Galaxy paper offered for direct positive processing

[plywood]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Gadfly_1971]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.