Shootout...$1.50 Ink Jet Print vs $250 Eastman Kodak Dye Transfer Print

[Jim collum]

ok.. what does this:


quote from the article:
"Ego

There is one area where the DT may win over the IJ print. That area is ego massaging ability. The DT is hand made, in the fact that it takes lots of human skill and time to make each DT print. The IJ print had lots of human skill and time put into the machine that cranks out a IJ, but that time and skill is not valued now and lost. So a DT print, because of the human investment, carries a more desirable label with it, even though it may be lacking some of the higher utility benefits that IJ prints offer.

We can see this same 'ego effect' in play when we ask the question of why anyone would spend $12,000 for a Leica camera and lens and not get any better pictures than they would get with a $2,000 camera? Or why anyone would pay $6000 for a stainless steel Rolex watch that does not keep as good time as my $200 Citizen Eco drive watch? The reason...ego massaging. (And I've owned almost a dozen Rolex's myself, until I didn't need to wear my self-worth on my wrist any longer and sold them all off.) So, the one area where the DT print may win over the IJ is that of ego massaging ability.
"

have anything to do *anything*? The whole article (it's not really a test) felt mean-spirited, condescending, and felt that the author had a chip on his (her?... not sure exactly from the name) shoulder.


(off topic)
i did enjoy your images from the 70's.. have you been able to continue the social-documentary work started in the thread? i'm also curious about the copyright notice you had on them. If 'slackercruster' isn't your legal name (a presumption on my part, i apologize if it is), is the copyright notice actually meaningful?

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Sorry, but I have been laughing my ass off at the ridiculousness of this test!

Here he is making a copy of a dt print and comparing that with the original print!

I think the results speak for themselves, a properly stored dt print will last a hell of a lot longer than inkjet.
The Mae West portrait is a perfect example of this! I have yet to see an inkjet print that didn't fade within 5 years!

I will find it hard to forget all of my archival knowledge and fully except that an inkjet is better?
How about having him compare it to an AzoChrome?

[Drew Wiley]

Pretty strange remark there, Jim. ... Is it merely "ego" when one chooses an expensive
fiber silver paper for toning versus cheap quick RC paper, or when choosing to make Pt/Pd for example?? Sure, when DT was a standard commercial process plenty of mediocre prints
were made which were nonetheless quite expensive due to the labor involved. But given a
choice what to print to what, based upon personal rather than commercial standards, dye
transfer prints still can have a unique look. For one thing, inks are inherently rather opaque. With dye transfer one can customize the dyes to a certain extent to match the
intended character of the image. This is particularly noticable back when Technicolor chose
totally different dye sets matched to the specific studio color arrangements. Were THEY
doing it just for ego? Nothing in film to this day has equal vividness.

[Jay DeFehr]

Drew, I think Jim was quoting from the article.

[Jim collum]

Drew, I think Jim was quoting from the article.

yea.. sorry... i guess it wasn't clear unless you read the article

[Drew Wiley]

My apologies in that case ... I didn't read the OP's full article since I had previously understood what he was up to, and though apparently sincere in his efforts, doesn't seem
to realize the scope of any valid general comparison. He's not set up to do DT anyway.
A few years ago I had the opportunity to go thru some of Ctein's personal collection and
compare exactly the same images printed on both DT and Inkjet - his version of DT is actually on pan matrix film - somewhat different from typical DT from chromes. About 60%
of the time the two media were equal. DT favors rich shadow values, but highlights are
much easier to control via PS & ink. Then there was that other 40% of the time when the
DT version would simply stand out. I've personally got a shot or two made on both chrome
and color neg, which I hope to print on Fuji Supergloss, Ciba, and DT - and I expect all three versions will come out wonderfully, but each with a slightly different personality.

[mdm]

Only someone who has always lived with the hyperconnected internet world would bother with a test like this. Who cares what a print looks like on the screen except maybe your forum buddies. As soon as you digitise a print you come up against a whole host of colour mamagement/gamut issues. To compare colour with any sort of meaning would require lots of test patches to be printed and read with some sort of spectrophotometer, to compare resolution would require printing some resolution targets. Then there are plenty of qualitative factors that cant be objectivly compared. Try using your brain next time, Mr breathless internet sensation maker. Inkjets are not better, neither are dye transfers, they just are.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm afraid it's just getting to be that era ... the current standard seems to be how thi
look on the internet. Down the road a ways a gallery venue is currently showing
"historically relevant" images which they have actually downloaded from the web and turned into inkjets! ... I can't wait to get into the backcountry where things are still sane!

[Lynn Jones]

Since I have made dye transfers starting back in 1954 (and it is identical with Technicolor, just different formats and 15 or more defferent times in years). Ive been making ink jet prints since 1991 I can compare them. The very best ink jet print will be close to and fine dye transfer. DT is not terribly complicated, just very time consuming, and you had better be a darned good photo lab technician.

The big problem is that the materials for DT are not available. The dyes were toxic (dont drink them), the matrix films are not available, frankly, the b/w emulsions for separation negatives are not straight line and very difficult to use. Separation negative film has been gone for years as has been the very best film for this purpose, Super XX. However, DT prints are still the very best, I still have a couple of them that are from 45 to 60 or so years old.

Lynn

[Drew Wiley]

Lynn - superb separation negatives can be made using TMax films, probably better than
Super-XX. Masking can be done on modern sheet films, superior to old Pan Masking film.
Matrix film can be made on demand and has been several times in Europe. The dyes are
no more toxic than most other organic dyes (and that's why gloves are worn in the darkroom anyway). Mild acetic acid vapors are probably less noxious than RA4 fumes (it's
about the strength of ordinary stop bath). There are ways of avoiding tanning developers
and other nasties. But time consuming, yes, it's still that!