DYE Transfer

[fredjeang]

Hi,

I just found this.
Has someone ever tried DYE Transfer printing?
It seems almost impossible to find people who are using it.
Is that form of printing really superior to other modern process as it seems to be the case?

Thank you,

Fred.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Hi,

I just found this.
Has someone ever tried DYE Transfer printing?
It seems almost impossible to find people who are using it.
Is that form of printing really superior to other modern process as it seems to be the case?

Thank you,

Fred.

I've seen dye transfer prints and they do look quite good.  The question is about the availability of all the materials needed to do this kind of work.  See Ctein's site for details.  Kodak does not supply this cottage industry any longer.

[DarkPenguin]

You might want to hunt down the Lu-La Video Journal that features Ctein.  I think it is LLVJ-11.

Also, you can still buy a print from Ctein over at The Online Photographer.  And if you search for Dye transfer over their you'll get a bunch of information.  There is also a thread here about that very same Dye transfer offer that has some information about a lack of permanence.  (I really need to get my new fax to answer the phone so I can get some information on that.  Grrrrr...)

I think there are more than this ...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...rint-offer.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-crazy-and.html

I bought the prints in this offer ....

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-dye-trans.html

Just absolutely lovely.

[fredjeang]

You might want to hunt down the Lu-La Video Journal that features Ctein.  I think it is LLVJ-11.

Also, you can still buy a print from Ctein over at The Online Photographer.  And if you search for Dye transfer over their you'll get a bunch of information.  There is also a thread here about that very same Dye transfer offer that has some information about a lack of permanence.  (I really need to get my new fax to answer the phone so I can get some information on that.  Grrrrr...)

I think there are more than this ...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...rint-offer.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-crazy-and.html

I bought the prints in this offer ....

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-dye-trans.html

Just absolutely lovely.

The second picture (wild ginger) is absolutely superb!
Thanks for these informations.
Cheers,

Fred.

[Ken]

Is that form of printing really superior to other modern process as it seems to be the case?

Dye Transfer is an extremely tedious process, similar in concept to silk screen printing preparation, but requiring much more precision. Exposure and processing of each full-size contact "negative" for each color required using a transmission densitometer to a .02 tolerance exposure, close monitoring of chemical activity, pH and temperature, controlling the darkroom temperature, humidity, air filtration and static electricity... and lots more insanity. The cost for an 8X10" print in the early 1980s was about $300 US. At that time, only CibaChrome could match the color saturation, but it was not in the same league when it came to tonal gradation and shadow detail. Another process, created in the early 1990s by Bill Nordstrom, called EverColor took the Dye Transfer process into the digital age. To my eye, an EverColor print from a 4X5" negative was at least as good as a Dye, and much less expensive. And now? A combination of a 16-bit medium format back and the pro level Canon and Epson printers can produce results that match the best Dye Process prints and far exceeds them in durability and light fastness.  

[loonsailor]

Dye transfer prints were beautiful, but I agree that modern digital prints are as good, if not better.  Also, I think I read that the chemicals for dye transfer are no longer easily available.  That wouldn't be surprising, since I can't imagine there are enough interested practitioners to make it economically viable any more.

[feppe]

Dye transfer prints were beautiful, but I agree that modern digital prints are as good, if not better.  Also, I think I read that the chemicals for dye transfer are no longer easily available.  That wouldn't be surprising, since I can't imagine there are enough interested practitioners to make it economically viable any more.

IIRC Ctein said in one of the marketing speeches for his dye transfer prints that dye transfer materials are sold out, and not manufactured anymore. He also claimed to be one of the few with stocks, which should last a while, for him and his clients at least.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that modern inkjet would equal dye transfer. Never seen a dye transfer print, but the claims of it being soooo beautiful had me convinced. Don't tell me marketing isn't trustworthy!

[Alan Goldhammer]

IIRC Ctein said in one of the marketing speeches for his dye transfer prints that dye transfer materials are sold out, and not manufactured anymore. He also claimed to be one of the few with stocks, which should last a while, for him and his clients at least.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that modern inkjet would equal dye transfer. Never seen a dye transfer print, but the claims of it being soooo beautiful had me convinced. Don't tell me marketing isn't trustworthy!

I think they are quite different in the same way that Epson pigment & dye based inks are different.  I'm not sure that there is a direct comparison here.  One can also see wide differences in various transparency films but this does not necessarily make one better than the other; it is really up to individual taste.

[Geoff Wittig]

I'm a bit surprised to hear that modern inkjet would equal dye transfer. Never seen a dye transfer print, but the claims of it being soooo beautiful had me convinced. Don't tell me marketing isn't trustworthy!

It's difficult to compare dye transfer with modern inkjet prints; they're two very distinct media. For instance, close-up image structure is fundamentally different. Dye transfer images are built up from three separate dye-soaked matrices sequentially pin-registered and laid down on a receptive paper. Any residual film grain in the photograph tends to be 'averaged out' by the three layers, so the print looks extremely smooth with very pure colors. It's a continuous tone effect, rather than the microscopic dots laid down via a dithering/screening algorithm to produce the illusion of smooth colors from an inkjet. On the other hand, there is a limit to the accuracy of registration of the layers, so dye transfer prints aren't as sharp as inkjet prints. They look visibly softer.
Ctein indicates (if I recall correctly) that dye transfer color is purer and cleaner especially in the yellow/green direction, where standard C-prints and inkjet prints tend to have some orange contamination, but overall gamut of inkjets is likely to be wider. Dye transfer prints tend to have a 'perceived intensity' that's a bit hard to describe.

Inkjet prints occupy a very wide perceptual range. Inkjet prints on cotton rag matte paper have a subtle but beautiful color pallete and a welcome lack of reflections, and paper texture can add a lot to the æsthetic effect. Prints on semigloss/baryta/gloss papers instead can have an intensely dark D-max and exceptional color gamut; but they'll also have a bit of gloss differential and reflections that can be annoying at times. Dye transfer prints by comparison are one specific, narrow æsthetic type.

[stevegoldenberg]

... standard C-prints and inkjet prints tend to have some orange contamination, but overall gamut of inkjets is likely to be wider.

All: what kind of orange contamination do inkjets exhibit?  I haven't ever heard of that problem and so far prints from my 3880 don't seem to show this (but I may mistaking other types of image quality issues for it).

[JimGoshorn]

Yahoo Groups has a group dedicated to dye transfer:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/dyetransfer/

There is also a web site for dye transfer:

http://www.dyetransfer.org/

Jim

[Geoff Wittig]

All: what kind of orange contamination do inkjets exhibit?  I haven't ever heard of that problem and so far prints from my

You won't see this visually as prints that look too "orange".
At least circa 2007 Ctein noted that both C-prints and inkjet prints used yellow dyes or pigments that had a bit of orange to the color rather than being a 'pure' yellow. This doesn't make prints look orange, but limits the color purity of greens and yellows. I don't have the expertise or knowledge to accurately describe what's going on. But I do own two of Ctein's dye transfer prints, and can attest to the fact that the greens in foliage are just absurdly vivid; it's not really a matter of gamut or saturation per se, but the purity of the color just leaps off the page.

[Bruce Watson]

Dye Transfer is an extremely tedious process, similar in concept to silk screen printing preparation, but requiring much more precision. Exposure and processing of each full-size contact "negative" for each color required using a transmission densitometer to a .02 tolerance exposure, close monitoring of chemical activity, pH and temperature, controlling the darkroom temperature, humidity, air filtration and static electricity... and lots more insanity. The cost for an 8X10" print in the early 1980s was about $300 US. At that time, only CibaChrome could match the color saturation, but it was not in the same league when it came to tonal gradation and shadow detail. Another process, created in the early 1990s by Bill Nordstrom, called EverColor took the Dye Transfer process into the digital age. To my eye, an EverColor print from a 4X5" negative was at least as good as a Dye, and much less expensive. And now? A combination of a 16-bit medium format back and the pro level Canon and Epson printers can produce results that match the best Dye Process prints and far exceeds them in durability and light fastness.

+1.

I've got an Eliot Porter dye transfer print hanging on one of my walls. An excellent example of the dye transfer art. Porter had a lifetime of experience with dye transfer; he was a true master of dye transfer if there is such a thing. He was also an outstanding artist. We could all do worse than to study Porter.

I also print with inkjets. Today's pigment inkjet prints can certainly match or exceed the gamut of dye transfer, and easily exceed them in durability and light fastness. But they aren't the same. They are different media, and like any media, each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

The technology, no matter what is used, is no substitute for an artist's vision, or a print maker's skills.

[jjlphoto]

I made dye transfer prints when I was in college. Never again.

[langier]

Taught myself how to do Dye Transfer while I was in college more than 30 years ago then went to Cibachrome for what we all thought was a great process with long life Azo dyes. Phil Hyde was one of my inspirations and a master at the craft.

Dye transfer printing is tedious, but one of the best teachers regarding the theory and practice of color, curves, methodical technique, and craft.

One of the masters of dye transfer Ctein even had a series of articles on how-to about that time in the now-defunct Petersen's Photographic magazine. Seems to me he just offered his last limited-edition dye-transfer prints to the public just a few weeks ago. The dye-transfer era is closing...

Back then, there was only one process that was more difficult, had better color stability and depth/richness and that was carbro pigment printing--for those who practiced the craft, it required a full-day and each print was started from scratch, unlike die transfer which the matrices could be used until damages, probably 25-50 prints...

After learning the craft of die transfer, I went to Cibachrome occasionally using soft-edge masking to lower contrast. Faster, but still tedious compared to C-printing. For several years, I did custom printing for several clients, but then went to the Fuji high-gloss offered by my lab with less muss and fuss than DIY.

Die transfer evolved in the 1980s to using scans and film plotters to make the separation negs, but this still put it out of the realm of most to take advantage of this lovely printing process. Bill Nordstorm even figured out how to take the best of the craft between digital and traditional dye-transfer and figured out how to incorporate pigments even better than those used in the Carbro process.

Sometime in the 1990s, Kodak announced the demise of supplies and people scrambled while others stock piled.

In the mid 1990s the start of printing Nirvana started with the pigment printers by Epson then Canon & HP. Charles Cramer is one master photographer/craftsman who's made the leap and I think has never looked back.

I still have the few dye-transfer prints I produced. They've been in the dark and still have a nice look and feel. They still have the registration punch holes in the untrimmed margins... A couple of days ago, I dug out an old Cibachrome print from 25 years ago and took it out of the frame. Though it's been in the dark, it's been in the garage storage for years. I couldn't see any fading comparing the image area covered by the over-mat.

Today, we've got it made, all the control and richness of dye transfer printing, without the lab, expense, time, craft and all done in minutes. IMO, the quality of the prints we can produce today from even an inexpensive printer is as good if not better than at the height of dye transfer and carbro printing, other than some of the subject matter. Best of all, we're not limited to few substrates and the sky is the limit on surfaces.

Sure, the prints are different. So are the prints made in the late 1950s on Kodabromide are different in appearance from the Kodabromide stock last made a few years ago. It's just part of the evolution of the craft, good, bad or otherwise.

All in all, compared to hand-crafted dye-transfer prints, the pigment prints of today are easier and better, though don't have that nice serendipitous hand-made look.