David Muench moves from LF to MFT (?)

[Drew Wiley]

dyetransfer.org

[dsim]

Thank you.

[ric_kb]

... can you post a link to the Dye Transfer Forum please? I'm interested in learning about the process.

direct to the list here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/dyetransfer/

[dsim]

Thank you Richard. There's a wealth of information posted at the forum. Hopefully I can find a gallery in Los Angeles with a few of these prints for closer inspection.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for the correction. I've been meaning to find out how they look, but don't know of any galleries having any such prints here.

Ctein had a deal a while back (don't remember how long) where you could buy one of his dye transfer prints for $100 or two for something like $150. I don't know if he still offers that deal or not but you could contact him and ask (or maybe someone here knows). If you really want to see such a print $100 isn't too bad and as a bonus you'd have a presumably nice photograph to hang if you wanted to.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Ctein chooses his words very carefully. He's never claimed that inkjet today is uniformly superior to dye in any absolute or objective sense, or that "finer prints are available though digital techniques than were ever possible with Dyes." What he's saying in that TOP post - and what he's said when I've discussed this with him - is that the two media have different strengths and weaknesses, and that a particular picture might be better served by one or the other. He's adopted inkjet as a tool in his kit because it offers many practical advantages and its strengths often serve his work well.

It's true that processes often improve over time, and there's no telling where inkjet will be in five or ten years. If inkjet advances to the point where it overcomes its remaining limitations relative to dye, I expect Ctein will be front and center in saying so. He's completely unsentimental about his materials and methods, and will happily change them if he concludes that new approaches will serve him better.

I did not intend to re-interpret what he has written. Merely to point to it to show that processes and opinions change over time. Ctein shows flexibility and careful consideration of his choices - though I'm not so sure about the choice of name - which should be a model for anyone voicing an authoritative opinion.

This was more in response to the comment that it is all downhill after Kodachrome sheet film stopped being available than anything else.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - DT prints have all kinds of looks. Since Ctein tries to faithfully render what he
peceives as the "natural" look of color neg film, the palatte is going to be quite different from those made from transparencies films. To me, color neg films don't look
natural in the first place, but DT does allow a cleaner rendition of the wider-latitude
films than C-paper. DT is a highly variable process depending upon individual technique.
I am personally tinkering with a modernization of the wash-off relief process, which
technically preceded dye transfer, but is similar in many other respects. Also in many
cases, pan matrix film gives a different look than pan film - at least that's the opinion
of myself and certain others. But I'm really fiddling with the process for fun and a challenge, and have taken certain shots specifically for this medium. I don't know if
any of the really big dye prints made of Muench's work or of Jay Maisal's have survived. They only take so much sunlight. I think the Museum of Western Expansion,
or something named like that, once did a hanging of Muench's images of the Missouri
River and so forth. Maybe someone knows. These are the kinds of prints best kept in
a portfolio box in dry cool conditions.