Fomabrom N113

When Foma discontinued Fomabrom Variant IV 123 they suggested two papers for Bromoil as a replacement, Foma Fomatone 133 Classic VC FB Warmtone and Fomabrom N113.  I was able to obtain the former and offered it for review, but as far as I could tell the latter was not available in the United States.  I contacted Foma and they were kind enough to send me a few 5×7″ packs to test.

The paper bleached almost completely, leaving just a bit of brown in the shadow areas.  This is oftentimes not too much of a problem, as deep shadow areas are normally completely covered with ink.

Click for larger image
Click for larger image

I inked the paper with Senefelder’s Crayon Black 1803 ink, which the paper accepted.  The shadow areas filled very quickly, which I am accustomed to seeing, but did so quickly to the extent that by the time the midtones began accepting ink the shadow areas were blocked up.  During the second soak the sponge removed the ink from the midtones and highlights, which was expected due to the experience I had with Foma Fomatone 133.  Re-inking did not give me acceptable results.

Click for larger image
Click for larger image

For the next print I tried using Senefelder’s 1796 ink, which had offered me success with Foma Fomatone 133.  As this is a thinner ink I was very cautious during the application because it is very easy to place too much ink on the paper.  The shadow areas filled even more quickly and remained completely during the second soak.  When I re-inked those areas remained blocked and the print unworkable.

Click for larger image
Click for larger image

I decided to try a final print returning to the Senefelder’s 1803 ink.  Instead of using a sponge to clear the highlights I simply allowed the print to soak, hoping to be able to clear as well as deal with the shadow areas with a brush.  This did not work and the shadow areas remained blocked with an unacceptable print.

One thing I noticed with the two latter prints was that the ink did not adhere well close to the border.  I normally test using 8×10″ paper and create at least a 1″ border, but since this was 5×7″ paper and I wanted to use as much as I could for the image I only made the border about ½”.  If the border had been wider I am guessing that I would not have noticed the inconsistency, which can be seen in the images offered here, especially the third print.

Advantages

I did make a couple of straight prints with this paper and can state that it really has a pleasant tonality.  Although I believe that it is only available in a single contrast, the straight prints I made looked quite nice.

Disadvantages

This paper is not a candidate for use with the Bromoil process.  This may be because the surface is semi-gloss.  With the exception of Imago paper (made specifically for the process), a glossy surface simply does not work with the Bromoil process.  Foma Fomatone 133 has a semi-matt surface and (with the proper ink) works just fine.  This shows that there is a difference between semi-gloss and semi-matt, unlike the non-difference between partly cloudy and partly sunny.

Conclusion

I was hoping that this would be an additional possibility for use with the Bromoil process, but in my opinion this is just not the case.

Foma Fomatone 133 Classic VC FB Warmtone

Please read the About section for an explanation of my procedure and list of caveats.

Foma Fomabrom Variant IV 123 was my favorite Bromoil paper for quite some time but as we all know, pretty much everything has an expiration date, and so is the case with this paper.  Foma suggested Fomabrom 113 N (Normal grade, velvet, neutral tone) and Fomatone 133 Classic VC FB Warmtone (velvet, warm tone) as replacements for this paper.  I was not able to obtain the former, but did purchase a pack of the latter from Freestyle Photographic Supplies.

The paper bleached quickly and completely.

Click for larger image
Click for larger image

Following the first soak the paper inked without much trouble.  The expected lack of contrast led to a second soak. Inking the second time removed all of the ink as soon as my brush hit the paper, with the exception of the deepest shadow areas.  I worked with a soft brush in an attempt to bring back the midtones and highlights to no avail until the paper had nearly dried out the second time, after which the paper again started to take the ink.  I worked with a harder brush to try to clear some of the shadow areas with not the success I would have liked.  Actually, the result was awful.

Click for larger image
Click for larger image

For a second print I figured that I would not rely upon a second soak, as this had led to an inability to obtain the contrast I wanted, and decided to soak the print at 80F (27C) to swell the emulsion to a greater extent.  Working in this manner offers no safety net and while I did obtain a print, the inability to give it a second soak led to having to accept what had been completed without correction. As can be seen, the results were again equally awful.

My expectation at this point was that this paper was not going to work for me.  I decided to give things one more try but this time switch ink.  My thoughts were that if the ink was removed following the second soak then I would try a thin ink, which in my experience has annoyingly clung to the paper following the second soak to the extent that I have been unable to clear the highlights.  My hopes were that these two issues would offset one another.

Click for larger image
Click for larger image

I decided to use Senefelder 1796 ink, which is not nearly as stiff as the 1803 version.  I also again soaked the paper at 80F (27C).  As this ink is not as stiff it is very easy to use too much ink, so my application was minimal – actually, it was more like a test to see how little ink could be applied.  This appeared to work quite well.  The initial inking exhibited the expected low contrast and blocking of the highlights.  I resoaked the paper and used a sponge to clear the print while the print was still soaking.  The highlights went away, the midtones cleared, and the shadows stayed.  Actually, I had to work the sponge into the shadow areas to get to the detail that had been blocked out.

Reinking the paper allowed me to give some detail to the highlights and further clear and give contrast to the midtones.  I had to resoak and reink the paper several times but the results were images that worked for me.  The examples here are not completed prints, but examples of my work to this point.  To really get what I need from this paper the next step will be to decide exactly what contrast offset should be used.

Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Click for larger image

The advantage of using less stiff ink is that it opens the possibilities for mixing other colors, so I experimented with adding some Senefelder Raw Sienna 1923 into the black ink with acceptable results.

The scans on these two prints appear pink but the actual color is more brown.


Advantages

The paper is acceptable for Bromoil, though it appears to need a less stiff ink than many Bromoilists might have on hand.  The paper is readily available from Freestyle in three popular sizes.

The paper is multigrade, so pretty much any negative that can be printed can be handled by this paper.

This paper has a dual use as a warm tone paper (when toned with selenium).

Disadvantages

For one giving this paper a try, using Senefelder 1803 will almost certainly offer disappointing results .   For me, the less stiff ink results in less flexibility than the very stiff ink during the inking stage.  This can be compensated by adjusting the exposure/contrast of the print and perhaps increasing the temperature of the soak.

Conclusion

Although I was sad to see the production of Variant IV 123 paper come to an end, this is an interesting paper and one that fits a slot in the paper that is available.  With the proper ink this can be a very nice option.