Galaxy paper offered for direct positive processing [Archive]

plywood

16-Jun-2015, 12:00

I would like to see a paper made expressly for paper negatives. The problem with DP paper is that the image is a mirror image, laterally reversed. I don't quite know why this bugs me so much but it does. I've thought of introducing a 45 degree first surface mirror into the light path to flip the image right way around for DP paper but that sounds like more design work. An extra fast paper with good tonal range and not too contrasty that could be handled under safelight would be sure be a killer product though. I'll watch this carefully, even if I have to build that handheld 45 degree mirror 4X5 box camera.

jnantz

16-Jun-2015, 17:51

hi plywood
i use coffee developer and expired paper, and never have problems with excessive contrast.
i've also gotten in the habit of not photographing with paper in excessively contrasty situations
overcast, even light i like not direct bright sun ... some use a yellow filter to cut the contrast ..
i've found expired paper works the best, it has built in contrast reduction.

ymmv

JoeV

17-Jun-2015, 08:40

This new Galaxy paper sounds very interesting. Graded contrasts, RC substrate for quick rinse and dry for street-style portraits (convenient for use with Instant Box Cameras) and speeds much faster than conventional papers. If it delivers all it promises, my Instant Box Camera project will see a major upgrade, as I could then create one-of-a-kind direct positives much quicker than the current method of re-photographing a paper negative.

I do also enjoy Harman DPP, but it's a slow emulsion, fixed high contrast grade and, being fiber paper, means it's not easily suited for street portraits, given the extended rinse and dry times required.

I could, however, see using both types of paper, for different purposes. HDPP is especially well-suited for portraits under controlled light in a studio+darkroom setting, whereas this Galaxy paper promises to perhaps even revive street portrait photography (using a camera + darkroom device like what I call my Instant Box Camera).

Exciting times ahead.

~Joe

plywood

27-Jun-2015, 07:42

Dear friends!
We would like to thank all of you for your support! That’s amazing what the internet can do uniting people from all over the world :)
Our Kickstarter campaign is getting approved at the moment (it may take about a week). And as soon as we get a green light we’ll launch it.

Speaking of the paper, its speed is definitely the highest one ever, about 280-320 paper ISO (corresponds to negative film ISO 32-64). This is not a direct positive paper, it’s a reversal process. But the chemicals are well known among photographers. However, we are planning to produce our own line of pre-mixed chemicals to make a lab work easier. We tweaked the process with intention to make it more user-friendly. Now you don’t need to flash expose the image second time and development is performed with the room-temperature solutions.

I'll be looking for your KS launch. I have a question. Will this paper also be able to be processed as a negative?
Another question. Will the 4X5 size fit directly into 4X5 film holders, or will it have to be trimmed slightly? I have found that standard 4X5 holders take paper that is about 3.9in. X 4.9in., It would be much easier not to have to trim 3/32 off of each side.

plywood

27-Jun-2015, 20:58

Hello, plywood! Yes, it is possible to use this paper as a negative. However, a very high speed will not work good with standard enlargers.
Also thank you so much for your input regarding the size. We really appreciate it because we want to make it as good as possible. We are gathering information to make it work for everyone. What camera do you use? And what kind of paper holder? Do you know if this is the case for all such cameras?

You are right, paper negatives are not practical with standard 'transmission' enlargers. Paper negatives are either contact printed emulsion to emulsion or enlarged with a 'reflection' enlarger. (Reflection enlargers are usually home made items) When I say standard 4X5 film holders I'm talking about brands such as Riteway and Fidelity (still available new) brand holders. They are plentiful and inexpensive on the used market. I have both brands and they both take the same film (or paper) size, that is, 3.9X4.9 inches or right at 99X125mm. There may be some exceptions but I would think that most 4X5 double dark slide film holders take the same size.

As to what camera I use, well there a many cameras taking these standard holders, too many to list. Many large format shooters build their own cameras, from simple pinhole box cameras to finely crafted creations.

As to 5X7 and 8X10 film holders, I have no experience with those larger sizes but I'm sure there are many on this forum that could advise you.

plywood

12-Jul-2015, 08:21

Hello Galaxy;
Any good word on your Kickstarter application? It's been a couple of weeks since you said it was submitted.

plywood

13-Jul-2015, 18:52

Hello, Plywood. We were waiting for some new photo/ chemicals tests to show unmatchable capabilities of our paper. Today we've got new pinhole photos with our paper. We are adding them on our social media pages.
So Kicksrater campaign is launching in a few days.

Thanks so much, looking forward to it.

plywood

21-Jul-2015, 08:53

Sorry to be so full of questions but....
How dim will a safe light have to be to handle this material?
Does it's sensitivity to light have a cutoff at a certain wavelength?
I see on your home page photos a S-11 style safelight bulb, if this is the correct bulb will you have it available or a link to a supplier it can be purchased from?

Waiting in anticipation.

Larry Kellogg

21-Jul-2015, 17:48

So, I also wonder if the 5x7 will fit directly into 5x7 holders. If so, I would be interested in trying it out. I guess the yellow safe lights are not safe for this paper, right?

plywood

22-Jul-2015, 02:32

So, I also wonder if the 5x7 will fit directly into 5x7 holders. If so, I would be interested in trying it out. I guess the yellow safe lights are not safe for this paper, right?

I'm going to use my "white LED battery powered light, taped up to shine through a brown beer bottle" safe light. I've found it safe for about 5 min. with most paper, even very sensitive Oriental Seagull grade 2 RC paper. That's aimed up to reflect off a white wall.

Larry Kellogg

22-Jul-2015, 05:27

I'm going to use my "white LED battery powered light, taped up to shine through a brown beer bottle" safe light. I've found it safe for about 5 min. with most paper, even very sensitive Oriental Seagull grade 2 RC paper. That's aimed up to reflect off a white wall.

Be sure to post a picture of your safe light!

So, the Thomas safe lights are not safe with this paper? I think I have an old Kodak red safelight but can't see much with it.

Roger Cole

22-Jul-2015, 17:20

What does the spectral response look like? I understand the use of a dim red safelight means it is not red sensitive but is it blue only, blue/green or a kind of ortho that only falls off at the red end?

Roger Cole

23-Jul-2015, 05:00

Thanks, that's good to know.

Larry Kellogg

23-Jul-2015, 06:24

Sorry, does this mean the paper will be safe under the Thomas safe lights?

Also, does a sheet of 5x7 fit into a standard 5x7 film holder?

Jerry Bodine

23-Jul-2015, 19:44

...does a sheet of 5x7 fit into a standard 5x7 film holder?

What is the paper thickness? Is it double weight or single weight? If it exceeds the thickness of sheet films it may not slide easily into a standard film holder. I recently queried Ilford for the dimensions and tolerances of their 5x7" film for one of my projects; here are the results (inches):
Thickness = .007
Length = 6.95 +/- .031
Width = 4.92 +/- .031
I did not inquire about the 13x18cm size (close to 5x7), as I don't use that metric format, but I do know that it is a bit larger than 5x7 in both length and width (as much as .125" wider), so it would need a different film holder than 5x7.

I assume Kodak films are very similar to Ilford's regarding dimensions.

Corran

23-Jul-2015, 20:15

Pledged for some 8x10 paper.

I have never used (nor been interested in) direct positive paper, but I figured it's worth a try, and the price is right. Might be interesting for some art shows/festivals I have booked for shooting instant portraits.

You certainly piqued my interest with the speed of the paper.

Jerry Bodine

23-Jul-2015, 22:32

...This is not a direct positive paper, it’s a reversal process....

FYI. I noted this comment in post #7 by the product's source (emphasis is mine). The thread title is thus misleading. Just thought it might matter to some folks.

Corran

23-Jul-2015, 22:34

Oh.

I don't see the chemical kit being included for the pledge price. I have no idea what the "reversal process" chemicals entail. If there's another bunch of chemicals to buy just to do this...hmm...

pdh

24-Jul-2015, 00:45

They are not doing themselves any favours by calling it a direct positive paper, it is simply (!) a very fast paper which they suggest will be optimised in some way for reversal processing. Calling it one thing and then back-tracking to explain what it really is - but continuing to call it by the misleading term - doesn't inspire confidence. Not in me anyway.

Processing paper as reversal requires the same steps as a film reversal:
1st developer
Bleach
Clearing bath
Fogging exposure (either as exposure to artificial light OR using a chemical fogging agent)
2nd developer
Fix (sometimes seen as optional)

(Rather simplified, usually one needs some washes between steps too)

They haven't disclosed the composition of their bleach , but normally, a silver bleach for reversal uses Sulfuric acid (or Sodium bisulfate) and either Potassium dichromate or Potassium permanganate. This is why they won't be shipping their own bleach mix overseas - too many hazmat issues. I'd be extremely surprised if they opt for dichromate as it is truly nasty stuff if mishandled and improperly disposed of.

As well as this, they've stated that no fogging exposure using light is needed, which suggests that they will be using a chemical fogging agent (similar to those used in E6), which means an extra bath step in the process and probably an additional wash step.

Some of the well-known fogging agents aren't very nice in terms of toxicity/environmental impact, but they haven't disclosed any more detail on this yet.

Oren Grad

24-Jul-2015, 06:04

I have edited the thread title to better reflect the character of the product.

gliderbee

24-Jul-2015, 06:37

It would be nice if there were also metric measurements: 4x5inch is not equal to 9x12cm, 5x7inch is not equal to 13x18cm, etc .. 18x24cm would also be nice.

Stefan.

Corran

24-Jul-2015, 10:44

Well, do you mind letting us know if the pledge will include the chemicals needed to develop the sheets? It doesn't seem like it will. I see you have chemicals as a separate pledge. You can only pledge for one thing.

Oren Grad

25-Jul-2015, 19:24

They are not doing themselves any favours by calling it a direct positive paper, it is simply (!) a very fast paper which they suggest will be optimised in some way for reversal processing. Calling it one thing and then back-tracking to explain what it really is - but continuing to call it by the misleading term - doesn't inspire confidence. Not in me anyway.

+1. The framing of the Kickstarter campaign is seriously misleading.

From their spiel:

Later, as we had a bunch of photographers on board, but no chemist, we found a production and research partner. By that time a lot of production moguls such as Kodak, Fuji, AGFA and Forte were gone. We had three choices among the remaining companies: Harmon Technology, ltd., Foma Bohemia, ltd., and Slavich, Co. At that time, and now again, Harmon had their own direct positive paper and we assumed that they wouldn't be eager to help create what could be seen as a competing product.

This is egregious. Ilford papers can be reversal-processed, too. Galaxy is competing with those. OTOH, Harman Direct Positive Paper - the genuine article - can be processed simply in standard paper developers, as part of a standard develop/stop/fix/wash processing sequence. Unlike the Galaxy paper.

gliderbee

26-Jul-2015, 02:57

Hi Stefan,
thank you so much for the input! What kind of holders do you use?

I use 4x5, 13x18, 18x24 and 8x10.

Stefan

Gadfly_1971

26-Jul-2015, 11:38

Capocheny

27-Jul-2015, 19:09

Hopefully, this will take off, succeed and provide LF shooters with another paper source!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/114183606/galaxy-hyper-speed-direct-positive-photo-paper

Cheers.

Oren Grad

27-Jul-2015, 19:23

Threads merged.

plywood

28-Jul-2015, 06:25

I really wish they'd stop referring to it as "Direct Positive" paper. It's not. To continue to call it that is disingenuous at best and an outright fabrication at worst.

I can't see backing this project unless they can be considerably more clear about what the paper is, and what is required for its use. Personally, I'd like to see this project yanked from Kickstarter until they can be more upfront about what it is they're making.

Unfortunately the way subscribers have slowed it appears they won't make their goal. Pity really, I'm in for 25 of the 8x10 and would really like to try this paper. I'm probably one of the very few who is only interested in the high speed aspect and intended to use regular developer to obtain a negative. Is there another 600 paper shooters in LF in the whole world?

Corran

28-Jul-2015, 07:23

I'm waiting on their "update" promised several days ago, regarding chemistry and such. That may make or break the KS.

Corran

7-Aug-2015, 13:26

No updates from them on chemicals and process, despite promises of an update. Personally I'm probably pulling my pledge as I just don't see the appeal if I've got to buy chemicals and go through a several-step reversal process. I'll just shoot film. Sorry guys.

pdh

7-Aug-2015, 13:47

Also, they can't spell "Harman" properly on their KS pages.

Which is deeply offensive to a Spelling Stalinist such as myself.

Pete Watkins

7-Aug-2015, 23:46

this morning I've received a PM from this outfit. I find it offensive that a group of people somewhere in California think that I would be stupid enough to give them my "hard earned". No names, no location no luck!
Pete.

pdh

8-Aug-2015, 01:22

Seriously, a forum pm soliciting money?

Oren Grad

8-Aug-2015, 07:45

Galaxy has been banned from the Forum.

Corran

8-Aug-2015, 08:19

Wow. Were they asking people to pledge? Or soliciting money straight-up?

I just cancelled my KS pledge. No thanks.

plywood

8-Aug-2015, 08:35

Galaxy has been banned from the Forum.

Oren, sorry to hear they were breaking forum rules. Still, I would like to see if they can pull off this and make a fast paper so I'm going to stick with my pledge. Their biggest technical/PR problem is they have not,to date, published the list of chemicals and steps for their reversal process. Still tinkering with it I guess but it's getting late in the campaign so they should have this nailed down. Doesn't matter to me, I'm just going to use this material as a negative anyway. I just want it for it's high speed.

plywood

11-Aug-2015, 06:08

Galaxy just posted an update for those interested. They say they will be posting the basics for the reversal process this Friday. They also speak to the issue of chemical kits.

One good think about these folks. Any time I've contacted them directly they have always responded with relative speed and directness. Not all KS campaigns are so.

Gadfly_1971

11-Aug-2015, 06:28

plywood

11-Aug-2015, 07:30

Only backers get to see this update. Have they back tracked on the "direct positive" spin they keep throwing around yet?

As I said, if you go to their website and contact them directly they will respond to your questions.
As to viewing the updates different KS campaigns must have different settings. I've always been able to follow the updates on the Intrepid 4X5 project but was never a backer. Perhaps if you register with Kickstarter, even if you don't back a project, a person could see updates for various campaigns. I'm really not sure of how it works.

Gadfly_1971

11-Aug-2015, 08:40

As I said, if you go to their website and contact them directly they will respond to your questions.
As to viewing the updates different KS campaigns must have different settings. I've always been able to follow the updates on the Intrepid 4X5 project but was never a backer. Perhaps if you register with Kickstarter, even if you don't back a project, a person could see updates for various campaigns. I'm really not sure of how it works.

I have actually messaged them directly and never received a response.

As to the visibility of the updates, that's due to something the project creators have set. I have visibility on the Intrepid as well, however the Galaxy Paper project gives me a "must be a backer to view this update" message. I've backed several projects so far and the settings vary depending on the project team.

Thing is, if they were clear from the start on what it is that they are attempting I'd be a lot more willing to give financial support. So far though, they've not been very clear (mostly, I think because they don't really know what they're doing) and attempts to attain some clarity have been met with either silence or obfuscation.

IanG

11-Aug-2015, 08:56

My misgiving is the paper is called "Direct Positive" when it's not at all, it's a Reversal processed paper which is an indirect way to get a Positive. As such there's a need for a reversal bath and a more complex processing sequence than Harman Direct Positive Paper.

Almost all B&W papers can be reversal processed, I first saw prints done this way from B&W transparencies around 1972/3 by a research student doing a PhD and the quality was amazing.

Ian

Corran

11-Aug-2015, 09:17

Almost all B&W papers can be reversal processed, I first saw prints done this way from B&W transparencies around 1972/3 by a research student doing a PhD and the quality was amazing.

How would this be any different from a b&w negative printed on standard negative paper, from a quality standpoint? Just curious.

IanG

11-Aug-2015, 09:44

How would this be any different from a b&w negative printed on standard negative paper, from a quality standpoint? Just curious.

A B&W transparency has a long tonal range and the reversal prints from them mirror this, however it's not a very practical way of working although the quality was very high, sharp, low grain, a lot more openness in the shadows and highlights. Back then there weren't RC papers and reversal processing Ilfobrom which was FB was time consuming as there's a lot of washing needed between steps, it's quicker with RC papers.

Ian

plywood

11-Aug-2015, 12:13

I have actually messaged them directly and never received a response.

That is odd, I've sent at least three e-mails to them and always received an answer within 2~4 days.

Apparently their original idea was to reproduce a special paper Kodak used to make that was formulated specifically for reversal processing. Kodak called it "direct positive" paper (although it was really not, at least in the same way the term is used today) and so they followed suit and used the same terminology.
They however want to make it with a higher speed and not so contrasty. They also wanted to accomplish the reversal without the re-exposure step used with the Kodak paper. I hope the campaign is successful, I want that speed and ability to handle it under dim safe-light. And it can be used in regular developer to make a negative which is how I intend to use it.

pdh

11-Aug-2015, 12:19

They also wanted to accomplish the reversal without the re-exposure step used with the Kodak paper.

But you can't make a reversal without something to fog the reversal image after the bleach step.

You can do it with exposure to light, or you can do it with a chemical bath, but you can't do without it.

plywood

11-Aug-2015, 13:35

But you can't make a reversal without something to fog the reversal image after the bleach step.

You can do it with exposure to light, or you can do it with a chemical bath, but you can't do without it.

Yes, they want to do it chemically. Don't know why but I think they may believe it is easier to control than exposure to light.

pdh

11-Aug-2015, 14:05

plywood

11-Aug-2015, 20:39

You don't need to "control" it.

The fogging stage only requires that the bleached paper (or film) be fully exposed, i.e. that all the unexposed halides are fogged.

All the control you exert on the image is in the initial (i.e. camera) exposure, and in the 1st developer and to a lesser extent the 2nd developer.
Ah, very enlightening. Although I looked up 'reversal processing' in a search I did not study the underlying principals that actually 'reverse' the image. This mainly because I have no interest in the reversal process since I have only intended to use the material as a negative.

IanG

11-Aug-2015, 23:50

You don't need to "control" it.

The fogging stage only requires that the bleached paper (or film) be fully exposed, i.e. that all the unexposed halides are fogged.

All the control you exert on the image is in the initial (i.e. camera) exposure, and in the 1st developer and to a lesser extent the 2nd developer.

If the re-exposure is to light you do need a degree of control.there's a minimum exposure requirement so you aim for a controlled over exposure to a tungsten or similar light source, exposure to sunlight or too strong a light source can partially reverse the image. This is why some processes use chemical reversal instead.

Ian

pdh

12-Aug-2015, 01:24

That's a useful clarification Ian, I had thought to mention the tungsten/sunlight issue and then thought it was overcomplicating my response.

But yes, it is better to present all the relevant information if it can be done clearly and straightforwardly in a thread like this. If nothing else it throws into relief the very partial and even misleading way that Galaxy are making their pitch.

plywood

13-Aug-2015, 15:14

Gadfly_1971

13-Aug-2015, 17:43

Despite my earlier misgivings it looks like they are going to make their goal. Tomorrow they have said they will have a update with a chemicals list. I hope that does not scare too many to cancel their pledge. However, best to do it now so folks will have some idea of what they are getting into and give them a chance to back out now if it sounds too complicated or toxic.

With all the talk about the rexposure to white light for reversing the image it sounds like a person could use that process with this paper if they wanted to. Would that process elemanate some of the toxic chemicals?

Personally I hope the project dies. At no point have they been clear about the process or the required chemistry - unless you're a backer. They continue to mis-represent the product. At first I thought it was a simple misunderstanding on their part, but now I firmly believe that they're doing it purposefully. Notice that the update with all the useful information is for backers only while stupid stuff about t-shirts is fully public. Plus they have yet to respond to my direct inquiries. Add to all of this the forum ban and I think it's clear that now they've been outed as being completely clueless and they're running silent to avoid having to answer questions that could kill the project for them. Too bad really. I hate to see any analog project fail, but this one in particular is miles of bad road.

plywood

13-Aug-2015, 18:50

I certainly want the effort to be successful. Well, we'll see after tomorrow's update about the chemicals how things play out. I'm in for $50, not a fortune, and in the past have wasted as much money on Foma DP paper that turned out to have contrast that I at least, could not tame. That, and I discovered I didn't like mirror images anyway. I backed the ever coming, never arriving (so far) TravelWide too, so I know patience. Tell you what though, perhaps I be just a rube, but these guys have always responded to my e-mails. That is miles ahead of my attempted communication with Wanderlust cameras. I think Ben is great for sticking to the project, but he is sure not the great communicator.

pdh

13-Aug-2015, 23:23

t. I'm in for $50, not a fortune, and in the past have wasted as much money on Foma DP paper that turned out to have contrast that I at least, could not tame. That, and I discovered I didn't like mirror images anyway. .

You're still going to get mirror images with galaxy paper.

Though I suppose if youwant to use it only as a negative and are only interested in the speed it is purpose to offer, that won't matter.

But then again, in that case comparisons with truly dp paper such as Harman's isn.u to the point.

I didn't know foma had made a dp paper, not recently I guess? I have some very old efke dp in a box somewhere.

plywood

14-Aug-2015, 05:39

You're still going to get mirror images with galaxy paper.

Though I suppose if youwant to use it only as a negative and are only interested in the speed it is purpose to offer, that won't matter.

Exactly. I will use it only as a negative. That bypasses the toxic chemical problem, just use regular developer. I would much rather have a negative and either make contact prints or scan and invert. I would use galaxy paper only for the negative. For the contact print I already have a large supply of regular photo paper.

With a DP paper one could I suppose use a camera with a 45 degree first surface mirror to flip the image. Remember the Polaroid SX 70 instant film? That formed an image viewed from the front and so had to have a mirror in the light path to give you a correct image left to right. Instant films that are exposed through the back of the film don't need the mirror.

One more thing. Why do you want the project to die? It's no skin off your nose either way. Let the backers deal with it, however it turns out. If you are incensed with them because you feel they are misrepresenting their product then surely you have done your duty by warning others on this forum. In the end each person will make his or her own decision regarding backing it or not.

pdh

14-Aug-2015, 06:05

One more thing. Why do you want the project to die? It's no skin off your nose either way. Let the backers deal with it, however it turns out. If you are incensed with them because you feel they are misrepresenting their product then surely you have done your duty by warning others on this forum. In the end each person will make his or her own decision regarding backing it or not.

I haven't said that I want it to die: You perhaps have me confused with another poster, perhaps Gadfly_1971?

But I do think that it's a badly and misleadingly presented project, in which the lack of concrete information - and what seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of the people running the project about the technicalities of the product they are trying to produce - let alone their incapacity to behave on a public forum in a way that does not lead the forum moderators to ban them, all combine to undermine confidence in the project and those involved in it.

I suspect it is naivety on their part rather than malice, but nevertheless if you're going to ask people to give you money, it's as well to do your research before and not after starting, to be transparent about what you're doing and accurate in your public statements.

None of the latter three things seem to be the case with Galaxy.

Now, a very fast paper, that can be used as a negative for LF, with at least some contrast advantage over regular enlarging paper or Harman DP, and one produced regularly or continuously at a low price, offering a real alternative to LF film ... that would be a very interesting project indeed!

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely to me that what I've described and what Galaxy are likely to deliver (on current performance) will coincide.

Despite all that, I do hope it works out for them, and for all their backers.

But if it ends in tears I shall not be in the least surprised.

plywood

14-Aug-2015, 08:26

My apologies pdh, it was Gadfly who said he hoped it would fail.
Yes, I do agree there seems to be a certain lack of depth of knowledge on the part of the creators of this KS project. I'm certainly not in a position to educate them as I have only a vague notion of all the factors involved.

Gadfly_1971

14-Aug-2015, 08:34

plywood

14-Aug-2015, 09:09

I think that this project sends the wrong message to the community and will result in a lot of distrust in the crowd-sourcing model that so many of these analog friendly projects are relying on. I wish them no ill will, but I do feel that they have not been forthright and that does no one any favors.

Seeing as how they've mislead (intentionally or not) everyone I don't feel that a large majority of the backers have been able to make an informed choice. Misleading the backers is fraud and should be dealt with by the community and Kickstarter.

Crowd-sourcing is always a risk. It seems almost all of them are behind schedule or the finished product does not measure up. I believe the reason is because most are run by enthusiastic amatures. I have backed two, the TravelWide 90 and this. For the relative little amount of money I'm willing to take the risk. I also believe you and others have sufficiently sounded a warning, at least to all forum members who may be considering backing the project. After dispensing that duty the decision lies with each person. As for ruining trust in Kickstarter, well I think that has already happened, many times over by high profile projects that went nowhere.

Now, only time will tell if this crazy idea is going to work.

plywood

17-Aug-2015, 17:52

Galaxy met their funding goal with two weeks to go. My guess is that they will wind up with 33~35K total with KS getting 10%. So, over the next year, we'll see if this is just a foolish venture. Since all KS projects seem to be 6 to 12 months late I'll not be expecting any rewards until next summer. By that time, if all goes well, I'll have practiced a good bit over the winter shooting paper hand held with the TW90.

DrJackson

18-Aug-2015, 13:47

You folks should have a look at the Slavitch website, http://www.slavich.com/photo-bw-reversal

Slavich seems to be the one and only that offers a high speed paper that can be reversed to positive, Galaxy found a fine partner there for this project, perhaps Galaxy's version which is made by Slavitch will be a more refined and tweaked version of Minutka. which is offered for use in photo booths.

You can also see directions on how to process Minutka in Slavich's recommended chemical process for reversal processing.

This is pretty good!! Try buying some Minutka, looks like nice stuff but can you use a 100 foot or longer roll? Galaxy will have their version in more practical package sizes being a lot more affordable and hopefully a much simpler chemical kit or process.

How Does That Grab Ya???

pdh

18-Aug-2015, 13:57

hopefully a much simpler chemical kit or process.

How Does That Grab Ya???

It doesn't grab me in any particular way, tbh.

"A much simpler chemical kit or process" ... well, you need a certain set of processes and a certain set of chemical steps to acheive a reversal, and they are outlined in this post in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?123102-Galaxy-paper-offered-for-direct-positive-processing&p=1262951&viewfull=1#post1262951

How ever clever Galaxy are (and the evidence thus far appears to be, "not very") they are going to be hard pushed to change the necessary steps to make a reversal. They might use very slightly different chemicals in some of the steps to the tried and tested methods, but they can't reduce the number of steps.

IanG

19-Aug-2015, 03:54

Personally I think the process will be this papers downfall. The beauty of the Harman Direct Positive film is the simplicity of the processing which means it's being sold to schools and colleges around the world with the Harman Pinhole cameras, as well as in the general photographic market. The new Galaxy paper may have the advantage of a much higher emulsion speed but the complexity of the processing is a huge disadvantage, I have made B&W Reversal prints in the past and worked on B&W Reversal processing for a London lab a few years ago.

There's also the other disadvantage of shooting reversal prints in a camera the lateral reversal (mirror image), this limits the potential uses and along with the more complex process is likely to tip people in favour of shooting on film and possibly contact printing their negatives.

Ian

plywood

19-Aug-2015, 06:31

The beauty of the Harman Direct Positive film is the simplicity of the processing which means it's being sold to schools and colleges around the world with the Harman Pinhole cameras, as well as in the general photographic market.
Ian

How can this be. They are always out of the stuff. B&H Photo here in the US list 6 sizes of Harman DP paper, all back ordered and ship time 'not available'. The Harman pinhole cameras no longer contain the DP paper in the box. Perhaps it is different in Europe and the UK, I am not familiar with the suppliers there. As to the lateral reversed image. That bothers me so much that I only shoot paper as a negative and then scan and invert or contact print. I will welcome this papers speed and of course, processing as a negative is no more complex than any other paper. Galaxy needs to bring out that point more. I will use my precious and limited supply of galaxy's paper only in camera and contact print onto my very ample supply of regular photo paper.

Re: The lateral reversed image, a possibility. I have been thinking about a 4X5 box camera with a focusing lens that has a first surface mirror set at 45% in the light path to flip the image. Polaroid, who exposed their SX70 film on the front had to have such an arrangement in their cameras. Just an idea.

IanG

19-Aug-2015, 08:44

How can this be. They are always out of the stuff. B&H Photo here in the US list 6 sizes of Harman DP paper, all back ordered and ship time 'not available'. The Harman pinhole cameras no longer contain the DP paper in the box. Perhaps it is different in Europe and the UK, I am not familiar with the suppliers there. As to the lateral reversed image. That bothers me so much that I only shoot paper as a negative and then scan and invert or contact print. I will welcome this papers speed and of course, processing as a negative is no more complex than any other paper. Galaxy needs to bring out that point more. I will use my precious and limited supply of galaxy's paper only in camera and contact print onto my very ample supply of regular photo paper.

Re: The lateral reversed image, a possibility. I have been thinking about a 4X5 box camera with a focusing lens that has a first surface mirror set at 45% in the light path to flip the image. Polaroid, who exposed their SX70 film on the front had to have such an arrangement in their cameras. Just an idea.

The Harman Direct Positive paper went out of production when Ilford Imaging in Switzeterland wend into liquidation last year, this was the former Tellko factory bought by Ciba Geigy which made Cibachrome/Ilfochrome, their B&W direct reversal emulsion was a spin-off product and supplied to Harman/Ilford in the UK a separate company.

Harman/Ilford in the UK now have the rights to make this emulsion for them selves and the newest batch of paper has been coated etc and will be back in stock in the US very shortly (this month), it takes some time to ship to the US.

Yes your right a front silvered mirror would be ideal to correct the lateral reversal, actually I nearly bought 2 a few months ago part of a pair of De Vere copy setups that came with 2 5x4 backs, next time I saw them the mirrors had gone and I bought just the backs.

As the Galaxy paper is RC it would be very quick and easy to process as a negative, wash, dry and contact print, much more practical.

Ian

Jerry Bodine

19-Aug-2015, 10:58

...They are always out of the stuff. B&H Photo here in the US list 6 sizes of Harman DP paper, all back ordered and ship time 'not available'. The Harman pinhole cameras no longer contain the DP paper in the box. Perhaps it is different in Europe and the UK, I am not familiar with the suppliers there...

From the Ilford website, regarding availability of their paper:

3rd June 2015
Availability update.
Stock is expected to be available in the UK from early July, mainland Europe mid July, and in North America and the rest of the world from mid August.

Be patient.

plywood

1-Dec-2015, 19:17

Wow, from the update it looks like they might ship rewards on time. After the Travelwide delay I thought that late shipping was just common on Kickstarter projects.

MAubrey

1-Dec-2015, 21:38

I'm using the new Harman DPP. I missed the original Galaxy paper kickerstarter, but I've heard from them that new orders will be possible early next year.

Definitely excited.

ImSoNegative

6-Dec-2015, 07:21

I thought that This kickstarter went bust. Should have followed closer

plywood

2-Jan-2016, 09:41

Latest update from the creators on 12/30/15 is that they have started shipping out the rewards. This must be some sort of record for a KS campaign. The only other KS project I backed was very late. (That said they finally came through and didn't go bust like some campaigns.)

JoeV

2-Jan-2016, 13:10

They haven't provided any updates at all on the project on their website (http://galaxy-paper.com/). And I'm not certain where or how I'd go about purchasing some, given that I didn't get in on the initial KS campaign. Are they only communicating via email to their KS backers? Not a very communicative way to market a new product.

~Joe

DrTang

4-Jan-2016, 09:25

I got an email that they are about to ship

what I can't find..anywhere.. is how one is to process this stuff

what chemicals are needed, developing directions, etc

which makes me nervous that it will entail some convoluted process with smelly chemicals that are highly temperature sensitive -

making the whole process too much of a pain in the ass to attempt

Corran

4-Jan-2016, 09:34

MAubrey

4-Jan-2016, 12:29

plywood

4-Jan-2016, 15:12

Someone detailed the process in this thread some time ago, or at least what it's likely to be since it's not really "direct positive" paper at all.

That's why I cancelled my pledge, and the fact that they still haven't really clarified says to me they're about to have a lot of dissatisfied KS backers...

Yeah, a lot of folks got quite indignant that the creators were not crystal clear that this was not a DP paper that would turn out as a positive in regular print developer but that you would have to use a special reversal process to obtain a positive print. Their argument was that Kodak's "direct positive" paper of the 1950's and 60's was actually the same idea, special reversal processing. For myself, the main interest was the speed of the paper as I intend to process as a negative and then go from there. I don't like the mirror reversed images obtained with DP paper. Hopefully, for those who who want to, there will be instructions included for what steps to take to process as a positive.
I backed the 25 pack of 8X10 that I can cut up into 100 4X5 sheets. My main concern is that the safelight requirements will be so stringent that I will find myself working in almost total darkness negating one of the advantages of working with paper, that you can work under safelight. The other is that finally, if the paper is available as a retail item, it will not be any less expensive than film, which is the other reason I like to shoot paper in large format.

plywood

5-Jan-2016, 12:27

Just checked the comments from the last update. They said that there would be complete instructions included with all rewards including developing instructions and safelight requirements. I'll be watching my mail and report my personal findings when the material arrives. Only time will tell how this finally works out in practice.

pdh

5-Jan-2016, 12:56

Yeah, a lot of folks got quite indignant that the creators were not crystal clear that this was not a DP paper that would turn out as a positive in regular print developer but that you would have to use a special reversal process to obtain a positive print. .

Couple of points to make.

First, use of the word "indignant" could be inferred as suggesting that the objectors (and I was - remain - one) were nitpicking rather than simply correctly pointing out that, Second, the persistent use of the phrase "direct positive paper" was grossly misleading, as the paper is nothing of the sort.

I wish you luck with your Galaxy paper, and hope it works out for you, but the fact remains that this KS was promoted inaccurately and misleadingly: Witness the number of people in both this thread and a similar one at APUG who were angry and disappointed when the facts were made clear - not by Galaxy, but by forum members.

plywood

6-Jan-2016, 06:27

Couple of points to make.

First, use of the word "indignant" could be inferred as suggesting that the objectors (and I was - remain - one) were nitpicking rather than simply correctly pointing out that, Second, the persistent use of the phrase "direct positive paper" was grossly misleading, as the paper is nothing of the sort.

I wish you luck with your Galaxy paper, and hope it works out for you, but the fact remains that this KS was promoted inaccurately and misleadingly: Witness the number of people in both this thread and a similar one at APUG who were angry and disappointed when the facts were made clear - not by Galaxy, but by forum members.

Ah, debates about ones use of words. But the truth is if I wanted to say folks were 'nitpicking' I would have used that word. And, it so happens I agree with you that the creators of this campaign should have included a paragraph carefully explaining the difference between Ilford's DP paper and the paper they envisioned. I of course, was quite thrilled when I confirmed with the creators that this paper could be used, with regular paper developers, as a negative. I had often wished that Ilford would make a special high speed, low contrast paper specifically designed to be used in camera as a negative. Only time will tell if this paper fills that need.

David Aimone

5-Feb-2016, 10:07

Paper arrived today, with basic development instructions, all at 20C/68F. What wasn't included was any specific information on chemicals, what to use or where to buy them. So I guess the paper will sit in my cabinet for a while.

It's a basic develop, bleach and tone process.... but with exactly what, not sure. And you need a dark red safe light (Wratten filter #29 or better). Amber not sufficient.

I got an email that they are about to ship

what I can't find..anywhere.. is how one is to process this stuff

what chemicals are needed, developing directions, etc

which makes me nervous that it will entail some convoluted process with smelly chemicals that are highly temperature sensitive -

making the whole process too much of a pain in the ass to attempt

adelorenzo

5-Feb-2016, 12:02

Someone posted an image made with this paper on Reddit a few days ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/comments/43rl20/german_collection_speed_graphic_127mm_f47_galaxy/

DrTang

8-Feb-2016, 10:53

Got mine on Friday

checked out the developing instructions

whelp... it's gonna sit

I wish there was an electric processor available..like the ones for RC or Stab paper - then I could set it all up in a gallery say..shoot /process/staple to wall....all in 10 minutes

now that would rule..if it's gonna take this much trouble to develop...I might as well shoot film

Paper arrived today, with basic development instructions, all at 20C/68F. What wasn't included was any specific information on chemicals, what to use or where to buy them. So I guess the paper will sit in my cabinet for a while.

It's a basic develop, bleach and tone process.... but with exactly what, not sure. And you need a dark red safe light (Wratten filter #29 or better). Amber not sufficient.