Gast
Hello forum members,
I recently bought a couple of boxes of Fomabrom baryta paper because I wanted to give baryta another go.
To be honest, I’m quite disappointed; my residual Agfa Brovira, manufactured sometime around 1975, has a lovely glossy surface, almost as if it had been rubbed with a piece of bacon rind.
In contrast, the Fomabrom has a rather dull surface, just like Orwo – actually even worse – with a sieve-like pattern (when held up to the light).
I suspect the gelatine layer is too thin. Is there anything better out there, or do we just have to make do with this rubbish these days?
Best regards,
Herbert
cfb_de
Hello Herbert,
Now, just as back then, you can get baryta paper in a wide variety of finishes: high-gloss, matt, or with a sort of ‘textured’ finish.
I really like using Fomatone MG in high-gloss and (I still have some residues of) Classic Arts Polywarmtone, also in high-gloss.
Depending on my preference, I dry the print against a cloth and then wax the surface (this prevents fingerprints very effectively and gives a sort of “natural sheen” similar to art prints), or I use the classic method of high-gloss drying against a polished sheet.
I find the latter *significantly* easier with my old stock of Agfa Lupex than with modern papers. In that respect, things have certainly changed with today’s papers. But they are certainly not rubbish. Not even Forte/Foma. On the contrary.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Hi Franz,
What you say is probably correct, but I meant that the glossy surface on Fomabrom doesn’t really shine; perhaps some people actually prefer it that way. Secondly, the paper texture shows through.
In contrast, Brovira has a lovely gloss, even without high-gloss drying; when you touch it, it really ‘sticks’ to your fingers.
You could have a look at your Lupex; you’ll probably notice that the surface is smoother.
I suspect that Foma doesn’t apply enough gelatin to the base. Do you happen to know how Agfa Multicontrast Classic performs? If it’s better, I’d be willing to settle for Multicontrast as a last resort.
Best regards,
Herbert
MirkoBoeddecker
Herbert,
Even though I can’t quite follow your reasoning, here’s a bit of theoretical background.
The paper surface depends on the base material.
Compared to the 1970s, the number of available base materials has fallen significantly and continues to decline steadily.
Nowadays, everyone uses the same base from the same factory. The surfaces are therefore almost identical.
ADOX Vario Classic has a thicker gelatin and silver layer because the machine runs more slowly.
This might be similar to your old Agfa. But as I said, I can’t really picture what you mean at the moment, so I’m finding it hard to offer advice.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Hello Herbert,
Although, as Mirko has already mentioned, the support materials have adapted and the market is shrinking, there are still plenty of papers out there that should suit one taste or another; after all, one thing is clear: the type of print is a matter of personal preference! There is no such thing as the best paper or the ‘right’ print. Therefore, the term ‘glossy’ is also a matter of interpretation and taste.
If you prefer high-gloss, slightly oily, bacon-render-like prints, then Agfa MCC/glossy is not the right paper for you! When air-dried, it has a “semi-gloss or, if you like, a velvety sheen”; when dried on a drying press with the glossy side facing the high-gloss film, however, it shines as if rubbed with a piece of bacon rind. The texture has a (very) slightly grainy character. In my opinion, although I now only occasionally process glossy papers and MCC among others, the MCC is a very beautiful and excellent paper. Your statement “... I would reluctantly settle for Multicontrast as well...” is certainly not fair to the paper, even if it isn’t ideal for your requirements, unless you have a high-gloss press.
Best regards
Lo van de Renne
Gast
Hello, Herbert!
I can’t quite relate to your experience with Fomabrom. I’ve only recently tried the material and can only praise it in terms of its surface finish, whether air-dried or high-gloss pressed. I’m also extremely impressed by the rich density. However, the Type N is simply too hard for my usual processing methods. In a two-bath process, it develops quite acceptably, but I still need to tinker a bit to achieve optimal results. The paper base doesn’t show through the emulsion anywhere – quite unlike, for example, the old Agfa Record-Rapid paper, where the paper grain regularly ruins the high gloss.
Best regards
Holger
Gast
Herbert, and everyone else,
I know roughly what you mean; the old Agfa, Ilford and Kodak paper has a smoother surface, a bit like a proper smooth-leather shoe. Foma and everything else I’ve seen more recently isn’t like that (no judgement intended), but more like nappa leather (no, I don’t work in the shoe industry!).
What strikes me is that this old paper – I’ve still got some residues of it (Ilford, mind you) – has a ‘chemical’ smell when you put it in water, so I’d guess it contains a strong cross-linking agent or something similar.
You could give it a go with a formalin bath.
But ultimately, whatever the case, we have what we have and not what we’d like to have—so be it.
Roland
Gast
Hello,
I’ve just been experimenting a bit: if you re-wet the paper (I just happened to have some old Kodak hardener to hand) and pull the cloth on the drying press tight, the whole thing comes out smooth and glossy.
Surely the manufacturers could do better than this, if I can manage it myself?
Roland
Gast
...but one more thing: the structure of the support was definitely finer back then; that’s probably the main reason.
cfb_de
Hello Roland,
Well then, I’ll go ahead and describe how I dry the PCB on the press.
- Cold press
- Gently peel off the protective film (a windscreen wiper is the cheapest solution; the Bosch Twin works a treat)
- Place the PCB on the press and rub it gently with the palm of your hand
- Switch on the press
- When the press is around 50–60°C: switch off, leave to cool
- Switch on the press
- If it now needs to be >60°C (the pain threshold for a hobbyist’s palm) and still smells ‘damp’: switch off, repeat the cycle. Otherwise, switch off and leave to cool.
- Remove the print from the press.
Have a go and ask the folks in the competition forum: Pillendreher, Klotz, Katrin or Hans-Ludwig. They saw something like this live from Fomatone this evening.
For high gloss, I use the famous film, wetting agent, plenty of 30% formalin and a different method. Unfortunately, describing this one is now prohibited, and 30% formalin isn’t readily available either – or rather, any professional chemist would have a heart attack at the very mention of it.
Well, anyway: basically, high-gloss finishes are easier to achieve with today’s thin papers. You ‘wetting-agent’ them right up to your personal – and freely adjustable – pain threshold, bathe them in a negligible, barely obtainable liquid, and then press them slowly and gently onto the absolutely grease-free high-gloss film.
Switch on the dry press when it no longer smells ‘damp’ (Caution: you’ll be inhaling that insignificant liquid in the process!), then switch it off. Open the press. Either the high-gloss print (speckled? Film wasn’t clean, print wasn’t grease-free, print wasn’t pressed on properly) falls off or sticks. If it sticks: temper again.
No luck? Put the film and print in water; by the next morning, the film and print will have separated and you can have another go. Achieving a high-gloss finish with today’s papers is actually a bit of a black art.
But simply drying those stupid new-fangled baryta papers flat against the cloth is easier than ever.
The best way to dry high-gloss prints is with my old Lupex: I roll it onto the bathroom mirror and the next day I retrieve dry, flat, high-gloss prints from the sink below. Unfortunately, thanks to EU environmental standards, this fantastic cadmium-contaminated paper with its indefinite shelf life is no longer available. And unfortunately, I only have some of the stuff left in 7x10.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Hello,
Moersch sells an affordable alum-based polish; I’ve achieved the best high-gloss
results with it.
Best regards, Stephan
Gast
Franz,
I can achieve a high gloss; I was just trying to describe a way of achieving a better natural sheen, as that was what Herbert was after back then, so I’m adding this, as my method involves placing the coated side against the cloth.
Herbert has already mentioned it, don’t you agree, as the old papers have a better natural sheen than today’s?
I believe that without post-treatment, the paper simply takes on the rougher paper texture of today and looks duller than, for example, the old Agfa materials.
Mirko is right about the Efke-based materials: they have a very good high gloss and natural sheen too, as the gelatine layer is thick, but I don’t find the surface as nice as, say, Foma; it does have a better sheen, but Foma has better texture (I’m only talking about glossy paper, not genuinely textured paper).
Roland
PS: I’ve been taking photographs since 1960, and I sometimes get a bit wistful when I compare the paper, or when today’s Efke films suddenly appear on clear material, whereas the ADOX films of yesteryear looked almost black when undeveloped from the back, like Plus-X, for example.
