The other four have these little pebbles that make up the surface texture, and it looks kind of like as if you sprayed fine water droplets onto a flat very cold surface, and they froze, like frost on your car's windscreen. If you have Kentmere Finegrain, you know what the texture feels like. If I remember correctly, the Kentmere paper was slightly 'rougher' than the others, but behind glass I think they all would look pretty much the same.

Do you write novels? You should! This is great stuff, I now understand (or so I think) the difference in texture between the above mentioned group of papers and Ilford MGWT Semi-matt. Thanks a lot for sharing!

I'm leaning more and more towards Fomabrom 123.

One thing: I have a tendency to kink papers at some point in the workflow. This happened to me more often with the old Agfa MCC 111 than with Kentmere Fineprint, which is actually odd because MCC 111 should have been thick enough at 283 g/m^2 (source).

Does the 180 g/m^2 Fomabrom 123 kink easily?

And does it feel more flimsy than say the 255 g/m^2 Ilford MGWT? My nicest prints end up behind glass but not the majority- I tape them to walls/cupboards/etc, or keep them in a box that I leaf through now and then, in which case 'stiffer' paper is nicer.

[sandermarijn]

Again for the sake of reference, the old Agfa- (and new Adox-, I suppose) nomenclature:

Coding of base weight:
1 . . = double weight fibre-base paper (FB)
3 . . = polyethylene / resin-coated paper (RC)

The base tint is indicated by the second figure (not given for
single-weight types such as MULTICONTRAST CLASSIC 1).
. 1 . = white paper tint

Coding of surface:
. . 0 = glossy (natural high gloss)
. . 1 = glossy, smooth surface suitable for high-gloss
drying (only for fibre-base papers)
. . 2 = semi-matt surface
. . 8 = fine-grain matt

Example:
MCP 310 RC = MULTICONTRAST PREMIUM,
RC base, white, glossy
MCP 312 RC = MULTICONTRAST PREMIUM,
RC base, white, semi-matt
MCC 111 = MULTICONTRAST CLASSIC,
double-weight, white, glossy
MCC 1 = MULTICONTRAST CLASSIC,
single-weight, white, glossy

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Do you write novels? You should! This is great stuff, I now understand (or so I think) the difference in texture between the above mentioned group of papers and Ilford MGWT Semi-matt. Thanks a lot for sharing!

I'm leaning more and more towards Fomabrom 123.

One thing: I have a tendency to kink papers at some point in the workflow. This happened to me more often with the old Agfa MCC 111 than with Kentmere Fineprint, which is actually odd because MCC 111 should have been thick enough at 283 g/m^2 (source).

Does the 180 g/m^2 Fomabrom 123 kink easily?

And does it feel more flimsy than say the 255 g/m^2 Ilford MGWT? My nicest prints end up behind glass but not the majority- I tape them to walls/cupboards/etc, or keep them in a box that I leaf through now and then, in which case 'stiffer' paper is nicer.

Thank you for your kind comments on the writing. It's difficult to describe texture in writing.

I think Foma papers in general aren't as tough as something like Ilford MGWT. Memory tells me the Kentmere paper was rather stiff, regardless of weight. I actually like how 'nimble' the Foma papers are. Maybe you just need to be more careful.