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

[slackercruster]

Sorry guys. Forum would not accept the report. (Too many pix) Here is the link...

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/d...fer-print.html

Take care,

SC

[Jay DeFehr]

I started to read your article, and then I came to this passage:

First of all, there are no graphs and charts in this report. If your the scientific, over thinker type that likes lots of useless graphs and charts to convince you...stop reading now.

So I did.

[E. von Hoegh]

"scientific, over thinker type that likes lots of useless graphs and charts to convince you"

From PentaxForums.com: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/d...#ixzz2094JxOMK

I'm the type who likes a scientific test, well thought out and scientifically conducted, so the conclusions make sense to my poor little over-thinking mind. Your test isn't.

[yeknom02]

So, I think this would be the perfect time to hijack this thread and ask what a Dye Transfer print is. Is it the same as the RA-4 process? Because I highly doubt that would be as expensive as $250.

[E. von Hoegh]

Dye transfer http://ctein.com/dyetrans.htm

[lecarp]

Maybe if you roll up both an inkjet and a Dye transfer print and beat a dead Horse to see which lasts the longest.
Maybe that would be too scientific.

[Drew Wiley]

Dan - dye transfer is a very complex process which was considered the quality standard
for at least half a century. And emphatically, nobody is going to make you one for $250.
They've always been expensive. I know only two or three people in the world who will still do it commercially. Given the right image and technician, dye transfer prints can really sing.
The transparency of the dyes can make an inkjet look pretty blaaah. But it takes many
years of experience to perfect the necessarily skills, and nowadays it takes quite a bit of
effort even to come up with the necessary materials, some of which are being run in custom lots for just a handful of users.

[E. von Hoegh]

Maybe if you roll up both an inkjet and a Dye transfer print and beat a dead Horse to see which lasts the longest.
Maybe that would be too scientific.

Academic, too. I use black and white only in formats larger than 6x7, largely due to cost.

[Drew Wiley]

Then it's good news for you! Other than the original chrome, dye transfer is a black and
white process. You just need twelve to fifteen sheets of black and white film per image,
preferably 8x10 ... and after that, three or more sheets of full-scale matrice film, then a
stack of receiver paper, nowadays meaning blank fixed-out graded printing paper. That's
why Eastman originally advertised it as an easy affordable home darkroom technique! An
ideal cure for all those want-it-yesterday types.

[E. von Hoegh]

Then it's good news for you! Other than the original chrome, dye transfer is a black and
white process. You just need twelve to fifteen sheets of black and white film per image,
preferably 8x10 ... and after that, three or more sheets of full-scale matrice film, then a
stack of receiver paper, nowadays meaning blank fixed-out graded printing paper. That's
why Eastman originally advertised it as an easy affordable home darkroom technique! An
ideal cure for all those want-it-yesterday types.

Hey, I've seen some stunningly well-done inkjets. There's a young lady nearby whose father is a very good MF photographer, she's done a couple really excellent inkjets for me.