Galaxy Paper

[Rael]

When I wrote to them about the developer, they sent me to this page for the recipe: http://dark-room.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=31

I have 25 sheets of 5x7 that I received last week. I had no idea when I backed the kickstarter that it was a dev/bleach/tone process -- and I don't think I'm up for cooking the recipe. They told me I could develop it with regular chemistry if I wanted a negative...but if I wanted a negative, I'd use film. Anyone interested in trying this stuff?

[DrTang]

I want them to come up with a way of processing in a 'machine processor'

so I can shoot / then process right on the spot and then staple the finished work up on the wall

if I have to do all that monkeysnot..I might as well shoot film

[Rael]

I want them to come up with a way of processing in a 'machine processor'

so I can shoot / then process right on the spot and then staple the finished work up on the wall

if I have to do all that monkeysnot..I might as well shoot film

The only thing interesting to me about it at the moment is that each shot is one of a kind.

[jamiehughes]

I am shooting this paper in my pinhole cameras and developing with the galaxy chemicals. not finding a whole lot of images posted with the galaxy paper. My images are coming out pretty dark and wondering if anyone has some development suggestions. I have not tried the reg - dev/stop/fix for a neg, only the dev/wash/bleach/wash/clear/wash/toner/wash that was suggested by galaxy

[jamiehughes]

[jamiehughes]

No 1 was done in a homemade pinhole coffee can. F208, metered at 120, exposure 4 minutes.

[jamiehughes]

this was done with the Ilford Obscura pinhole camera, F248, metered 120, exposure 4 minutes

[Oren Grad]

I've moved Jamie's posts from the Kickstarter thread to this one.

[jamiehughes]

very nice, thank you

[Gadfly_1971]

Jamie,

I haven't used the Galaxy stuff, but those images look an awful lot like underexposed examples I shot on a single weight direct positive paper a few years ago. I had to wrap my head around the fact that darker meant not enough exposure (which is backwards compared to what negative printing is like). Perhaps you haven't had a processing error and have under exposed instead?

Good luck,
Andrew