Film from Digital Prints: Comparing Ilford MGFB Classic and Fomatone MG Classic Warmtone

I have been experimenting with Fomatone MG Classic Warmtone paper recently. I have found it has a pleasing look when developed in ECO 4812 which is not a warmtone developer. It maintains a warmer tone that can verge on green in some light. I do not like green toned prints and have remained confused as to why this is considered a warmtone.  However this paper has grown on me. Along the way I have tried some toning, and this can clean up any residual green tone if it becomes too bothersome. The paper tones well in sepia toner if more brown tone is desired. 

As part of this process, I decided to investigate the same print on Ilford MGFB Classic which is a neutral to cold tone paper. This is my usual paper which when developed with Eco 4812 developer has a nice neutral tone. This paper does not tone well in sepia. A very small amount of sepia takes the colder 'edge' off the print, but further toning gives a cloying pinkish tone. As an aside Ilford MG ART 300 paper gives a much nicer range of tones under sepia toning. 

The first thing to note about the Ilford paper is that it is much faster. I exposed the Fomatone at f8 for the same paper size (12" x 9.5") while the first stab at Ilford I adjusted to f32 and even then, it was quite a bit darker for the same filter timings (4-5 stops). The Fomatone paper achieves the warm tone with the addition of silver chloride which makes a much slower emulsion. Modern paper emulsions moved to silver bromide to make the paper faster. 

Next, I noticed the cooler tone as expected. I also sense a slightly higher contrast. This is confirmed in the comparison of the transfer functions of the filters in each paper's datasheet. Below is a side-by-side comparison of the two papers. 

Ilford MGFB Classic f32 #5 22 sec #00 8 sec (left)
Fomatone MG Warmtone f8 #5 45 sec #5 burn top 9 sec #00 4 sec (right)

This represents the difference in tone between the two papers. 

The first print that was overexposed but it revealed an interesting take on the image. The 'go too far' mantra of David Kachel rings again in my head.  And so, I must follow this direction. At the same time, I made a couple of more exposures to get down to something like the print I made with the Fomatone paper. 

Scan050_stitch f32 #5 45 sec #00 8 sec

I liked this darker version above for a few reasons. The lake surface has more detail. The mountains don't suffer in terms of the distinction of layers of light becoming diminished. The only downside is the upper part of the dark cloud dominates in terms its dark tone and makes the image top-heavy and there is no detail there to hold interest. 

Scan048_stitch Ilford f32 #5 32 sec #5 6 sec burn bottom #00 8 sec

This was an attempt to lighten the first dark exposure a little by reducing the hard filter exposure and burning the area below the clouds.

Scan044_stitch Ilford f32 #5 32 sec #00 8 sec

 The next version strips 1/2 stop off the hard filter exposure. This gets closer to the Fomatone version. 

 

Scan046_stitch Ilford f32 #5 22 sec #00 8 sec

Finally, this last print above reduces the hard filter by another 1/2 stop and finally achieves something very close to the Fomatone print. 

Now I wish to synthesize all of this into a different vision of the print. I like the cloud in this last version and the rest of the image from the much darker version. So, the next print is to expose the whole print at #5 22 seconds and #00 8 seconds. Then burn the sky above the mountains a full stop at 22 seconds.

Scan057_stitchf32 #5 22 sec #5 22 sec burn lower part #00 8 sec

Scan055_stitchf32 #5 19 sec #5 19 sec burn lower part #00 8 sec

ECO 4812 versus Universal PQ Developers

As an aside I decided to develop identical prints in each developer. In the past Universal PQ has delivered a warmer tone. (Which is part of why I abandoned it.) Two identical prints would allow me to assess the tone differences. I set about making identical exposures. 

I was surprised to find the PQ developed version of the print had substantially darker shadows than the print developed by the ECO developer. This puzzled me and I at first assumed there was some difference between the exposures of the prints. I then made the same two identical prints again and developed one in PQ again only to find the same result. 

Next then I assumed perhaps the ECO developer is expired and taking longer to get the shadows darker. The other print I developed in ECO for 6 minutes a doubling of the developing time. This did not change the differences in the shadows with the PQ developer. 

Now I decided to throw out the ECO developer and mix a fresh batch. I made another identical print and developed it in the fresh ECO developer. The same result. 

Finally further inspection caused me to realize that the max blacks were the same and the Universal PQ was having difficulty separating shadows in the deepest shadows. This cause me to appreciate ECO 4812 even more. 

PQ-ECO Developer Comparison (PQ left ECO right)

Below I give a crop that illustrates the small shadow detail that is compressed in the PQ developed image. These images I ended up lightening more as I made my way to the final print.