Archival stability of dye-transfer prints

[slackercruster]

I came across this old thread after doing researching on the web as to the legacy of the fabled dye transfer print in our digital age.

I thought I'd add my 2 cents to this old thread to at least memorialize a tidbit of more information about this subject. It is all being lost as the old timers die off.

In the 1970's I worked for a short time with Bob Pace at Graphic Process Co in Hollywood CA. Bob was one of the top dye transfer men in the country. When he worked as Pace Color Labs in N.Y. he rolled out transfers for the top photographers of that time including Irving Penn and Yousuf Karsh. Bob was very generous with his time helping me out.

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. But if you wanted ultimate fade ability at that time, the prize went to ciba.

I remember Graphic Process having a display of giant cibachromes in the front window. Direct CA sunlight was blasting away at them all day. The cibachromes developed a craquelure to the base emulsion...but the colors never faded. They were really something when it came to fade resistance.

The bad thing about the ciba was the plastic look of the base material. Maybe they changed that, I have not kept up with it. They also left a lot to be desired in the area of print control that masking offered with the dye transfers. In the end, cibachromes could not compare to dye transfers when it came to making a beautiful, traditional print.

Here are some dye transfers from the late 1940's and early 1950's I just scanned today. They have been stored in normal conditions with contact to acid containing boards. No signs of fading I can see. Prints were either made by Dean Child or by a company he owned called U.S Color Print in Portland OR.

[Sevo]

The bad thing about the ciba was the plastic look of the base material. Maybe they changed that,

No. They were proud of that all plastics base and considered it one of their sales points...

But at least up to the late eighties they still had a paper based material (not fibre based, more like PE) - cheaper and less well regarded, unsuitable for their small volume amateur process, and at least by the time I became aware of it, only available in a high contrast version suitable for direct colour photocopies.

[Drew Wiley]

Dye transfer dyes are dependent upon an acidic mordant, so you would not want them in
contact with an alkaline buffered board. Permanence is a very complex subject with these
prints because there were many different possible combinations of dyes as well as all kinds
of storage variables over the years. Generally they didn't do too well in sunlight or other
UV sources. Ciba is a completely different subject - superb dark stability, good display
permanence under ordinary tungsten or indirect sunlight, but rather poor UV tolerance in direct sunlight or under hot commercial halogens. I have stockpiles of both media, though my Ciba supplies will run out first. What I need now is to retire so I have some time to
print!
run out.

[slackercruster]

Dye transfer dyes are dependent upon an acidic mordant, so you would not want them in
contact with an alkaline buffered board. Permanence is a very complex subject with these
prints because there were many different possible combinations of dyes as well as all kinds
of storage variables over the years. Generally they didn't do too well in sunlight or other
UV sources. Ciba is a completely different subject - superb dark stability, good display
permanence under ordinary tungsten or indirect sunlight, but rather poor UV tolerance in direct sunlight or under hot commercial halogens. I have stockpiles of both media, though my Ciba supplies will run out first. What I need now is to retire so I have some time to
print!
run out.

The transfer scans I sent in do show yellowing somwhat on the backs of the prints. But that is about it. They were hole punched and interlaced in a notebook with carboard between them. I removed them from the binder and the boards.

Maybe someday I'll get around to making a inkjet print from the dye transfer scans and comapre it in a fade test in sunlight. I have a few transfers that are not that great with the subject matter, might use those. Will probably tape them up inside my window. They would both run if water hits them.

[slackercruster]

Dye transfer dyes are dependent upon an acidic mordant, so you would not want them in
contact with an alkaline buffered board. Permanence is a very complex subject with these
prints because there were many different possible combinations of dyes as well as all kinds
of storage variables over the years. Generally they didn't do too well in sunlight or other
UV sources. Ciba is a completely different subject - superb dark stability, good display
permanence under ordinary tungsten or indirect sunlight, but rather poor UV tolerance in direct sunlight or under hot commercial halogens. I have stockpiles of both media, though my Ciba supplies will run out first. What I need now is to retire so I have some time to
print!
run out.

The transfer scans I sent in do show yellowing somwhat on the backs of the prints. But that is about it. They were hole punched and interlaced in a notebook with carboard between them. Looks like they were stored that way since 1955 or longer. I removed the prints from the binder and the boards.

Maybe someday I'll get around to making a inkjet print from the dye transfer scans and comapre it in a fade test in sunlight. I have a few transfers that are not that great with the subject matter, might use those. They would both run if water hits them, so will do it inside the house taped inside my window.

[Drew Wiley]

No dye transfer or early dye-destruction prints (proto-Cibachrome) would even exist if
the one-shoe-fits-all Wilhelm accelerated-aging formula were consistently factual. But
beautiful prints over 75 years old exist in both categories. With inkjet it's too soon to tell.
There's simply no substitute for time. I can make a Cibachrome fade out in a week if I wanted to, or show you Ciba prints which have been on display for thirty years and look brand new. There are just so many variables. And now you've got dramatically improved
C-prints like Crystal Archive which allegedly have good display permanence but will eventually yellow from residual couplers before the fading kicks in. And even color carbon
or carbon prints can fail. Not all pigments are really permanent by any means, and sometimes the sandwich of various layers is prone to blistering. Only the marketing monkeys and sleezy tourist gallery owners make blanket statement about permanence.

[slackercruster]

No dye transfer or early dye-destruction prints (proto-Cibachrome) would even exist if
the one-shoe-fits-all Wilhelm accelerated-aging formula were consistently factual. But
beautiful prints over 75 years old exist in both categories. With inkjet it's too soon to tell.
There's simply no substitute for time. I can make a Cibachrome fade out in a week if I wanted to, or show you Ciba prints which have been on display for thirty years and look brand new. There are just so many variables. And now you've got dramatically improved
C-prints like Crystal Archive which allegedly have good display permanence but will eventually yellow from residual couplers before the fading kicks in. And even color carbon
or carbon prints can fail. Not all pigments are really permanent by any means, and sometimes the sandwich of various layers is prone to blistering. Only the marketing monkeys and sleezy tourist gallery owners make blanket statement about permanence.

Back in the 70's I tested Type C vs Agfacolor prints for fading. While the Agfa produced beautiful prints, it faded much quicker than Type C.

I will get hold of a 5 ink jet printer hopefully late June and do some fading tests with the transfers I have that I don't like. Do you think aluminum foil would be a good sun blocker on half of the prints to show before and after fading? I may buy a type C print as well or whatever the printer uses that is not inkjet. Don't know how much longer we have to get chemical developed prints.

[Drew Wiley]

Type C prints and RA4 processing are not in any danger of disappearing. The market is still
huge. Cibachrome mfg has recently shut down. Dye Transfer would ironically be one of the
easiest processes to revive because all you'd need to remanufacture is the matrix film (its
been done several times already - but you need money!). Dyes are readily available. Window light tests only tell you about permanence in window light; but yes, you could use
alum foil. The problem with inkjet prints in general is that there are so many possible combinations of paper and ink. You could probably solicit samples from forum members.
And inkjets probably will hold up better for awhile in UV exposure. But the whole flaw in
accelerated aging tests is that not all lumens are equal. Cooking some dyes in the window
is not the same thing as long-term exposure to lower levels of light.

[slackercruster]

Type C prints and RA4 processing are not in any danger of disappearing. The market is still
huge. Cibachrome mfg has recently shut down. Dye Transfer would ironically be one of the
easiest processes to revive because all you'd need to remanufacture is the matrix film (its
been done several times already - but you need money!). Dyes are readily available. Window light tests only tell you about permanence in window light; but yes, you could use
alum foil. The problem with inkjet prints in general is that there are so many possible combinations of paper and ink. You could probably solicit samples from forum members.
And inkjets probably will hold up better for awhile in UV exposure. But the whole flaw in
accelerated aging tests is that not all lumens are equal. Cooking some dyes in the window
is not the same thing as long-term exposure to lower levels of light.

Yes, but this type of testing gives one a good idea. I wont be doing tons of tests, just a few.

I disagree with Type C. There used to be many labs doing Type C...all gone. At least in my local. Sure you can get some crappy machine wet processed prints, but nothing high grade custom. Look how dye transfer was lost. Some day it will be like that for many other things we count on as permanent availability.

Sunlight is an excellent aging method. If it wont fade in sunlight over the long term, it most likely wont fade in the dark over an extended period of time. If it fades quickly in sunlight, good chances it will do so in the dark as well. That formula held up with my limited testing with Agfacolor from 30 years ago. But I can say I wont put my money in something that fades in two weeks of sunlight thinking it will hold up over the long term.

Now, who can say how things will turn out hundreds of years down the line. But we have to give it a shot at testing.

[Drew Wiley]

There are four major manufacturers of type C paper right now. Some of it like Crystal
Archive is probably a lot more light stable than either dye transfer or Ciba. You need to
realize that nearly all digital printing other than inkjet is being done on RA4 papers. It is
a lot more cost effective than inket once the scan is made, particular for serial quantities.
Lightjet, Lambda, and Chromira printers all use this kind of paper. Huge rolls of it are still being made. And the very same papers can generally be used in traditional enlargers. It is also made on polyester base to resemble Cibachrome. It's hardly dying at all in terms of either availability or quality. In fact, C-printing is just really coming of age now that both the quality and
permanence issues have been largely resolved. But nothing looks like a dye transfer print
except another dye transfer print!