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

[Jay DeFehr]

Drew, you shouldn't worry too much. Soon, electronic displays and digital prints will surpass chemical prints in every measurable way, perhaps even in looking like chemical prints. The current rush to digital might seem premature, but the technology will soon catch up to the rush. There are working printers that can print graphene at the nano scale, in 3 axes, and electronic displays that can be rolled up like a scroll. Before long the only distinguishing feature of a chemical print will be the fact that it is a chemical print, at which point the film/digital debate will be purely theoretical.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm hardly worried, Jay. At this point in history, I can make very high quality RA4 prints at
a mere fraction of the price of doing it digitally, without either the constant nerve-wracking maint and obsolescene issues of scanners and software etc, and without the
boredom of sitting at a desk to do it. There are already dye transfer practitioners exposing
directly with laser, and suffering from all the complications I just described, including the
necessity of duplicate equipment just for parts availability. To each his own. The father of
"modernist" photography (Atget) was working with an already "obsolete" process and out
of date gear at the heyday of his creativity. So I'm perfectly happy to age away with my
chemical darkroom and laugh at all those folks who need to reinvest every few years.

[Jay DeFehr]

Pioneers and early adopters pay a premium, but there are rewards, as well, and we're all indebted to them, in one way or another. I'm surprised someone with the patience for drudgery, and willingness to bear the costs of DT printing would scoff at the demands of digital printing, but maybe making separation negatives is fun for you. Atget, by all accounts, wasn't much of a technician, and I've not known anyone to suggest he chose his process for it's technical qualities so much as for its accessibility, and stuck with it because it was what he knew, and didn't care much about the technology. I'm not criticizing Atget, or claiming his choices were poor ones-- I just find it a little ironic that someone like yourself, who has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about process, and dedicated a lot of time and energy to becoming a skilled technician, would cite him.

[Drew Wiley]

Folks go out deer hunting every autumn just to sniff the air and see all the colors, brag about their barely-used rifles, and tell tall tales around the campfire while downing strong alcohol. The kill (if any) is really a postscript to the hunt. By the time you add up all the
gear and gas for travel etc, it would have been cheaper and more reliable to get your meat
at safeway. But then you wouldn't have the memorable experience. That's how I feel about
both large format in the field and about the darkroom. I'm sick of computer work. ... and
someday when you starting asking, why isn't that jerk Drew Wiley posting anymore, you'll
know I'm retired and doing what I like instead.

[Jay DeFehr]

Drew,

I've never thought of you as a "jerk", and I would miss your posts here. I agree that working can be its own reward, when we enjoy our work. We should all be so lucky.

[Robert Ley]

I find it interesting that the OP has yet to post a rebuttal... I guess he just wanted to through his troll post up to see what kind of comments he would get. I have found the thread to be an interesting read with many thoughtful comments which is pretty typical for our forum.

[Drew Wiley]

If one combines all the basic dye transfer media, including cinema, the amt of serious research already available is really impressive, with entire careers devoted to it, and hardly going to be deflected by a casual stunt like the one in question. The chief difference
is that Technicolor dyes needed to be engineered for extremely short exposure to very
high intensity projection light, whereas ordinary prints dyes (including Technicolor release
prints) needed to be superior for long-term low-intensity display. In a proper portfolio box,
dark stability is obviously the issue. But in each case, many different dyes and mordanting
methods could potential take the role, so nothing is cut and dried, nor is it in the inkjet realm, where multiple pigments and paper options are involved. My take on this - anyone
who goes around guaranteeing X-number of years of permanence with any such media is
relying significantly on the BS coefficient.

[jnantz]

Since I have made dye transfers starting back in 1954 (and it is identical with Technicolor, just different formats and 15 or more defferent times in years). Ive been making ink jet prints since 1991 I can compare them. The very best ink jet print will be close to and fine dye transfer. DT is not terribly complicated, just very time consuming, and you had better be a darned good photo lab technician.

The big problem is that the materials for DT are not available. The dyes were toxic (dont drink them), the matrix films are not available, frankly, the b/w emulsions for separation negatives are not straight line and very difficult to use. Separation negative film has been gone for years as has been the very best film for this purpose, Super XX. However, DT prints are still the very best, I still have a couple of them that are from 45 to 60 or so years old.

Lynn

hi lynn

my uncle seems to be from your era
like you, he is a superb lab technician and
made quite a few DT prints in his day ...
he has some on his wall at his home that he made
"in the day" ( that are now 50-60 years old ) they
look as if they were made yesterday. they are beautiful
and hand crafted and something to behold ...

i don't think a 1.50 inkjet print can come close ...