Thanks for the info! Looking forward to hearing what you think of the Fomalux.
Originally Posted by Mahler_one
You're a patient man! Good to know it works with an enlarger. Of course at those times I'd think you'd be running into reciprocity failure and burning would become quite tedious.
Originally Posted by Rick Olson
Interesting your Ilford Warm Tone developer gave a slightly warm olive tone... I'd say my modified MAS brew gave a slightly olive warm tone.
Last edited by Shawn Dougherty; 08-31-2010 at 07:27 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Well, I received my box today and went through roughly 10 sheets...it is alot faster than I thought, three were well over exposed. I'm using a 15w incandescent bulb at 36" above the contact frame. Some of my negatives are for salt prints so...a little rough for this paper. However, the other negatives came out really nice but what I think is fast. This is my first time w/ contact print paper, so lots of fun. I'm using PF Ansco 130 for developing. I will try amidol water bath techniques over the weekend.
In the end I found for what I think is a grade 2-3 negative I am getting @13-15 seconds of 'on' time with the bulb, is that normal? This gives me a print in developer (1:1 130) that I can see in 5-10 seconds and is finished in around 20 secs. To me this seems really fast. I am thinking that my negatives are a bit stronger than I thought, is that normal, the times I listed? I'm going to pull out other negatives and see what happens.
you can always just RAISE THE LIGHT to increase printing times, or put a piece of diffusion over the light to soften it a bit. 15w, really? I know people who are using a 300w bulb, but they might have more b+f than your negs have. who knows?
15w? Really? That is exactly what is going on in my head! makes no sense.
I've read the azo forums, folks there using 300w and having enough time to dodge/burn if needed. I try a 75w bulb and in the developer, I saw the image come up and I didnt have enough time to pull it out of the developer and get it in the fix before it went black. I started at 22", which seemed normal from what others were saying and have creeped it upwards and dropped the wattage. I'm not upset, just scratching my head and talking to myself (which btw freaks out other people in a darkroom, because I not only talk to myself but actually have conversations, just something to think about ) I'm trying work out what I'm doing that is different. I do have LED red lights, i need to test the paper and lights, havent done that yet but on prints that come up, whites are white (checked w/ a wedge)....so? Again lots of head scratching and talking to myself in teh darkroom.
Developer when it gets old should weaken a bit and I have diluted it, maybe go with a 1:2 ratio and see what happens. I have an amidol mix from PF but before I mix it up I really want to nail it down with the PF ansco 130.
I too am surprised.... I'm using a 75 what bulb - my first two prints #1 - #2 were made using relatively dense negatives (though not stained, I'm using Rodinal) and printed with a 75 watt bulb with 4 paper towels clipped over it. Distance from light to glass was 18 inches.... my 3rd print #3 was made using a negative that was not quite as dense and printed with 6 paper towels clipped over the bulb. I was using an amidol developer for all three.
I have used PF130 at 1:1 with silver chloride papers, though not Fomalux 111, and my developing time was 1 minute. It's usually two minutes with enlarging papers.
I have a 15 wat bulb and will do a quick test with that and PF130 and Fomalux the next time I print...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The operative word is "guess" because you really do not know the market.
Originally Posted by Aurelien
The Fomalux paper is NOT Lodima. Who cares where or who produces Lodima?
It is an alternative to the loss of Azo and it took four years of hard work and much technical innovation to bring it to market.
Purchase and use it to make fine prints so we continue to have access to it.
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
At this point in time I have far more experience with Lodima than Fomalux 111. While I'm thankful to have both papers around my preference, even with the price difference, is for Lodima - especially considering Lodima is available in two grades. Of course this is merely my opinion after limited use with Fomalux. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I am simply not qualified to do a scientific comparison.
As far as where Lodima is produced, well, of course I'm curious! =)
One other point of note, during my last printing session with Fomalux 111 I found that 3 of my test prints had small circular white spots - maybe two or three on each print. I was using 4x5 sheets which I had cut down from 8x10 so it is quite possible, probably likely as the 3 sheets with problems were consecutive, that the spots were all from the same 8x10 sheet.
I hope that the paper imperfections you saw were a random occurrence. Quite honestly the Foma paper is a good thing because it potentially could translate to a broader exposure to contacting printing by people that are intrigued by the process.
Originally Posted by Shawn Dougherty
In my very peripheral involvement of the project offering my assistance wherever I could to help out, I learned how complicated the process is to produce a sliver chloride paper let alone a modern quality silver chloride paper. Looking historically at this paper nearly every photographic paper manufacturer in the good old days had some form of this product in the market and as a result many formulas were developed and tweeked as a function of time. The introduction of variable contrast papers and improvements in making enlargements slowly reduced the silver chloride papers market until just Azo was left.
Where my respect for Lodima begins is where the sad story of POP ends.
POP did not have a "Michael and Paula" aligned with this product so we did not have a choice but to accept the news as the terminal condition it turned out to be. That is what makes Lodima so special.
I wish it was not as expensive as it turned out to be but when you bring a new product to the market from scratch, it is what it is. What would we all be printing with if M&P said "screw it"? Glad that we did not have to face that music.
Thank you for trying to looking into it.
Film Developer wise: I am using pyrocat-hd 1:1:100 or if I stand developed the negative it would've been developed at 1:1:200.
Originally Posted by Michael Kadillak
Michael: The price of Ilfobrom graded FB paper is not very different from the price of the Lodima paper. I agree with you about Lodima, but the reality is that there are increasing numbers of analog photographers who DO find that the cost of materials is becoming a very real issue. Hence, it is possible that Lodima paper will find decreasing use even if the Fomalux is not as good. If Fomalux were to be produced in another grade then users of such paper would learn to make their negatives so as to print better on the Fomalux paper. Moreover, the ins and outs of using the proper bulb and print exposing methods would also be honed. Fomalux would probably NEVER be "as good" as Lodima, but might present a real alternative that could decrease the use of the Lodima. Such decreased usage would be, to my mind, a very severe risk to the continuation of the Lodima paper on the market. I will NOT be switching from Lodima to Fomalux, and I agree with you when you opined that Lodima should be supported.