Same neg as last time - the one of St Thomas's Church in Rathlin Island. OK so I looked at the Ilford Warmtone lith print from a while back (the one that didn't work) and thought what can I do to bring this round? Since you need to 'heavily over-expose' the negative for lith developer I thought maybe I had erred too much on the side of caution last time, when I overexposed by 2 stops. So this time around I opened the lens up 4 stops and sure enough, that seemed to do the trick:
Not perfect, but there is something there so I was encouraged. Contrast is low, as you can see and there's a bit of a greenish tone to the whole thing, which isn't very attractive. If you compare it to the Foma 131 paper version (here) it just doesn't look great.
I then did probably what I should have done some time ago - I did a bit of research. I looked up Tim Rudman's book on Lith Printing and sure enough, under Ilford Warmtone he makes the following observations: "Lith effect more subdued and understated with less colourful results. Many possibilities on bleach and re-development".
OK so far so good. The bleach and re-development sounds great but I need to read up a bit more on that before doing anything. But saying as how this paper is supposed to reach well to toning, I soaked the print in water again and then sloshed it around in some selenium heated to about 30 degrees. The change was pretty noticeable:
As you can see the whole print looks a lot more alive - perhaps even more so than the first print on the Foma paper (although to make a fair comparison, I should really tone that print as well). Certainly the green cast has disappeared to be replaced by a much more pleasing warm tone, almost verging on a copper appearance, or "plummy-red" as Tim Rudman puts it. Anyway, I was pleased enough with the outcome.