Fomalux 111

[Trevor Crone]

The speed is a real problem for me with Lodima. Some of my negatives print absolutely black in 3-5 seconds whereas they take 15-25 seconds on Azo. Trevor, were the negatives you printed developed in a staining developer such as Pyrocat?

Jim, my negatives were 8x10's developed in Rodinal 1:25. I only had 5 sheets to test so have a lot to investigate when this paper becomes readily available.

Fomalux 111 FB is a lot faster than Lodima. As an example when printing on Lodima I use a 150 watt lamp at a distance of 20", this gives me average exposures of around 20 seconds for my Rodinal negs. With Fomalux I had to switch to a 40 watt lamp at a distance of 30" for similar exposure times.

[photo8x10]

My negatives are all developed in pyro ABC 1.1.1.7 and with Lodima my range of exposure is 20-60 seconds depend on negatives density. I use a 150 watt lamp at a distance more and less 35"(90 centimeters).

[c6h6o3]

My negatives are all developed in pyro ABC 1.1.1.7 and with Lodima my range of exposure is 20-60 seconds depend on negatives density. I use a 150 watt lamp at a distance more and less 35"(90 centimeters).

You definitely need a staining developer with Lodima. My pyrocat negs print fine on Lodima, even pretty thin ones. I've never bought any of the production run, as I still have a lot of Azo left. Is the production paper the same speed as the beta test boxes or did they fix that? I remember telling MAS about the speed issue.

[c6h6o3]

Jim,
what bulb are you using? why don't you just use a lower wattage? Raise the bulb? Diffuse it?
Shawn

300 watts. I'll try lower.

[Shawn Dougherty]

300 watts. I'll try lower.

Hope that works for you! I'm using a 100, 150 and 200 depending on the negs. All my newer work prints with the 150 at between 20 to 40 seconds.

You definitely need a staining developer with Lodima.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here. I use highly dilute Rodinal with great results. Michael and Paula thought I had no reason to change back to pyro. I also watched Michael make a gorgeous print of a fellow student's negative developed in D76.

I don't mean to argue with you, Jim. I'm just concerned that someone looking to try Lodima might read that and think their negs won't work. While a somewhat denser neg seems to do the best for me it doesn't need to be bullet proof by any means and I've had no problems reaching proper contrast on the Grade 3, and occasionally the Grade 2.

All the best. Shawn

[c6h6o3]

Hope that works for you! I'm using a 100, 150 and 200 depending on the negs. All my newer work prints with the 150 at between 20 to 40 seconds.




I'm not sure where you're coming from here. I use highly dilute Rodinal with great results. Michael and Paula thought I had no reason to change back to pyro. I also watched Michael make a gorgeous print of a fellow student's negative developed in D76.

I should have said: "I" need a staining developer with Lodima. After seeing Michael Smith's Chicago work, I'm going back to ABC pyro.

[Mahler_one]

I agree Shawn....there is NO compelling reason to use a staining developer to develop negatives to use with the Lodima paper. Having agreed with you, if one is DBI, then a staining developer-by virtue of the fact that the stain "desensitizes" the film a bit to light, might be better to use. Certainly Pyrocat HD in trays is very inexpensive to use, especially of one makes the two parts oneself. Using BTZS calibrations, and using the Jobo expert tanks, I too have had no problem making negatives that print well on Lodima. The negatives are certainly NOT as dense as those made by Michael and Paula; but then again, the film doesn't have nearly the base plus fog that the aging Plus X film that they use so well. Thanks.

[c6h6o3]

The negatives are certainly NOT as dense as those made by Michael and Paula; but then again, the film doesn't have nearly the base plus fog that the aging Plus X film that they use so well. Thanks.

You might be surprised. Michael Smith has been making much thinner negatives than before he photographed in Chicago. The prints from these negatives are the best he's ever made, even though some of them have base fog of density 0.5. I was utterly stunned by these prints. BTW, he uses Super XX Pan, not Plus-X.

[Mahler_one]

Yes, I was mistaken about the film and I sincerely thank you for correcting me. I agree about the Chicago prints.

It's hard to fathom how Michael can judge his negatives so well through the base plus fog that you allude to. He is simply very skilled and knowledgeable about his materials. If one has not had the opportunity to see his prints ( and those of Paula ) at a workshop or elsewhere, then one is missing an interesting and illuminating experience.

[photo8x10]

I agree Shawn and Mahler_one about stain developer, I have some negatives developed in D-76 print well on Lodima or Azo paper, I got extra density for example when I used D-76 my normal developing time was as a N+1 time to understand more and less the density I use.
Not all my negatives as so dense and thin negative are sometimes easily to print with great result.