The Dye Transfer Process

[invisibleflash]

I should add another important distinction. With dye transfer, it is really difficult to control the highlights, but you can get luxurious shadow reproduction. With inkjet it's just the opposite - you can adjust the printing curves in advance, but the very nature of the blacks is muddy and discontinuous. Not every image works well on
every media. One just learns with whatever. I pretty much mastered Cibachrome, and it was certainly an idiosyncratic process in terms of color accuracy and contrast. And I hope to spend some more time with dye transfer once I retire, but am not under any illusions that I'll make more than a handful of classic keeper images. There are easier ways to do that.

Inkjet / computer PP is a gift from the gods when it comes to problem negs.

(NSFW)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi..._Teoli_Jr..JPG

Yes inkjet can = silver prints.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi..._Teoli_Jr..jpg

But the silver prints have a benefit when it comes to matte. They are much more durable. And silver BW is a practical process nowadays. DT's are not. The big benefit with inkjet is how you can mass produce museum quality work in no time. Something the wet darkroom cannot do.

Pigment inkjet does a pretty good job reproducing a DT.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...oli_Jr_LLR.jpg

Pigment inkjet is extremely fade resistant.

Don't expose your DT to light. They will sadly fade. Dark storage is fine. But inkjet still wins dark or light.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...eoli_Jr_mr.jpg

Inkjet is only surpassed possibly by Cibachrome and laser prints for fade resistance. But laser prints are not as nice as a inkjet when it comes to various paper surfaces. Cibachrome had that god awful gloss that showed every little scratch and dust spot on it. If they had made it in an air dried 'F' surface they may have had something. They would have also needed to improve on shadow detail. Ciba's were terrible with contrast and shadow. They did have gorgeous colors. But Ciba's are dead so it is moot.

Now, there may be some obscure alternative color wet tech that is as durable or more so than inkjet. I'm not into that end much. So I am speaking about the media I have worked with and fade tested.

DT will be favored by the photogs that like doing things the hard way. The ones that like wet plate and shooting a banquet cam. They are the opposite of camera fondlers...they are tech fondlers. They derive pride by saying look how hard I made it for myself.

I've been around DT's since the early 1970's. I love DT's, but their time has passed. Inkjet is the king for now.

[gth]

Look, so inkjet prints 60 years after the heyday of DTs and billions of dollars in development in software and printing technology and now on a good day it surpasses DT?

OF course. With obvious production benefits.

The fact is these old technologies were phenomenally advanced and I want to learn about them…. the long video I posted up top won't entice a lot of people to run out and get DT materials that is for sure…. So I think InkJet is safe from the DT trolls.

I just think it's fun and interesting.

Now if you have been slopping around in a darkroom for 30 years you might think differently I understand that and I appreciate all inputs

Back to the future….

Inkjet / computer PP is a gift from the gods when it comes to problem negs.

(NSFW)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi..._Teoli_Jr..JPG

Yes inkjet can = silver prints.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi..._Teoli_Jr..jpg

But the silver prints have a benefit when it comes to matte. They are much more durable. And silver BW is a practical process nowadays. DT's are not. The big benefit with inkjet is how you can mass produce museum quality work in no time. Something the wet darkroom cannot do.

Pigment inkjet does a pretty good job reproducing a DT.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...oli_Jr_LLR.jpg

Pigment inkjet is extremely fade resistant.

Don't expose your DT to light. They will sadly fade. Dark storage is fine. But inkjet still wins dark or light.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...eoli_Jr_mr.jpg

Inkjet is only surpassed possibly by Cibachrome and laser prints for fade resistance. But laser prints are not as nice as a inkjet when it comes to various paper surfaces. Cibachrome had that god awful gloss that showed every little scratch and dust spot on it. If they had made it in an air dried 'F' surface they may have had something. They would have also needed to improve on shadow detail. Ciba's were terrible with contrast and shadow. They did have gorgeous colors. But Ciba's are dead so it is moot.

Now, there may be some obscure alternative color wet tech that is as durable or more so than inkjet. I'm not into that end much. So I am speaking about the media I have worked with and fade tested.

DT will be favored by the photogs that like doing things the hard way. The ones that like wet plate and shooting a banquet cam. They are the opposite of camera fondlers...they are tech fondlers. They derive pride by saying look how hard I made it for myself.

I've been around DT's since the early 1970's. I love DT's, but their time has passed. Inkjet is the king for now.

[Oren Grad]

Ctein switched because he was running out of critical materials (he worked with the comparatively rare pan matrix process from color negs), and frankly, just because he wanted to do something different. When he showed me a whole series of parallel prints he had printed both ways, well yeah, 60% of them were about
equal; but then there were about 40% where the dye transfer version really stood out...

Here is what Ctein had to say about it:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...l-and-dye.html

[gth]

Digital negative separations processed and tweaked in PS and used to expose the DT matrices = best of both world?

Exciting times!

/gth

Here is what Ctein had to say about it:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...l-and-dye.html

[Bill_1856]

My best DTs were made from 3-color separation negatives made directly in the camera on Super XX film. There is no other way to have more honest reproduction. To start with color negatives (or even 4x5 Kodachrome in the old days) one is stuck with the particular characteristics and limited exposure range of the film originals (mostly uber-vibrant Fuji these days), or the palette of one's digital camera.

[gth]

My best DTs were made from 3-color separation negatives made directly in the camera on Super XX film. There is no other way to have more honest reproduction. To start with color negatives (or even 4x5 Kodachrome in the old days) one is stuck with the particular characteristics and limited exposure range of the film originals (mostly uber-vibrant Fuji these days), or the palette of one's digital camera.

What filters did you use?

Great method but you must be limited to very stationary scenes.

What about problems rocking the camera when you change film holder and filter?

You need a very solid camera tie down.

[Bill_1856]

What filters did you use?


Great method but you must be limited to very stationary scenes.

What about problems rocking the camera when you change film holder and filter?

You need a very solid camera tie down.

I have no idea what filters -- whatever was recommended by Eastman Kodak in their excellent little guide for making seps and masks.
If one uses filmpacks (remember them?) three exposures can be made in a matter of a few seconds. You might be interested in looking at the famous color images made in Russia around the turn of the century -- he used a camera with three filters which dropped in front of the lens snicker-snack.
It's not really necessary to keep the camera perfectly positioned, because when you print the matrices the negatives are aligned and then the ragged edges of the picture are cropped out.
It's really an outmoded system, which was never all that great to begin with.

[sanking]

Kodak recommended Wratten Filters No. 29 (Red), 61 (Green), and 47B (Blue) for making direct separations directly from still subjects.

Another set commonly used was 25 (Blue), 58 (Green) and 47 (Blue). This set allows a slightly wider bandwidth.

Some years ago there was a long thread on the LF forum on making three color separations in the camera. I remember contributing to the thread but don't remember the name and was not able to locate it in a search.

Sandy

[sanking]

Here is the thread on making in-camera color separations I was thinking about.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ight=tri-color

Sandy

[bob carnie]

My 3 colour separations are made directly from PS on 25 ISO ortho silver film.
I do not care what the original image is from , film or digital.

My best DTs were made from 3-color separation negatives made directly in the camera on Super XX film. There is no other way to have more honest reproduction. To start with color negatives (or even 4x5 Kodachrome in the old days) one is stuck with the particular characteristics and limited exposure range of the film originals (mostly uber-vibrant Fuji these days), or the palette of one's digital camera.