Its pretty common knowledge that inkjet and photoshop combined can mimic any process. In some cases 90% of the viewers will be fooled all the time.
But- I was at the Contact Photo Festival and in one of the main exhibits were some Dye Transfer Prints.. I immediately saw them as Dye Transfer Prints, and did not think for a second they were inkjets.
So this begs the question, how did I know they were DT prints???
The subtle quality is hard to describe with words so I won't even begin to try .
slackercruster's tests should provoke intellectual curiosity, not open warfare. His samples did indeed have an appearance that suggested the era of their production. This may have been due to the way the photographers and printers tailored their work to conform to the standards of the time as well as qualities inherent in dye transfer. Let's leep an open mind and wait for all the facts.
Well, if it is in the wrong spot, then a mod can move it.Originally Posted by ROL
Whe the heads up? Just excited with the prelim results. Comon practice, not just me. How many times do you see a thread open with 1 pix and then the OP adds some more pix.
Well that is somthing...out of 3 forums your the only open minded reply I recieved!
Report should be done in a few days...hoping!
And thanks for the open minded reply!
If you ever really want to know...soak a piece of the DT in water. Within a few hours the dye will run out. But that report is in my test results as well. Cured inkjet is VERY water proof. Uncured inkjet is poor.
I did get my hands on an inkjet print made with a pro quality machine, paper and inks. Very impressive print. I will include it in my report.
OK Jim...and make sure you avoid my dye stability tests as well. (They are non Ctein approved.)
From what I recall, this forum limits the # of photos one can post in a thread. So i may have to post the link to a more open forum. We will see at the time if it is accepted.
Take care guys, I've got stuff to do for the next few days so may not be able to answer any replies.
SC
But thats my point , I knew right away they were DT prints rather than Inkjets, they just looked right.
I fully stand by my comments. Calm down. I wouldn't have even come by your post if it hadn't been posted in DARKROOM.
Not sure why some see slackercruster's results unusual? The lack of permanence of Kodak dye transfer prints exposed to light is a well known fact. It does not surprise me at all that some color inkjet prints might be more stable than dye transfer prints.
However, given the fact that very few people today are making dye transfer prints I am curious as to the motivation for the test comparisons?
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
To Quote:
"The beauty of dye transfer was a fresh set of color prints could be rolled off at any time from archival processed matrix separations. But the inherent permanency of the dyes Kodak used seldom made this necessary. In its heyday, dye transfer prints were the only color print a museum would accept in their collection. But since its demise, Type C, Cibachromes and Ink Jet prints are what museums are collecting now.
From PentaxForums.com: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/d...#ixzz1zy9u4dl4
"I'll leave you with some samples of dye transfer prints from the late 1940's and early 1950's that were just scanned. They have been stored in normal conditions with contact to acid containing boards. No signs of fading I can see. Prints were made by Dean Child and a company he owned called 'U.S Color Print' in Portland OR."
From PentaxForums.com: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/d...#ixzz1zy9TF1TZ
Did he say that?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks