It's official! Ink jet prints equal or surpass Eastman's dye transfer prints!

[slackercruster]

I have completed preliminary tests comparing the finest traditional Eastman Kodak dye transfer prints with machine made dye transfer prints aka Ink Jet prints. The preliminary tests show the $1.50 ink jet print to equal or surpass the $250 Eastman's dye transfer print.

I will be sending in a full report within a few weeks. But it wont have dye stability tests done. Those will hopefully be in by Dec. (Although Ctein is not holding his breath, since he says my tests are worse than useless!) But for the rest of you that can see farther than your nose, you may find the report interesting.

If you are not familiar with Eastman's dye transfer process see my earlier post on it:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/186305-remembering-dye-transfer-color-printing.html

[vinny]

Oh lord. Let the war begin.

[cdholden]

I will be sending in a full report within a few weeks. But it wont have dye stability tests done. Those will hopefully be in by Dec. (Although Ctein is not holding his breath, since he says my tests are worse than useless!) But for the rest of you that can see farther than your nose, you may find the report interesting.
Kudos to Ctein for calling a spade a spade.
Some may find it interesting, but others will recoognize it for what it is: incomplete and possibly biased.
If you're going make bold statements made on comparison, shouldn't all the data be compared instead of just the parts that reinforce your desired outcome?

[slackercruster]

Well sure, it is just a down and dirty test. Half-ass done. But...if the results show a $1.50 inkjet rival a $250 DT, then a better test should yield even better results. This test is what I am willing to offer. If you would like to do a different test, you can do your own.

I have not done any selective testing to skew the results. I took 3 of the best DT prints I could find and reproduced them with ink jet. Yes, I tweaked the scans of the DT with PP some. You cannot scan an original and get 100% reproduction. But the scans, processed as I did are in the 98% 99% area. I had to run off 3 or 4 prints to figure out how make the best ink jet print. But that is about it for doctoring the results.

But PP or not, a printing medium must still have the capability to put out the colors and IQ. And ink jet has shown it is as good or better than Eastman's DT prints.

Results are good enough where no one can tell the difference unless the prints are put right up to ones nose and you know what sharpness details to compare. Or you look at the back of the prints. But colorwise, very equal and color is what I am gauging in this test.And the only reason the sharpness is off about 1-2% is...a scan is never as good as an original. (At least with the equipment I am using.)

In any case, I am very comfortable with my statement / claim.

[bob carnie]

What is the test??? are you saying you can get an exact reproduction of an DT print ? are you saying a inkjet has the same life span of a DT ? I am a bit confused.

[IanG]

It might be your opinion but that doesn't make it official or even right.

Ian

[slackercruster]

What is the test??? are you saying you can get an exact reproduction of an DT print ? are you saying a inkjet has the same life span of a DT ? I am a bit confused.

Ink Jet will give same / better quality IQ as DT

(cured) Ink Jet is infinitely better with water resistance

Dye stabiltiy test will be done in Dec (hopefully) so will wait on that.

Full report with pix to come out in the next week. (I hope)

[slackercruster]

It might be your opinion but that doesn't make it official or even right.

Ian

OK, I agree. You can decide when I post the results.

[ROL]

I don't get it. Why don't you just post your final peer reviewed results, and forgo the hyperbolic pre-run "official" publicity? And wouldn't this claim be better made in the one of the digital forums?

[Jim Noel]

This is probably the first time Ihave ever agreed with Ctein. I think your tests and statements are full of baloney, and that is being nice.

[bob carnie]

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 .

[Jim Jones]

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.

[slackercruster]

I don't get it. Why don't you just post your final peer reviewed results, and forgo the hyperbolic pre-run "official" publicity? And wouldn't this claim be better made in the one of the digital forums?

Well, if it is in the wrong spot, then a mod can move it.

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.

[slackercruster]

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 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!

[slackercruster]

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 .

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.

[slackercruster]

this is probably the first time ihave ever agreed with ctein. I think your tests and statements are full of baloney, and that is being nice.

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

[bob carnie]

But thats my point , I knew right away they were DT prints rather than Inkjets, they just looked right.

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.

[ROL]

Well, if it is in the wrong spot, then a mod can move it.

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.

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.

[sanking]

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

[John Koehrer]

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/digital-processing-software-printing/186305-remembering-dye-transfer-color-printing.html#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/digital-processing-software-printing/186305-remembering-dye-transfer-color-printing.html#ixzz1zy9TF1TZ

Did he say that?

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think it's deliberately misleading to refer to an inkjet print as a "machine dye transfer" print. "Dye transfer" has a very well established usage as a gallery term, and to appropriate it in this way strikes me as parasitic and willful fraud. It is certainly possible to make fine inkjet prints worthy of museum exhibition, so let the process stand on its own without confusing the issue.

As to whether people can tell the difference, I would not be surprised if even experienced printers and curators could not tell the difference between a well made inkjet on baryta paper and a dye transfer on baryta. It takes quite a lot of specialized training to be able to identify a process from the print. I and a few other printers once made some prints for an appraiser who was conducting a workshop in print identification for art appraisers and curators in other fields looking to get into photography. The main purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate how difficult it is. We had about 20-odd prints ranging from silver gelatin of a few different varieties, albumen, platinum, to high-end inkjets and inkjets from office printers, Xerox copies, and even one Xerox on overhead projector film, just to see if the students in the workshop could tell that it was a transparency mounted on an opaque backing. I could identify most of them, save for the combined processes like platinum over cyanotype. The workshop leader said that most of the participants couldn't identify more than two or three, but there was one younger curator who worked with photographs who could identify five or so.

So getting back to Sandy's question, what is the motivation for the comparison? If the image quality (whatever this means--dye transfer was never really the sharpest print process) and archival stability of an inkjet print now rivals dye transfer, that's great news, but please, let's not muddle the market by claiming that an inkjet is a dye transfer print of any sort.

[Jay DeFehr]

Excellent points, David. An inkjet is not a dye transfer print, the OP's evaluations of the prints are purely subjective, and there is nothing "official" about his conclusions, but more interestingly -- why did he bother? It seems he celebrating victory in some debate the rest of us are not privy to-- perhaps with Ctein? He does seem excited, though. Very funny.:D

[SpeedGraphicMan]

You need to state in what way the inject prints are better.

Did you test with Glossy, Satin/Lustre, Matte papers?

Did you test with all brands of consumer/prosumer/professional inkjet printers as well as manufacturer's inks and off-brand inks and off-brand papers?

Did you spend the time required to artificially "age" both prints to see which one holds up better under "light" and "dark" fading conditions?

Did you test the effects of atmospheric staining on the emulsion or paper base?
What if the prints were owned by someone who smoked all the time? How would the prints react to being subjected to smoke or smog?

Did you test to see which one bests withstands organic breakdown? I.E. Which one resisted the growth of mold/mildew in the emulsion or paper base?

How about the integrity of the paper base? Did you test to see if it will dry out, crack/shrink/expand in various conditions of humidity/heat?

How are you supposed to know which will still look the best 20-50 years from now?

I seems to me that your tests are exactly as you stated, "Half-Assed", and the should be treated as such.

How would we like it if camera manufacturers or film manufacturers approached everything "Half-Assed" ?
That would be Hasselblad saying, "Well, the HD60 works, but we built it "Half-Assed", so we can't guarantee, that it will work properly all the time"...

Would anyone take them seriously or buy their product?

What you have posted here is apparently nothing more than your own opinion, merely based upon "looking" at both prints and comparing colors.

You can hardly expect each of us to jump on the band-wagon with your "Half-Assed test".

I am not trying to be mean, I am simply trying to help you understand what should go into comparing prints.

As someone with over a decade of archival and restoration work under my belt, I think I know a bit about this.

[azdustdevil]

Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong....inkjet is just about all we have now. So it's all moot anyway. Thank goodness I can still get film. Wonder how long that will last?

[SpeedGraphicMan]

Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong....inkjet is just about all we have now. So it's all moot anyway. Thank goodness I can still get film. Wonder how long that will last?

Well, since B&W film is the only thing with which to shoot color separation negatives for archival processing, film is gonna be around a LONG time...

I still do RA-4 color processing in my darkroom.

[polyglot]

Given that most digital minilab prints are on RA4, that will last quite a while I suspect though we might end up with only high-contrast options. It's consumed by the acre commercially so is significantly cheaper than B&W paper.

As to this "test", I still don't understand what the OP was actually comparing, despite the excitement. Dynamic range? Resolution? Fading? He mentions water resistance but I fail to see any relevance to that.

[bob carnie]

Not anymore are minilab prints on RA4,, most places in Toronto that offer small prints are using Dry Labs by Fuji or Noritsu that use inkjet technology.
Quality is surprisingly good. I suspect the complete switch to inkjet will take at the max 3-5 years.


Given that most digital minilab prints are on RA4, that will last quite a while I suspect though we might end up with only high-contrast options. It's consumed by the acre commercially so is significantly cheaper than B&W paper.

As to this "test", I still don't understand what the OP was actually comparing, despite the excitement. Dynamic range? Resolution? Fading? He mentions water resistance but I fail to see any relevance to that.

[robert lyons]

Seems a moot point. As has been already stated DT's were often done with dyes supplied by Eastman Kodak that were highly fugitive, especially the Yellow dye of the 1980's....on exhibition they often showed problems sooner than Chromogenic dye coupler prints-which we all know are not stable. As far as I know the only true archival color analog print is the Tri-Color Carbon print, a process so difficult to master that few people ever attempted to do it. There is one lab in the USA which offers this service still and the prints are truly amazing to behold.
There are many DT's that look beautiful even after 50 years but storage/display conditions are a big part of the equation as well as the lab that made the prints....one can easily see the difference in the two if you look closely at Eggleston's work, most of the early pieces are DT and later work type C or inkjet.

[polyglot]

Not anymore are minilab prints on RA4,, most places in Toronto that offer small prints are using Dry Labs by Fuji or Noritsu that use inkjet technology.
Quality is surprisingly good. I suspect the complete switch to inkjet will take at the max 3-5 years.

well, shit. There goes my hopes of having a process hang around in the long term.

Our local pro labs still primarily do lightjet RA4, though they of course offer inkjet on rag.

[bob carnie]

My lab does Inkjet, RA4 , Lambda silver prints and traditional enlarger prints.
We compete against a lot of labs one being Ed Burtynsky's lab which will stay RA4 as long as he continues with his Chromira prints.
I personally like RA4 prints and will continue for as long as the materials are available.. I must say our inkjet printers are much more active than any output devices we have. But RA4 is much faster and still
wins out IMO on colour fidelity.

I would not worry too much about the lack of supply's .
Keep in mind that my comments may be geographical location specific as Toronto was one of the first communities where the pro photographers went completely digital. A lot of the Dlabs and Fuji Frontier systems here have been shipped off shore and there is a very vibrant market for these kind of devices if one wants to sell this type of gear. Just not in Ontario, you cannot give away a D lab or Frontier here.


well, shit. There goes my hopes of having a process hang around in the long term.

Our local pro labs still primarily do lightjet RA4, though they of course offer inkjet on rag.

[Steve Smith]

In my opinion, it's a pointless comparison. You might as well compare oil painting with watercolour to decide which is better.


Steve.

[ic-racer]

In my opinion, it's a pointless comparison. You might as well compare oil painting with watercolour to decide which is better.


Steve.

+1

[Sylvester Graham]

I would love to see a serious controlled test to see if people can actually tell the difference between x and x process, and whether or not they have a preference.

I read somewhere that once you get above $25 in a bottle of wine, there's no appreciable increase in quality.

[IanG]

In my opinion, it's a pointless comparison. You might as well compare oil painting with watercolour to decide which is better.

Steve.

It also depends on what choice you make for the Inkjet prints, dyes or pigments and what make, also choice of paper.

Ian

[Drew Wiley]

I already responded on the Dye Transfer Forum, of which I'm a member. But it's a fundamentally naive experiment. ... assuming a bit of window-light testing will substitute for decades of real-world experience. There are way, way too many variables involved,
though this sort of thing might be valid if someone actually plans to display a certain type
of print in direct sunlight. UV will destroy almost anything, and even the Sphinx of Egypt
isn't exactly archival, at least in terms of how it originally looked.

[Drew Wiley]

PS - note that this was an alleged permanence test, and not related to reproduction quality or esthetics.

[Jay DeFehr]

PS - note that this was an alleged permanence test, and not related to reproduction quality or esthetics.

Are you sure? This is from the OP:


But PP or not, a printing medium must still have the capability to put out the colors and IQ. And ink jet has shown it is as good or better than Eastman's DT prints.

Results are good enough where no one can tell the difference unless the prints are put right up to ones nose and you know what sharpness details to compare. Or you look at the back of the prints. But colorwise, very equal and color is what I am gauging in this test.

Reads to me like he's comparing reproduction quality.

[Drew Wiley]

Jay - this fellow's chatter has been going on for months over on the DT forum. He took some vintage 1940's DT prints and placed them under window light against new desktop inkjet prints, or something equivalent to that. Obviously, relatively few people are going to
be able to even make a DT print, let alone a precise one. And I don't see how $250 would
even cover materials, let alone the value of the labor. I guess if your goal was outdoor
advertising using actual photographs, the test might make sense (1 month versus two,
for example, before things go to hell) ... but in this day and age, anyone with brains in
their head isn't going to display a dye transfer print in direct sunlight, or any other valuable color photograph. Halogens can be even worse; and there are accelerated aging
devices for industrial pigments that could probably fade anything in a day.

[Drew Wiley]

Jay, but secondarily he was interested in the visual look ... and I told him up front the inkjets would probably be sharper. With dye tranfer one has registration issues plus a bit
of dye bleeding - it's not the sharpest medium - but then neither is inkjet. Dye transfer is
dead as a commercial medium anyway. Those of us still fiddling with it do so for the sake
of specific images ideally suited to the nature of the dyes (or in my case, those images and
separation negatives are just sitting there until I have some spare time after retirement!)

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Drew,

I wasn't entirely sure what the OP was getting at, and his posts do read to me as if they're a continuation of, or extended from some other conversation. I don't have a dog in this fight, but the way he's presented his argument here, if that's what it is, is not very persuasive, for me.

[Drew Wiley]

Really doesn't matter, Jay ... it's what works for him, and that's what's important. In this
day and age, inkjets prints are the easiest route for most people. I prefer a more tactile
darkroom route, which dye transfer is amenable to. But only a very small number of my
images will be printed that way. The whole difficulty of forecasting permanence with either
DT or inkjet is that there is no standardization of ingredients. Different dyes can be used,
just as inks per se contain many ingredients and many paper variations - some of the inks
actually contain dyes inferior to those often used in DT printing - so the long-term failure
is premature color shift in part of the spectrum. This is an area when Aadenburg seems to
have improved upon Wilhelm's studies. Back when I made a lot of Cibachromes I put samples up under all kinds of conditions, including abusive ones. I learned a lot more over
those decades about the real world than any extrapolated fade test could provide.

[Jay DeFehr]

Drew,

I agree it doesn't matter.DT is gone, and IJ is here, for better or for worse. Whatever happens to any existing DT prints is not very relevant to any characteristics of IJ prints, and comparisons between the processes is a curiosity, at best.

[bob carnie]

I replied early in this thread , I like the look of dye transfer prints and as Drew points out about the bleeding and softness of Dye Transfer make them unique.
That may be exactly what I like about them. This may hold true for the tri colour carbons that I want to make from the continuous silver film I am making. Many, including Charles Bergger have warned me that I will get bleeding of colour with a con ton film, and that I need a hard dot film to hold delicate colour fidelity.
Maybe its not exact colour fidelity I am looking for.. Thanks Drew.

[Drew Wiley]

It's what I like about Vermeer versus the older Dutch miniaturists - he painted how vision
felt. When I need tack sharp, I do polyester (Fuji Supergloss or prior, Cibachrome) - this
is what some images need. DT has a whole different range of strengths as the Queen of
color media, and carbon as the King perhaps. Each has a different look.