Dye Transfer

[Bill_1856]

Before Cibachrome, I spent years laboriously turning out beautiful Dye Transfer prints, which look just as good today as 50 years ago, despite hanging on the walls in brightly illuminated (but not direct sunlight) Florida homes.
3-color seperation negatives, matrix film positives, color and highlight masking, registration, etc...OHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! It hurts to even think about doing it.
My question is: does anyone who ever went through the torture think that there's any advantage to the process over current digital color printing (presuming that it turns out to be as archival as claimed)?

[sanking]

Before Cibachrome, I spent years laboriously turning out beautiful Dye Transfer prints, which look just as good today as 50 years ago, despite hanging on the walls in brightly illuminated (but not direct sunlight) Florida homes.
3-color seperation negatives, matrix film positives, color and highlight masking, registration, etc...OHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! It hurts to even think about doing it.
My question is: does anyone who ever went through the torture think that there's any advantage to the process over current digital color printing (presuming that it turns out to be as archival as claimed)?

Although I am not doing much color printing these day I must confess that I really like the look of current digital color printing, especially when printed on textured art papers. I never liked Cibachrome very much, and I have always been suspicioius of the archival qualities of dye transfer, though it was/is a marvelous process for color control.

I guess the only color process that is still truly unique in my opinion is tri-color carbon or tri-color carbro. The dimensional qualities of these prints give them a highly distinctive look that no other process has. And of course, there is little or no question about the archival quality of these pigmented gelatin processes.

Sandy King

[Diane Maher]

I've never done any color printing, but I have had some cibachromes made from a slide and I have a dye transfer print of an image that was on the cover of TV Guide in 1966 hanging on the door to my office and it looks great. My limited experience of digital printing isn't very good, i.e. my prints faded in normal room light, so I can't really offer much in the way of an opinion as I have not seen anything I like.

[Mike Castles]

After seeing some color carbro prints recently, would have to agree with Sandy. I will say until I saw them I found the Dye Transfer prints to be quite nice, but have no experience with either (though the idea of the carbro sounds quite interesting).

[Bruce Watson]

My question is: does anyone who ever went through the torture think that there's any advantage to the process over current digital color printing (presuming that it turns out to be as archival as claimed)?
The short answer seems to be no.

Ask Charles Cramer. (http://www.charlescramer.com/pages/galleryindex.html) He's an acknowleged master of dye transfer who is printing digitally now and not looking back. And he's a heck of a nice guy. If anyone can give you the straight scoop, it would be he.

[Ted Harris]

I will second the no! In terms of time, cost and headaches to get to the a print of the same quality. Further, I have many more options in tersm of what my final print will look like than I ever had with a dye transfer print.

[Doug Howk]

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/ just happens to feature info on Ctein, a dye transfer printer of some repute.