Galaxy Hyperspeed Direct Positive Paper?

[Andre Noble]

Anybody try this stuff yet?

 

[pdeeh]

There's a couple of long threads on this product, here and at LFPF

I think jnanian's got some?

It's NOT a "Direct Positive" paper in the way that Harman Direct Positive is - i.e. it won't produce a positive image from normal development. You need to use a reversal processing sequence on it to get a positive.

 

[Ian Grant]

Mirko from Fotoimpex/Adox posted here about how German lawyers looked for labeling that didn't accurately describe a product, he mentioned why Adox sheet film is marked with the exact size in cm rather than the nominal inch sizes.

Galaxy Direct Positive paper is deliberately or ore likely misguidedly labelled, no company has ever called a reversal process film "Direct Positive" before, it has a negative stage which is the first development.

If it really was a direct positive material of approx 125 ISO it would sell well and we'd be seeing many people praising it, instead we hear almost nothing.

Ian

 

[removed account4]

hey andre

yeah, you opened a can of worms

i haven' t used it but i read it works well.
i have an aversion to dichromate bleach and sulfuric acid &c and i think they use
something like to post develop-bleach the paper ...
if i couild hack the chemistry with a couple cups of coffee, i'd be all over it
so for the time being, i live my direct positive life vicariously through the exposures of others.

if you use the paper please post your results, i'd love read / see how it worked out.

btw - if you go to galaxy's website they detail the process ( always have ) as a chemical reversal process
that from what i read eastman kodak refered to as a direct postive process ... ( it was around before ilford called their paper a direct positive paper )
back in the day, itinerant street photographers used a similar process to chemically reverse their exposures.
like a lot of things, they were proprietary developers and papers.
im in the minority i guess, i have no problem with what they call their paper
and and i can understand why others are cranky about it.

for what it's worth, i could easily be all bent out of shape that a bunch of people ripped-off the expression "hybrid photography" from me... but i'm not.
i called something i was doing hybrid photography back in the 1980s long before people merged analog with digital and called it hybridized.
personally, i think the current use of the expression hybrid photography is misleading,
no one is printing translucent trash found in the rubbish bin !

have fun !
john

 

[pdeeh]

i haven' t used it but i read it works well.

I thought you'd got some just to try as paper negative john?

 

[removed account4]

without their chemistry it is regular old rc paper, not hyper speedy paper ...

 

[Ian Grant]

without their chemistry it is regular old rc paper, not hyper speedy paper ...

It must still be a high speed RC paper because reversal processing isn't a speed enhancing process. I still have some Kodak Direct Positive duplicating films and that uses conventional B&W development, there's no Reversal stage, it was the same with the Kodak Direct Positive Graphic Arts films I used in the 70s & 80s.

Ian