would dye transfer count as printing with pigments?
i guess not, since they're dyes, duh !!!
but they sure are archival, compared to c-prints.
I still make wet(c type) prints from my color negs, but for the bulk I'm scanning and printing on my canon 5100. its a really nice printer, but I still haven't gotten the same look from it that I can get through a traditional optically-enlarged photograph.
call me a dinosaur(I'm 21 btw), but it gets me what I like. and getting slightly expired paper (8x10) 100sht boxes for like $12-15 a box, after a test strip or two, I generally have my color down that I like for a final, full print.
I don't want to argue analog vs. digital, but many artists from who I have talked to like c-prints for reasons similar to my own. Some call it more "handcrafted, and printed by the artist", so they can sell more of a "personal" work, but whatever works for them I guess.
different strokes for different folks. I'm split down the middle on this issue. I'd love to have some dye transfers made, having recently seen my first one in-person. it was marvelous. I talked to the photographer who printed it, and he stated that he had to make 4! contrast masks to get the final one right for printing. but he's been doing this for years, and now that the materials are no longer being made (CTEIN and 1 other guy make them, from stockpiled materials they mortgaged out), this print was made back in 2000/1? can't remember exactly.
but it was terrific. but PS gives you the ability to adjust the levels in every color channel, just like DT printing, except less labor-intensive.
but just out of curiosity, why did you post this thread here? trying to convert the miniscule amount of film-shooters(like me) to go over to a totally digital workflow?
Dan, Dye Transfer have about the same longevity as a cibachrome. Which is about 10%fade in 10-12 years (according to Henry Wilhelm)
To answer the question about hand crafted or digital, its really not the consumers need to know. You should be talking about how great the image is and the it will not fade, if its a pigment print.
I once asked my professor a question when we were inventing the pigment process with digital negs (1990). He said I'm so old that I remember when enlargers came into photography. He said it doesn't matter how you make the photographic print, just that it looks great and it last for a long time.
There is no way a c-print could ever look as good as a pigment print. Since dyes are synthetic and pigment come from the earth so it mimics nature.
Isn't the goal to create an image that best mimics nature. Unless your doing something experimental.
Dye transfer was a beautiful process back in day. However when we created the pigment printing process we added a black to the process so to imitate the shadows of what you find in nature.
I have nearly printed every process known to man and invented more than just a few. But nothing looks as good as a pigment print in color.
You ask the question, why did I post here. I posted here because no matter what age you are you should be producing the most archival process you can. remember every print that fades is just one client that will not buy a print the next time. Just want everyone to make prints that move the photographic collectors forward.
I'm going to ask Michael if he would like to do a video on how to properly display and matt and frame photographs so everyone can learn from what we have done.
Look at the Warhol's they are fading and no one want those, look at litho's and serigraphs, polaroid transfers, ect. They have really no value when they are sold. Antique furniture would have no value if it was filled with termites.
your younger than I, its our industry that we have to educate and get them to do the right thing. After all its our future. Tim