Archival stability of dye-transfer prints

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, I'm interested in knowing about the archival stability of dye-transfer prints. People say that dye-transfer is one of the most archival processes, but I have also heard that it is quite a fugitive process, and that it has been confused with pigment transfer (which is in fact extremely archival).

Does anyone have some hard information about this subject (test results, info fromWilhelm, etc.)?

Thank you in advance for any thoughts,

~cj

[brian reed]

Hey Chris,

There may be some useful info on Ctein's web site about die transfer. He is the guru of die transfer. www.ctein.com

BR

[Oren Grad]

To oversimplify a bit, the test results Wilhelm reported in his big book showed Kodak Dye Transfer materials to have dark storage stability equivalent to that of pigment-based processes within the limits of his test, but far inferior to the pigment-based processes, and not even really superior to Cibachrome, for light-fading stability. You can download the book for free from his website now.

Of course, Kodak dye transfer materials are now gone, save perhaps for Ctein's freezer, and all bets are off with respect to any alternatives now on the market.

[Bruce Watson]

Dye transfer, when done right, is quite impressive. I know where there's an Eliot Porter dye transfer print made about 40 years ago. It's been hanging in a guy's living room for many years (no direct sun but plenty of light). This print is, well, stunningly beautiful still. No sign of deterioration. No fading. No color shift. And it's not like it's in a temperature and humidity controlled environment.

I'll be very impressed if you can get a dye transfer done in the print sizes you seem to favor ;-)

I'm a little suspicious of this Ctein guy - he seems very proud of himself. But, there are others. I've seen some of Charles Cramer's dye transfers and I think he was a master of dye transfer on the level of Porter. Dye transfer was his printing method of choice for many years, until he had difficulty obtaining the materials. Cramer might well talk to you about it.

[Tom Westbrook]

Ctein cites Henry Wilhelm's (of Wilhelm Imaging Research fame) 700+ page book ca. 1993 The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures (http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html). It's available free on-line, apparently, at the above link. Looks worth perusing. Hopefully there's an index!

[tim atherton]

Wilhelms book is THE standard text on (the permanence and care of) colour materials for museums, archives and conservators etc

[Oren Grad]

I'm a little suspicious of this Ctein guy - he seems very proud of himself.

Bruce, don't let that relatively minor bit of promotional puffery on Ctein's home page put you off. Some years back I had the opportunity to visit with Ctein and look at his dye portfolio. The prints he showed me did indeed reflect a very high level of technical command of a difficult medium, and on a personal level he was a gracious, friendly and unpretentious host. Whether his pictures are to your taste esthetically is of course up to you, but there's nothing that anyone needs to be "suspicious" of.

[Robert C. McColloch]

I have a "Wash Off Relief" three-color dye tranfer print that is still in excellent conditon (no fading, color rendering stable) that was made in 1936.

[jnantz]

my uncle has some dye transfers that he did 40-50 years ago that are just as vivid and beautiful as the day he did them. they are hanging on the wall of his house ( central massachusetts) in very un-museum-like conditions.

[julian_4860]

Martin Parr is now having some of his exhibition prints done by a guy in Cornwall - can't remember his name - who has a process for dye transfer from digital files...

[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.

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/img024jpeglr.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/img026-2-jpeglr.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/img028-2-Cjpeglr.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/img031-jpeglr.jpg

[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!

[slackercruster]

Have you done any tests with them? Ciba are very tough to beat for fading.
Do you have custom labs in your area that will produce custom C prints?

[Drew Wiley]

I have my own facility for printing up to 30X40 C-prints, but am trying to decide whether to add a 50" processor. I have been making high-end Cibas since the product first came out, so am extremely familiar with it. Dye transfer is intended more as a retirement hobby,
since it's so time intensive. There is one major local lab still doing custom C-prints the
traditional enlarger manner, but several others using the expensive digital printers. I prefer
the more seamless look of straight optical printing, but the advantage of the big digital
printers is that they can take files from color negs, transparencies, or direct digital capture. Crystal Archive is has much better light resistance than Ciba, or better display life, but will eventually discolor (tend to yellow), so is inferior in terms of dark storage life.

[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.

This is the issue. Yes it can be done, but it wont be done because of economics. The only way it could be revived is by $$ underwriting it and forgetting the profit motive. For instance, I have had many pairs of custom skis built. They are not economical to have built at all, but I don't care about the $$, so I do as I please. If i was just about the $$, I would never have them built.

That would be the only way dye transfer may be revived, but on a much larger scale than custom skis...forget about the $$ and just do it by someone that loves the process and has tons of $$.

BUT even if so, who would make the prints even if the materials were revived??

All the knowledge is going...going...gone soon. I was go great dye man myself. I could slap something together, but it was poor compared to the master printers. It will be 20 years soon since its demise and lots of talk about bringing it back...but nothing. I'm not holding my breath anyway. If we look at the trends, all wet film and print processes are headed downhill and eventually out. I may be wrong, but that is what I see as the trend.

[Sal Santamaura]

Have you done any tests with them?...Here's the best documented testing you're likely to find:


http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_758_Pages_HiRes_v1a.pdf

[Drew Wiley]

Sal, everyone appreciates Wilhelm's pioneering tests and his attempt to get things on an
objective playing field, but at the moment, the Aardenburg system addresses some of the
shortfalls in Wilhelm's methodology, particularly regarding the variability of inkjet ingredients.

[Drew Wiley]

Dye transfer has already been sucessfully revived, at least until the latest round of supplies dries up. But commercially it is indeed extinct - too expensive and laborious.
A few individuals will still make custom dye transfer prints. Three large batches of matrice
film have been run in Europe since Kodak dropped the process, and gallery prints are still
being made. I have a freezer full of sheets from one of those Euro runs. More film could easily be produced if the demand is sufficient. A bigger problem is the rapidly escalating cost of sheet film itself needed forcolor separations, masks, etc., although separations can also be made on image-setters, or matrice exposures can be made directly with blue laser devices. Go over to the Dye Transfer Forum to visit what is currently being done, along with a lot of contentious discussion about methodology; for DT is a process particularly amenable to hybrid technique.

[slackercruster]

I have my own facility for printing up to 30X40 C-prints, but am trying to decide whether to add a 50" processor. I have been making high-end Cibas since the product first came out, so am extremely familiar with it. Dye transfer is intended more as a retirement hobby,
since it's so time intensive. There is one major local lab still doing custom C-prints the
traditional enlarger manner, but several others using the expensive digital printers. I prefer
the more seamless look of straight optical printing, but the advantage of the big digital
printers is that they can take files from color negs, transparencies, or direct digital capture. Crystal Archive is has much better light resistance than Ciba, or better display life, but will eventually discolor (tend to yellow), so is inferior in terms of dark storage life.

With my own work I gave up the wet darkroom ages ago. Just digitial now. But I'm just a hobbiest. Are you heading to inkjet at all or sticking with the wet end for your biz?

[slackercruster]

Dye transfer has already been sucessfully revived, at least until the latest round of supplies dries up. But commercially it is indeed extinct - too expensive and laborious.
A few individuals will still make custom dye transfer prints. Three large batches of matrice
film have been run in Europe since Kodak dropped the process, and gallery prints are still
being made. I have a freezer full of sheets from one of those Euro runs. More film could easily be produced if the demand is sufficient. A bigger problem is the rapidly escalating cost of sheet film itself needed forcolor separations, masks, etc., although separations can also be made on image-setters, or matrice exposures can be made directly with blue laser devices. Go over to the Dye Transfer Forum to visit what is currently being done, along with a lot of contentious discussion about methodology; for DT is a process particularly amenable to hybrid technique.

Well that is good to know. What about the dyes and tanning dev and the rest. Are these readily available or are they home / lab made?

[slackercruster]

I looked for the DT forum here, can't find it. Where is it?

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, everyone appreciates Wilhelm's pioneering tests and his attempt to get things on an
objective playing field, but at the moment, the Aardenburg system addresses some of the
shortfalls in Wilhelm's methodology, particularly regarding the variability of inkjet ingredients.I posted the link since it seemed the question was mainly dye transfer versus silver-dye-bleach versus chromogenic. No applicability to inkjet express or implied. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Just Google it. The Dye Tranfer Forum is run by Jim Browning, who has a lot to do with the
successful revival of the key materials. He also holds patents on the Chromira. Kodak dyes
weren't unique - they were just high purity versions of common dyes. Tanning developer
is easily made, but I personally prefer a technique more similar to old wash-off relief. What
I have done is modernize separation negative technique, but all darkroom. I get enough of
damn computers here in the office!

[slackercruster]

If you guys want me to do a fade test, will any of you send me a sample of a cibachrome, a high grade type C, Fujicolor Crystal Archive and some high grade inkjet print sample prints to add to the dye transfer fade test?

I will expose them in my window to the sun for 6 months and see what happens. I'm willing to use one of my 8 x 10 dye transfers and a commercial inkjet print from a 5 color Canon. And I can get a cheap C print. That is all I can contribute.

Note: all my dye transfers I'm willing to test are from the late 40's to early 50's. I do have a few transfers I made in the 70's. But they are not for testing. So if any of you want to add a modern transfer to the test to compare dye stabilty to an older transfer, send me one.

I will post the results with scans of the test images when I'm done back to this thread. Half of each image will be exposed to the sun and half covered with alum foil. 8 x 10 would be a good print size, down to a 5 x 7 as a minimum, unless you got something rare to test. They don't have to be great prints, just good enough to test the dyes.

PM me if you got something to contribute to the test.

[slackercruster]

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.



Well they can be proud of it all they want. The proof shows a cibachrome looks like hell after it gets handled some. It reminds me of a new shiny black car . Looks great the first day out of the showroom...and it is all downhill from there.

The black car, as well as the super shiny ciba, shows all defects, scratches, fingerprints, dust. Color wise the ciba is very good. And fade resistance it is excellent. But the shiny surface ruined it. If it was type F semi-gloss surface they would have had a winner.

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/ciba3.jpg

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/ciba4.jpg

[slackercruster]

I have my own facility for printing up to 30X40 C-prints, but am trying to decide whether to add a 50" processor. I have been making high-end Cibas since the product first came out, so am extremely familiar with it. Dye transfer is intended more as a retirement hobby,
since it's so time intensive. There is one major local lab still doing custom C-prints the
traditional enlarger manner, but several others using the expensive digital printers. I prefer
the more seamless look of straight optical printing, but the advantage of the big digital
printers is that they can take files from color negs, transparencies, or direct digital capture. Crystal Archive is has much better light resistance than Ciba, or better display life, but will eventually discolor (tend to yellow), so is inferior in terms of dark storage life.


Think about going injet. Inkjet is our future. When all cylinders are firing an inkjet is the dye transfer of the digital age. From prelim tests it is outstanding with fade resistance. And the colors are xlnt. Even the cheap 5 color injet printers produce xlnt work.

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/img045jpeglr.jpg


...4 x 5 print made from a cheap $75 inkjet printer form Walmart

[slackercruster]

I'm a little suspicious of this Ctein guy - he seems very proud of himself.

Bruce, don't let that relatively minor bit of promotional puffery on Ctein's home page put you off. Some years back I had the opportunity to visit with Ctein and look at his dye portfolio. The prints he showed me did indeed reflect a very high level of technical command of a difficult medium, and on a personal level he was a gracious, friendly and unpretentious host. Whether his pictures are to your taste esthetically is of course up to you, but there's nothing that anyone needs to be "suspicious" of.

Bob Pace used to say a dye man's ability could be judged with skin tones. When looking at a printers work, see how the skin tones look. Are they peachy and natural or are they off. TBS, nowadays most dye printers print landscapes or close up of plants. They seem to avoid skin tones like the plague. Maybe just by chance or maybe by desire?

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/img028-2-Cjpeglr.jpg

...dye transfer print circa 1948 - 1954 U.S Print Co. Portland, OR

[jp]

Well they can be proud of it all they want. The proof shows a cibachrome looks like hell after it gets handled some. It reminds me of a new shiny black car . Looks great the first day out of the showroom...and it is all downhill from there.

The black car, as well as the super shiny ciba, shows all defects, scratches, fingerprints, dust. Color wise the ciba is very good. And fade resistance it is excellent. But the shiny surface ruined it. If it was type F semi-gloss surface they would have had a winner.


I had a big batch of cibachromes done for an exhibit back in the 1990's. Someone else printed them, and I framed them.

This warning brings back much to the front of my mind regarding handling them. They were easy to dimple, scratch, fingerprint. My solution was to minimize handling and contact till they were behind glass. If you can be careful and minimize handling, they will stay looking nice and will seem worthwhile. But like a new black car, you want to handle them so bad.

[slackercruster]

I had a big batch of cibachromes done for an exhibit back in the 1990's. Someone else printed them, and I framed them.

This warning brings back much to the front of my mind regarding handling them. They were easy to dimple, scratch, fingerprint. My solution was to minimize handling and contact till they were behind glass. If you can be careful and minimize handling, they will stay looking nice and will seem worthwhile. But like a new black car, you want to handle them so bad.

How do they work behind glass? Do they exhibit problems other glossy prints do when in contact with glass mounts? Or must their be an air space bewteen the glass and print?

[MDR]

I work part time in an archive and I can tell you that a lot of archivist do not trust the findings of the WIR. They only proof they accept is prints actually surviving a certain time accelerated test are nice but they leave out a lot variables and there findings are often far from reality. Especially Inkjet prints are far from archival even the so called archival ones do exhibit fading.
BTW recently found out that Orwo/Filmotec produces paper for the Dye transfer process and it's exclusively sold by http://www.dyetransfer.de/ they also produce Dye transfers from your images

Dominik

[jp]

How do they work behind glass? Do they exhibit problems other glossy prints do when in contact with glass mounts? Or must their be an air space bewteen the glass and print?

I wouldn't think of having them touch the glass. There is a space caused by the matting.

[Drew Wiley]

I've got hundreds of Cibas, at least small ones (nearly all the big ones are sold). Not one
of them is scratched. Kink marks were a bigger risk, esp handling large sheets in the dark.
I made a special sled to transfer big sheets onto the vacuum easel. No different than handling polyester base in any other media, including Fuji Supergloss. You learn to never
touch the image itself and how to correctly frame it. But one time I did get a defective
batch of Ciba which has a remarkable 3D lustre to it, not like their pearl RC paper, but not
high gloss either. They said it was a bad batch of gelatin. Never seen anything like it again.
A beautiful surface.

[Drew Wiley]

Dominik - I don't think anyone here in North America has worked with that last batch of
matrice film. Egbert Haneke uses up most of it for his own work, which is exposed with
blue laser rather than enlarger. But it's allegedly similar to the batch made by Efke, which
I am several others are using. Back in its heyday there were several major manufacturers
of dye transfer film and dyes, including not only Kodak, but the US military, Color Corp
of America, Hollywood of course (for release prints), and one or two others. Then alternative dyes might be selected for some special need. So it's pretty hard to generalize
the archival properties of the medium in its broader sense. My own brother's dye transfer
prints faded out because he kept them in vinyl sleeves. But that's how portfolios were done back then. They didn't know better.

[bob carnie]

Drew - do you think the methodology of dye transfer can be transfered to carbon tissue and gum printing in tri colour??
Making continuous tone separation negatives is easy peasy on my lambda , but I am being warned about highlight staining with these types of negative and
am being recommended to hard dot film.

But I am curious of your thoughts about combining the dye transfer work flow with a contact tissue process.

Bob

Dominik - I don't think anyone here in North America has worked with that last batch of
matrice film. Egbert Haneke uses up most of it for his own work, which is exposed with
blue laser rather than enlarger. But it's allegedly similar to the batch made by Efke, which
I am several others are using. Back in its heyday there were several major manufacturers
of dye transfer film and dyes, including not only Kodak, but the US military, Color Corp
of America, Hollywood of course (for release prints), and one or two others. Then alternative dyes might be selected for some special need. So it's pretty hard to generalize
the archival properties of the medium in its broader sense. My own brother's dye transfer
prints faded out because he kept them in vinyl sleeves. But that's how portfolios were done back then. They didn't know better.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - there's all kinds of chatter going on in both APUG and the Dye Tranfer Forum about
hybrid this and that. There are all kinds of hypothetical tweaks, but as usual, the devil is
in the details. I never did personally like any of the hard-dot modernizations of carbon -
something about a printed versus true continuous-tone photographic look. Charlie Cramer
can worked out image-setter figure for dye transfer, but even though dyes bleed a little,
some halftone still showed. The holy grail would really be a new set of highly transparent
process pigments (not inkjet inks, which use quite a bit of dye). I have a clue where to
turn, but have no time to personally experiement with yet another process. But if I ever
do get into something resembling true pigment printing, I'll be thinking outside the box
completely. Separation negs is the easy part of the problem - there are all kind of ways to
do them.

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry Bob, but I get a lot of interruptions here at the office, which take priority of course. ... Dye Transfer is really obsolete when it comes to sharpness, convenience, cost, or permanence. For garden-variety work, inkjet will do a better job 70% of the time. But
it's that other 30% of images, esp if shot specifically for the medium, where the transparency of DT dyes make all the difference. They have a life to them which inkjet
simply doesn't, and which traditional process pigments don't either. The basic problem is
that just about every alternative color worker has his own priorities, and it's difficut to get
economic traction where pooled investment is crucial to ordering a custom product run.
Either that, or you need to be independently wealthy - which I certainly am not!

[slackercruster]

I've got hundreds of Cibas, at least small ones (nearly all the big ones are sold). Not one
of them is scratched. Kink marks were a bigger risk, esp handling large sheets in the dark.
I made a special sled to transfer big sheets onto the vacuum easel. No different than handling polyester base in any other media, including Fuji Supergloss. You learn to never
touch the image itself and how to correctly frame it. But one time I did get a defective
batch of Ciba which has a remarkable 3D lustre to it, not like their pearl RC paper, but not
high gloss either. They said it was a bad batch of gelatin. Never seen anything like it again.
A beautiful surface.

Yes, but you handle them with care. All people are not like you....

[slackercruster]

Sorry Bob, but I get a lot of interruptions here at the office, which take priority of course. ... Dye Transfer is really obsolete when it comes to sharpness, convenience, cost, or permanence. For garden-variety work, inkjet will do a better job 70% of the time. But
it's that other 30% of images, esp if shot specifically for the medium, where the transparency of DT dyes make all the difference. They have a life to them which inkjet
simply doesn't, and which traditional process pigments don't either. The basic problem is
that just about every alternative color worker has his own priorities, and it's difficut to get
economic traction where pooled investment is crucial to ordering a custom product run.
Either that, or you need to be independently wealthy - which I certainly am not!

You should be getting high prices for your work. I looked at one printer in L.A getting near a thousand $ a print for super large prints. I think they were inkjet too! But they got the Getty museum with big pockets. But...I see your in SF, so your rent must eat up all the print profit.

[slackercruster]

Sorry Bob, but I get a lot of interruptions here at the office, which take priority of course. ... Dye Transfer is really obsolete when it comes to sharpness, convenience, cost, or permanence. For garden-variety work, inkjet will do a better job 70% of the time. But
it's that other 30% of images, esp if shot specifically for the medium, where the transparency of DT dyes make all the difference. They have a life to them which inkjet
simply doesn't, and which traditional process pigments don't either. The basic problem is
that just about every alternative color worker has his own priorities, and it's difficut to get
economic traction where pooled investment is crucial to ordering a custom product run.
Either that, or you need to be independently wealthy - which I certainly am not!


Good summation.

[slackercruster]

Just Google it. The Dye Tranfer Forum is run by Jim Browning, who has a lot to do with the
successful revival of the key materials. He also holds patents on the Chromira. Kodak dyes
weren't unique - they were just high purity versions of common dyes. Tanning developer
is easily made, but I personally prefer a technique more similar to old wash-off relief. What
I have done is modernize separation negative technique, but all darkroom. I get enough of
damn computers here in the office!

Could not find it. But does not really matter. Was just curious as to how many are doing transfers. I'm 100% out of the wet darkroom. Don't have much wall space for prints. So i just view on the 'puter mostly. But if I did print, it would be inkjet.

I had come into some vintage dye transfers and thought it would be a good time to do a little write up about it, so I did at some of the forums.

Now am curious as to fade tests. So will work in that area a little.

...they were something in their day though...dye transfers...crafted by hand and not by machine!

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Color%20photography/img030a-2.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

It's very difficult to know how many people are still dye transfer printing worldwide. It's
probably less than a hundred, and I'm only aware of four who will print commercially for
others. There were two basic versions: matrice film for use with separations taken from
chromes, and pan matrix film for printing directly from color negs instead. The last of the
pan matrix film (which was relatively uncommon) was stockpiled by Ctein, who has just
officially ended commercial printing with it due to diminishing supplies. But there are a
handful of individuals attempting to make their own analogous film. The whole field can get
pretty complicated (or fun - depending). It's a lot more tactile experience than inkjet printing, and when the hues land, they really land.

[Kirk Gittings]

...they were something in their day though...dye transfers...crafted by hand and not by machine!

If you really are interested in "hand made" and avoiding "Machines", you might want to also avoid using commercially made cameras and lenses, commercially made film and papers etc. ie all the machines and machine made products that make it possible for you to make your "Handmade prints".:)

[Drew Wiley]

Now, now, Kirk ... Just how far do you want to take that line of reasoning? For all we know
the cave painters of Lascaux were buying their charcoal and ochre from some shaman at
the end of the passage, and not actually grinding it themselves.

[slackercruster]

If you really are interested in "hand made" and avoiding "Machines", you might want to also avoid using commercially made cameras and lenses, commercially made film and papers etc. ie all the machines and machine made products that make it possible for you to make your "Handmade prints".:)

No, that is too much for me. When I was a teen I experimented with coating various old formula emulsions. Nothing great came of it.

[Kirk Gittings]

I just find it hard to imagine a situation where handmade really aplies to photography. It might describe at most one small part of the process of making images, but that is usually really a stretch. However even an inkjet printer is just a tool and what defines an artist is his/her control of the tools not the tool itself.

[slackercruster]

I just find it hard to imagine a situation where handmade really aplies to photography. It might describe at most one small part of the process of making images, but that is usually really a stretch. However even an inkjet printer is just a tool and what defines an artist is his/her control of the tools not the tool itself.

What you say is true. But compared to inkjet, dye transfers were hand made in that lots of hand work and personal control had to be put into them.

An inkjet print can be shot out in a minute or maybe ten or fifteen minutes if it is large size. A dye transfer took the better part of a day to make. There were no guarantees you would get a good dye transfer unless you were a good printer. It is not like an inkjet where almost anyone can get great results. And the amount of handwork and skill needed for inkjet is to load paper and ink and push a button. (Unless one is doing more advanced printing.)

The inkjet alows the vast majority of us to make dye transfer quality prints with almost no skill. Without the inkjet, most of us would not be able to make anything that approaches that level of print quality. And the few of us that can print high quality wet prints without an inkjet can increase their production to much higher levels with the inkjet. I am able to print much more on an inkjet than I ever could by hand trying to balance colors and all in the darkroom. What took me a month to print out at night with Type C, I can now get out in a half a day with inkjet. This is all due to the machine - not my skill.

With dye transfer, you had some basic items and your skill was needed more so than the machinery. You could make a dye transfer via contact printing method. So an enlarger was not even needed if you had large format film and were a minimalist.

Now, you could argue the few guys that have coated their own matrix film are doing even more hand work that the ones that don't. But my point was not to try and nitpick who is doing more hand work. I was just trying to distinguish the difference between the traditional dye transfer and inkjet or modern day dye transfer, when one compares how much of us gets invested in making the print.

So maybe my original words were a poor choice. But hopefully you can get my meaning I had hoped to convey comparing the two printing methods.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes you can spit out a crappy or "adequate" inkjet prints in minutes or........you can spend weeks working on a print as I do (as do many of the best printers-some who post here). Its the difference between a fine print and a pretty placemat. Last fall I spent a few months working on a suite of five prints for a museum show. After weeks of work I started over with new scans-the best scans from the best scanner I could find. I then tried different papers and different ink sets (and these days I even mix my own custom ink blends). The process took months. You used to be able to get automated silver prints from a lab for less than a buck-that doesn't mean that all silver prints are easy and quick and cheap. In those days I spent many days working on a given silver print. FWIW I don't find ink prints quicker or easier to make than silver prints. To the contrary I spend much more time making a good inkjet print.

I feel like I am derailing this thread and will bow out now.

[Keith Fleming]

I have no experience in making dye-transfer prints, and I doubt that even back in the day I would have attempted making them. Even so, this has been one of the best and most interesting threads I have read in a long time. Lots of good, solid information being passed, and the debates among the posters have been excellent examples of solid, reasonable discussions done in a respectful, courteous manner. I've enjoyed the exchanges, and learned a few things. Thanks!

Keith

[J. Fada]

I don't particularly like the merit argument, I.E. a print is more worthy because of the difficulty of the process. You can beat your head against an inkjet printer or your dye matrix or your enlarger. The viewer doesn't care really. The important thing is that however you make it, it is good.

Personally I never talk about how hard a print is to make. Some series are a piece of cake to print and some are grueling. I don't really think it matters much at all except to me. Over the years I have seen some pretty dull images with a long explanation of how hard or complicated or rare the process was to make them. They are still dull images. I have seen master printers make their first print so perfect it was like drinking water to them. The only thing that matters is how beautiful the print is.

The dye prints I have seen in my life didn't really do much for me. Eggleston's work for example looks better in books. I am sure that his large prints auctioned recently were quite amazing and probably could never have been made as a dye transfer at that size. I could be wrong though. It would be interesting to know.

[slackercruster]

Yes you can spit out a crappy or "adequate" inkjet prints in minutes or........you can spend weeks working on a print as I do (as do many of the best printers-some who post here). Its the difference between a fine print and a pretty placemat. Last fall I spent a few months working on a suite of five prints for a museum show. After weeks of work I started over with new scans-the best scans from the best scanner I could find. I then tried different papers and different ink sets (and these days I even mix my own custom ink blends). The process took months. You used to be able to get automated silver prints from a lab for less than a buck-that doesn't mean that all silver prints are easy and quick and cheap. In those days I spent many days working on a given silver print. FWIW I don't find ink prints quicker or easier to make than silver prints. To the contrary I spend much more time making a good inkjet print.

I feel like I am derailing this thread and will bow out now.

Nah, that is OK. Discussion does not derail a thing. We are all allowed our opinions. You are passionate about your printing...good for you. We need more people that care about doing great work nowadays. Declining standards are the norm for the most part it seems.

Now where we are going with this may be off a little from the question the OP asked about. But I will get around to answering the OP best I can in about 6 months when my dye stability test is complete.

Although I would like if some of you could send me some sample dye transfers from different time periods to compare the dyes. I only have transfers from the late 40's to early 50's to use. I was thinking about using one of my own transfers from the 70's. But I don't think I will.

Your wrong about spitting out crappy prints though. Sure some inkjets are not as good as others. I've only tested maybe 6 or 7 models. And yes, big differences with the paper and print IQ...real big.

But on average most people don't bother to do what you do and they get excellent prints with almost no work. Their crappy place mats as you call them were previously only available as high grade dye transfers before the inkjet arrived on scene. But as I said earlier, inkjeting can be tweaked if we want to spend more time on it, so no one is arguing you on that fact.

Why don't you send me some of your custom dyes you mixed up in the form of reject ink prints and I can add them to my dye stability test? I asked about donations at this forum and at another forum and only got one offer at the another forum...nothing here? Real disappointing with the response I got requesting samples to test.

Don't send some giant size print, just a 8 x 10 section. I started the test yesterday with a couple of vintage dye transfers and an inkjet. I decided to not use foil. I just cut them in half and put half in the sun and half in the file cab.

[slackercruster]

I don't particularly like the merit argument, I.E. a print is more worthy because of the difficulty of the process. You can beat your head against an inkjet printer or your dye matrix or your enlarger. The viewer doesn't care really. The important thing is that however you make it, it is good.

Personally I never talk about how hard a print is to make. Some series are a piece of cake to print and some are grueling. I don't really think it matters much at all except to me. Over the years I have seen some pretty dull images with a long explanation of how hard or complicated or rare the process was to make them. They are still dull images. I have seen master printers make their first print so perfect it was like drinking water to them. The only thing that matters is how beautiful the print is.

The dye prints I have seen in my life didn't really do much for me. Eggleston's work for example looks better in books. I am sure that his large prints auctioned recently were quite amazing and probably could never have been made as a dye transfer at that size. I could be wrong though. It would be interesting to know.

This is true.

But 'hardness, human investment and skill' are always part of the human equation in evaluating worth. That is what separates a Rolex from a Citizen watch...hand made, human investment, quality as well as an ego boosting type of thing.

The Citizen I wear keeps better time than my Rolexes ever did. So, from the utility argument Citizen should be worth more than the Rolex. But there are other factors in play here that make that not so. As such, we cannot look at just one area when we value a thing.

Lets compare a painting to a photograph. If we are looking at IQ only, then a photograph usually surpasses a painting. Yet paintings in general are worth more than photographs, even though photographs, in general have much higher IQ than a painting does in terms of faithfully reproducing a subject.

As far as the prints?

I like easy and high quality. I'm very busy and don't have time to screw around. I have many activities that take up my time. I'm not a pro printer and just a hobby photog. So inkjet is a dream for me compared to the wet darkroom I was trained in back in the late 60's.

But, it would do me no good to brag about how hard a print was to make by hand if it looked like crap compared to an inkjet print that was superior to the wet print in every way. But...if all things were equal as far as IQ, archival qualities, etc...I'd choose the wet darkroom print over a ink jet print any day. (As long as I did not have to get in the darkroom to print it!)

[slackercruster]

I have no experience in making dye-transfer prints, and I doubt that even back in the day I would have attempted making them. Even so, this has been one of the best and most interesting threads I have read in a long time. Lots of good, solid information being passed, and the debates among the posters have been excellent examples of solid, reasonable discussions done in a respectful, courteous manner. I've enjoyed the exchanges, and learned a few things. Thanks!

Keith

Glad you like the thread Keith!

I will add a little more feedback once my dye fade tests are done on 6 months.

I also hope to do a shootout between ink jet dye transfer and trad dye transfer comparing print IQ. But that one will be just a half-ass job. I don't have access to the 'old master' dye trasfers, their originals and the best in ink jet dye transfer printers. But it can give us some idea, anyway.

[Drew Wiley]

Heck, it's all one form of technology or another, and damn little of its is completely original.
Even wasps knew how to make paper before we did. But I'd merely point out again that
some processes are more tactile than others, for those of us who have logistical preferences. As far as the final image goes, it has a lot to deal with the specific skills of
the printmaker and how well a given image mates with the chosen medium. I've seen
abalone shells printed on inkjet, RC digital paper, as well as halftone carbon (Evercolor). Anything naturally iridescent like looks pretty blaah on a relatively flat paper. Ciba would have done the trick. Need the right tools for the job.

[jon.oman]

This is an interesting thread. I have always wanted to try this......

[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.



I was lucky today to get a print sample of Fuji Crystal Archive from Walmart. They told me they are taking out the wet process Fuji machine in a few weeks and going to a Fuji dry paper machine...ink jet. As I told you, Type C may not be going bye-bye right now, but the writing is on the wall Drew.

My dye stability tests are almost complete with the setup stage. Have a couple of other items to add this week. I am very grateful to Ctein for some help on this. He poo-poo'ed everything I suggested at the dye transfer forum. From thinking about his complaints, it inspired me to expand my testing to include many other areas I would not have thought of if it had not been for Ctein.

Drew, the idea for sun testing was not my own. In the 70's when I was showing off my Agfacolor prints Bob Pace, he agreed they were nice color. But he told me the color wont hold up. He told me to paste them up outside and see what happened. So I put up a Agfa color print and a Type C in the sun. Sure enough, within a couple of weeks the Agfa started to fade in the sun. Type C Kodak held up fine within the same time frame.

Now, Bob may have changed his view on this before he died. I had no contact with him after the mid 1970's. But the sun test idea was his - not mine. And if I had to gamble on who is right, it would be Bob Pace and not Ctein. Ctein seems to be under the delusion that if the idea does not come from within him...it is useless and wrong. But as I said, naysayers are of great use to us as they can force us to take a second look at an idea to defend it from the eternal doomsayer like Ctein.

In the case of Agfacolor, the sun fade test prediction held up with the verification in the long term test results as well. All my Agfa prints faded within a decade or two, whether in the dark or in a frame with normal household illumination.

Here is what Kodak said on the subject, from an article in Pop Photography Jan 1982 Have the forum members found Kodak's prediction to be factual?

http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv219/keepitlow456/Photography%20BW/img063.jpg

http://daviddoubley.com/DyeTransfer.htm