Galaxy paper, intro and a return to darkroom

[Duck]

First an intro as I am new to this forum. My name is Charles but everyone calls me 'Duck'. My first camera was a Pentax K1000 in the early 80's. I loved that thing and I used to get a sense of satisfaction developing my own film in my bathroom darkroom. Unfortunately I had no money to get into printing what I developed but the local lab handled that for me. Later I moved up to the Canon AE-1 Program that traveled with me through four years of naval duty in the Mediterranean and, later, through college. In 2004 I received my first digital camera. A Kodak 6MP point and shoot that I reluctantly began using as film started becoming more difficult and expensive to deal with. Before long I was hooked on digital photography and quickly traded the simple Kodak to a more familiar Canon 40D dSLR. In the past five years I have gotten more serious with my photography and am working on getting into commercial product photography and some event photography.

A couple years ago I purchased a used Cambo Legend 4x5 LF camera for $400. Since that purchase I have also acquired three beautiful lenses. I modified a lens board to accept my dSLR as a digital back, subsequently turning my Cambo into a pricey tilt shift lens. Laugh all you want, I love having LF movement available on my lowly dSLR.

Well, having a beautiful piece of equipment like the Cambo not being used for its intended purpose is a rather sad situation. I do miss the smell of darkroom chemistry but the reality is that I neither want the expense of a full darkroom nor do I have the time. A viable solution I saw was in Direct Positive paper. It's simple, easy and convenient. After much reading I settled on backing Galaxy Paper's Kickstarter for their "direct positive" paper at an unheard of 120 ISO. I've yet to open the pack.

In the meantime I have purchased some 4x5 film holders and am waiting on a processing tank I just ordered (per a recommendation from LFP member, Alan9940 from another thread) from Stearman Press.

Unfortunately there is very little information about Galaxy's new paper on this site, or on the net in general. For me, shooting photo paper through a LF camera is new territory but I look forward to returning to analog photography. I'm both excited and rather apprehensive so I would really appreciate any useful insider tips and tricks to keep in mind when I run my first set of papers through the camera.

Thanks in advance.

[Jockos]

I think the reason you don't see much about the paper is that it's not direct positive, but rather a reversal paper, which requires more expensive chemicals.

[Duck]

Interesting, considering some of the other alternative processes are either as equally expensive and/or more technically difficult. I would think that by now people would drop the "it's not direct positive" argument and realize it is a reversal process and move on. Personally I don't care what kind of process it is, I just like the idea of having paper that claims 120 ISO and I don't have to worry about negatives and printing. I've never worked with either DP or RP papers and, frankly, I would think the brand or process shouldn't matter when a brand new member comes looking for help.

As I mentioned, there is very little here about working with this particular paper and the few threads that do mention it is like a leper walking into a cocktail party. Am I missing something? Is there an inside joke? If so, I would love to be clued in so I don't waste time, money and effort on a product that won't do what, to my mind, think it will do.

Jockos, I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Thanks.

[jnantz]

Hi Duck:

nope, its no inside joke, its just a handful of people don't like the idea that they took the name from an old kodak process type
to use in the21'st century because ilford markets a direct positive paper( and maco ? ) that works with regular developer like standard b/w paper.
i can understand that, brand loyalty, don't want another player in the marketplace especially when they call it by the same name
( which has both the modern/ilford connotation and the older/kodak(now galaxy) connotation. ) oh well ...

i've poked around the web and it seems on flickr there are a bunch of people who are using it. while it won't increase the iso of all papers to 120
from what i understand, the chemistry can probably be used with other papers, so one won't have to fiddle around with sulfuric acid or permanganate/sodium sulfide/ite
and manually fogging the paper before development #2. i've sourced the chemicals for the permanganate method and it didn't really work out well for me.
i'm hoping when i get my act together and there have been more people reporting back about the galaxy reversal chemistry, and maybe make
fun things with liquid and home made emulsion and the new chemistry.

good luck with your happy experiments !

john

[DrTang]

because in their kickstarter - they said: easy peasy process

and I was like - ALRIGHT.. I'll get me an old paper processing machine, make a light tight box for it and go to town banging out instant prints in some storefront or event

and then I finally get my kickstarter package and the instructions look like my Chem 101 textbook

yeah..no thanks

so my paper pack is sitting unopened on my shelf

[Duck]

I have to agree that Galaxy's use of the term 'Direct Positive' is a bad choice based on the current definition of the term. While I can understand the historical connotation to the term, more careful considerations should have been given to the long term ramifications of its use. Whether by choice or by chance, the term did get me to take a serious look at their endeavors. This was close to the end of their Kickstarter campaign and, as has been mentioned ad nauseum, their site explained their decision to use the anachronistic definition, the true nature of the process and the fact that they were working with an established paper manufacturer to augment an existing product. Their goal, from the start, was to create a positive process paper that was faster than current papers on the market. While I was expecting ISO 13 - 16ish, I was amazed when they posted a possible whopping 120 ISO.

Seriously, I would have thought the analog community would have jumped at this with open arms rather than the backlash they received. I am simply amazed at the negative response but reading all the arguments, they seem rather petty. People seem more intent on negatively focusing on the use of an archaic definition than on the more positive accomplishments of a faster positive paper, reverse or otherwise.

Arguments aside (and I've read them so no need to continue here) I was just wondering if anyone here had any experience working with direct paper film in a camera and if they could share some useful tips.

P.S. The processing seems like a standard four step (plus washes in between) reversal process so it's no more complex than any other photographic process. It just adds another step. No chemistry book required. Again, am I missing something?

[jnantz]

hey duck

there is a video on youtube for their 120 paper i think it is also iso 120
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXZY6jNQxc
which just shows processing to be different from
what i always understood to be a reversal process. they said
they streamlined and tweaked it, it looks like they were right !
i was planning on using the paper and chemistry this winter after
i heard stories and saw images from people who have used it ...
from the random posts and flickr images and youtube uploads it looks
like it is pretty easy. the 4th step is the "toner" i wonder if that replaces the fixer?
or if you have to fix it after the toner+wash ...
in any case i hope you shoot some of it, and post your results here !

john

[Duck]

Hey John, I caught that video. I agree, it seems pretty straight forward and, yeah, it looks like they replaced the final flash/developer step with the toner. I have all the chemicals when I received the packet from the Kickstarter campaign. I ordered a Stearman developing tank which came in the mail today so I'm pretty excited. My safety light came in last week so I am pretty much all set, barring I forgot something.

As I mentioned, I am new to working with direct paper so I find myself second guessing every step I take. I hate experimenting like this. That's why I was hoping I could find someone with some experience on this site. Hopefully someone stumbles onto this thread before the weekend and offers up some sage advice. Every little bit helps.

I'll definitely let you know what's what with the paper as I stumble around. Thanks for reaching out to me.

[cjohnston]

DEKTOL, STOP , FIX , WASH, DRY, SCAN & INVERT ... TADA! ( I didn't think of this, a friend did )I just taught myself how to develop a week ago I think Im doing alright.
This is Galaxy Paper 156725

[ps: long time lurker. First post ! ]

[Duck]

...I just taught myself how to develop a week ago I think I'm doing alright...

That look great. What ISO did you set your exposure to? I've been reading some have gone as low as ISO 60, depending on light quality.
Did you do an exposure test prior? If so, what were you results?

I appreciate any feedback.

P.S. I love the fingerprints :D

[cjohnston]

Thanks!! Everyone loves the fingerprints, they were not intentional. I just went by ISO 120 Sun full sunlight. Metered Incidental light, I've seen people speed test it at 120 on Youtube
No test exposure. Basically you make a negative on paper. Scan it and Invert in photoshop.

PS: how to I make a signature with my posts ?:confused:

[Duck]

PS: how do I make a signature with my posts ?:confused:

Click on Settings at the top right corner of the website's header. This takes you to a page that allows you to adjust various forum settings. On the Left is a menu labeled My Settings. Look for and click on the link for Edit Signature (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/profile.php?do=editsignature). Add your signature and save the changes. That's it, you're done.

[Duck]

I loaded up 10 film holders with the Galaxy paper and took 5 of them out for some test shots. I haven't had the chance to develop them yet but will likely do so this weekend.

In other news... I just purchased a Graflex 4x5 on ebay. It should arrive on my door in about a week. I got lucky and found one in pristine condition with a bunch of extras and... get this... a lens cap. When was the last time you saw a Graflex with a lens cap. Original, to boot.

[Duck]

157052

My very first frame made on Galaxy Paper's Direct Positive paper. This was shot using a 127mm f/4.7 Kodak Ektar lens in a Graphic Supermatic shutter. This was metered with an hand held meter based on the manufacturer's recommendation of ISO 120. Shot at 1/125 @ f/5.6.

As you can see, it is very underexposed. Someone else mentioned they metered at ISO 60 with good results and I'll be taking serious consideration on that suggestion the next time. The smudge on the left (actually the right since the image is reversed) is probably my hand tripping the shutter. I don't have a shutter release for this camera and need to look into getting one.

All the other images taken that day had similar issues so I won't bore you with additional bad shots. That said, I had a blast getting back into analog photography this paper process in particular. I can't wait for my graflex to come in to do another run with this paper. At least now I have something to compare against to make my exposure calculations. I expect the next set to be better.

[cjohnston]

Nice !

[Duck]

It's been a busy week for me. My Graflex came in. Talk about a beautiful camera... When I tell you this thing is in pristine condition you'll likely have doubts, considering the age of these cameras. Whoever owned this one, though, definitely took excellent care of it. I'll have to post some photos of it.

In the meantime, here is a copy of the image the seller posted.
157236

A quick search on Graflex.org says this camera is circa 1953.

[Duck]

157883

A better result. Metered at ISO 64 (Weston light meter). I then took a photo of the photo with my Canon 6D so I could mirror it back to it's correct view (and add my branding). This is warmer toned than the actual image. Overall, the paper is rather contrasty under bright daylight. I'll have to see how it performs under cloudy skies.

[vdonovan]

157883

A better result. Metered at ISO 64 (Weston light meter). I then took a photo of the photo with my Canon 6D so I could mirror it back to it's correct view (and add my branding). This is warmer toned than the actual image. Overall, the paper is rather contrasty under bright daylight. I'll have to see how it performs under cloudy skies.

Great! It's so exciting when you try a new process and start getting images. How do you like the Stearman tank? I use mine a great deal for reversal processing of black and white negative film. I love how quick and easy the SP-445 is to use.

I'm curious if the Galaxy chemistry would work with *film* as well as paper, making black and white transparencies. If you'd be interested in trying it, PM me and I'll send you some film.

[Duck]

Great! It's so exciting when you try a new process and start getting images. How do you like the Stearman tank? I use mine a great deal for reversal processing of black and white negative film. I love how quick and easy the SP-445 is to use.
Very exciting. As I mentioned, it's been many years since doing any kind of darkroom work. As for the Stearman tank... I bought it in anticipation of developing the paper prints but I've yet to use it. I find it easier (and way cooler) to develop in trays. Eventually I do plan on getting into film, but not just yet.


I'm curious if the Galaxy chemistry would work with *film* as well as paper, making black and white transparencies. If you'd be interested in trying it, PM me and I'll send you some film.
As I understand it, Galaxy Paper is a silver gelatin coated paper whereby the reversal from negative to positive is done chemically. I don't think this processing would work for film. Either way, I am not fluent enough in photo chemistry to start experimenting just yet. Thanks for the offer though.