Remembering Dye Transfer Color Printing

[slackercruster]

As the old timers die off, the legacy of the fabled dye transfer print in our digital age is disappearing. Many young photogs you talk with never heard of the process. Dye transfers were the ultimate color print up to the early 1990's when Kodak stopped making the materials for dye transfer work. As a remembrance to the fabled dye transfer print, I thought I'd add my 2 cents to this subject to at least memorialize a tidbit more information about it.
 
In the 1970's I was very fortunate to have worked for a short time with Bob Pace at Graphic Process Co in Hollywood CA. Bob was one of the top dye transfer men in the country. When he operated as Pace Color Labs in N.Y. he rolled out transfers for the top photographers of that time including Irving Penn and Yousuf Karsh. Bob relocated to the west coast and was the man to go to for high quality dye transfers. Bob was very generous with me with his time as well as even giving me materials for my own dye transfer experiments. Bob was always ready to help anyone interested in learning about the process.

To give you a short rundown on how the dye transfer process works, it can be summed up in this actual dye transfer print from 1948 salesmans catalog for U.S. Color Print in Portland, OR.
 

 
An original color chrome / slide would be turned into a color interneg. This would be color separated into 3 different color separations through reg, green and blue filters onto matrix film. The matrix film would be developed in a tanning developer which hardened the exposed portions of the matrix film. Any un and underexposed gelatin would wash off in warm water. The remaining emulsion would absorb dye in proportion to its density. The 3 color separations on matrix film were dyed magenta, yellow and cyan and rolled in pin registration onto a final support paper. The paper absorbed the dye due to an imbalance in PH and after the last matrix was removed the dye transfer was ready to be dried.

That is a simplified version of it. An expert may be able to produce a fine dye transfer in 8 hours. But if shadow and highlight masks or friskets need to be made, it took a lot longer. The actual rolling out of the print from dyed matrices took only 20 min or less.
 
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.


 
Chromogentic / Type C print from the collection of Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York.
 
 
Let me talk a little about these various printing media I mentioned before continuing with the dye transfer process.
 
Type C or Chromogenic printing is the standard wet developed color print we have all known since the late 1940's. In the early days the dyes were not very stable. But the makers have improved a lot in that dept. The problem with Type C was that many pros shot in chromes or slide film and a color interneg had to be produced to make the C print. This removed the actual image a generation away from the original. In the 1970's Agfacolor printing paper was an excellent paper for beautifully rendered color . The problem with Agfacolor was it faded quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromogenic_color_print
 
As an alternative to Type C, Ciba came out with Cibachrome. Cibachromes could be made from chrome / slides direct and did not need a color interneg made.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilfochrome
 
I remember Graphic Process having a display of giant Cibachrome in the front window. Direct CA sunlight was blasting away at them all day. The Cibachromes developed a craquelure to the base...but the colors never faded. The bad thing about the Ciba was the plastic look of the base material. They also left a lot to be desired in the area of print control that masking offered with the dye transfers. Cibachromes tended to look like hell after they were handled some. Color wise it is very good. And fade resistance it is excellent. But the shiny plastic surface ruined it. If it was type F surface they would have had a winner.
 
Cibachromes reminded me of a shiny black Cadillac. It looks great the first day out of the showroom...and it is all downhill from there. Just like the black car, the super shiny Ciba shows all defects, scratches, fingerprints, dust. In the end, Cibachromes could not compare to dye transfers when it came to making a beautiful, traditional print.
 
Here is a sample Cibachrome print showing some handling wear and tear.
 





In our modern day we do have a replacement to the dye transfer print. It is actually a dye transfer print made by machine...the ink jet print. Ink jet printing is capable of producing very high quality prints with excellent dye permanence and anti fading characteristics. Here is a a sample 4 x 5 ink jet print made with a 5 color inexpensive ink jet printer from Walmart.
 



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.
 













































 
Be sure to check out the dye transfer archives:
 
http://www.daviddoubley.com/DyeTransfer.htm
 
Lots of great info there including Bob Pace bulletins archived as well as videos of Bob going through the dye transfer process.



If your short on time, just watch the intro and the segment showing Bob rolling out a print.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-transfer_process

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for taking the trouble to compose this and post it. Very interesting. I remember being attracted to Dye-Transfer quite some decades ago, but the requirements seemed so tedious and exacting that I could foresee a huge investment in the learning curve which I couldn't manage back then, so it passed me by, but I used to see those prints and they were stunning. It's good to look back like this and realize what technological progress really means in respect of the time/convenience/quality/cost dimensions.

[Gary Brown]

See also Printing for Ronny by Ctein, a dye-transfer printer. Among other things, he explains why he now prefers digital printing.

[luxborealis]

It was seeing beautiful dye transfer colour prints of Eliot Porter's work that helped to move me towards the "fine art" side of nature photography. Thanks for this wonderful overview of the dye transfer era and the process. I'll never again complain about a 17" print taking 5 minutes to print!!

[Jeff Magidson]

Ah... Dye Transfer. I worked at 2 different high end photo labs in the Boston area in the late 80's that both had dye transfer departments. One lab did printing for National Geographic among others. Dye Transfer prints where also made for commercial advertising clients on occasion because the surface of the print was ideal for hand retouching. Although I was never directly involved in the process, I loved to watch the technicians roll out the prints. The prints had an organic authenticity of color that I had never seen before. My one regret is that I never saved any of the throw aways!
 

[Benny Profane]

I worked for a Dye Transfer lab in NYC from 1980-81, run by Frank Tataro, who was easily one of the best. I would marvel sometime how they could get a look on paper that was almost as vivid as a projected Kodachrome. Really. Stunning stuff, and, a thriving business, employing about 75 people over two shifts. Fortunately I was asked to come along to see a Hell Chromacom (an early digital composition system) being demoed, and, I never looked back. The Dye Transfer industry in NYC was destroyed in short order by those digital developments. In about five years (!) you couldn't find a decent commercial Dye lab in the city - it had been left to cult status. I tell you, I don't miss working with chemicals one bit, especially those. I was told that the air conditioning system had to be replaced every few years because of the damage the highly acidic air did to them. My lungs? They seem to be OK, but, that was a short period a long time ago.

The great advantage of purchasing a dye transfer that wasn't mentioned above is that they were very easily retouched. The dyes could be bleached out and rendered back into the paper by a skilled retoucher. C Prints were just like laser prints from today, used for rough comps. Ad guys loved the Dye Transfers, and paid dearly for the pleasure. They were expensive enough, but, I soon learned how much money was in advertising when an ad director would call in at 7pm for a rush job to be delivered by 9am, and the price just went up 250%. This happened often.

Cibachromes had awful blues. Hideous. That's why they never succeeded. Well, that, and then the invention of the Scitex printer. Note how the example above is all red. Classic.

[Robcat]

Cool to hear from all the folks who've done dye transfer. When I first heard of it in the '80s, I fantasized about learning it, but the process just seemed too daunting.
A question, though. I know the OP said the later dyes were very stable, which was the reputation I recall from back then. But why then have we (I mean the mfgrs) spent the last decade getting dyes out of fine art printers and switching to pigments? Were the dye transfer dyes different and more stable than inkjet printer dyes? Or was it just the dye transfer dyes were so much more stable than C prints?
Rob P

[slackercruster]

Cool to hear from all the folks who've done dye transfer. When I first heard of it in the '80s, I fantasized about learning it, but the process just seemed too daunting.
A question, though. I know the OP said the later dyes were very stable, which was the reputation I recall from back then. But why then have we (I mean the mfgrs) spent the last decade getting dyes out of fine art printers and switching to pigments? Were the dye transfer dyes different and more stable than inkjet printer dyes? Or was it just the dye transfer dyes were so much more stable than C prints?
Rob P

I'm testing the dye stability right now. Will have the results this December after 6 months of sun.

Testing about 18 different print and color imaging media. Some old dye transfers from the early 50's and 70's to modern inkjet prints and some C's. Also chromes and color negs.

I cut the photos and imaging material in half and half gets the sun and half in stored in the dark. Will reunite the halves and scan them when the test is over and post the resulting images here. Just have to wait for the sun to do its work.
 
If 6 months does not do much to fade em, will keep them in the window until some fading occurs. But I can tell you inkjet is very fade resistant from past experience with informal tests.

[MHMG]

I cut the photos and imaging material in half and half gets the sun and half in stored in the dark. Will reunite the halves and scan them when the test is over and post the resulting images here. Just have to wait for the sun to do itsd work.
 

Your test could provide significant additional value if you were using a data logger to measure the megalux hours of light exposure accumulated. That way, the results could be used to estimate fading rates in other real-world environmental display conditions. Daily, monthly, and seasonal variations in sunlight intensity are much more variable than one might think. At the very least, consider adding a relatively inexpensive blue wool card to your experiment. The blue wool patches have a long history of use in the museum world. Although not as accurate as an instrumented approach, the patches have known fading significance to museum professionals (ie., 1-3 fugitive, 4-5 moderate light fastness, 6-8 durable).  The cards contain all 8 patches. http://www.talasonline.com is one place where they can be purchased.

regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[slackercruster]

Your test could provide significant additional value if you were using a data logger to measure the megalux hours of light exposure accumulated. That way, the results could be used to estimate fading rates in other real-world environmental display conditions. Daily, monthly, and seasonal variations in sunlight intensity are much more variable than one might think. At the very least, consider adding a relatively inexpensive blue wool card to your experiment. The blue wool patches have a long history of use in the museum world. Although not as accurate as an instrumented approach, the patches have known fading significance to museum professionals (ie., 1-3 fugitive, 4-5 moderate light fastness, 6-8 durable).  The cards contain all 8 patches. http://www.talasonline.com is one place where they can be purchased.

regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Nope, that is for the brainiacs. I'm a fast and dirty style of photog. (See my 'early pics' in the sig line.) I don't enjoy testing, I just do it and do it as easy as I can while still getting some useful feedback.

But you are right, sunlight is variable. The point of the test is to show which dyes fade more than others. They all get pretty much the same sun...whatever the # is!

[bill t.]

However, note that photos can sometimes take sudden, quantum-like jumps in their quality.  Back when I was printing on Epson 3000's and 1700's, I had several prints just tacked up on the walls.  They were doing fine until we turned on the swamp cooler one June.  Within about a week they all went from wonderful to heavily faded, presumably just from going from the typical 10% desert humidity moving up to about 80% from the swamp-cooled air.  It was kind of jaw dropping!  That experience is one of the reasons I like to use coated, mounted canvas.

***************************************************************

And let's not forget Technicolor, with its 3-strip RGB cameras and 3-strip imbibition printers!  Check out "Wizard of Oz" and the "Red Shoes" to see what big screen color was all about in the 30's through early 60's.  Hint...it was a heck of lot better than what was available from the original single strip Eastmancolor, color negative process that finally replaced 3-strip Technicolor for economic reasons.  The old Technicolor building in Hollywood is one of sturdiest structures I have ever seen, cast from extra-thick concrete to provide a stable platform to keep registration in all those theatrical release prints.  Technicolor was the real star of a lot of those old films, and it knew it!

Some great still labs in old Hollywood.  Yes Graphic Process was king of the color houses!  Anybody remember Atkinson-Stedco and the original Tom's Chroma Lab?  New York had a few, too, usually up on about the 19th floor.

[MHMG]

Nope, that is for the brainiacs. I'm a fast and dirty style of photog. (See my 'early pics' in the sig line.) I don't enjoy testing, I just do it and do it as easy as I can while still getting some useful feedback.

But you are right, sunlight is variable. The point of the test is to show which dyes fade more than others. They all get pretty much the same sun...whatever the # is!

OK, fair enough.  However, without comparing the same image content and also controlling sample moisture content and temperature during the experiment, you may very well mis rank some of these products in terms of light fastness. About all you will learn is that the dyes used in historic photographic processes are only moderately light fast at best. This is already well known and documented in the photo conservation literature.

The reason Dye Transfer prints, Cibachromes, and Kodachrome slides have a deserved reputation for being significantly more stable over time than chromogenic color processes (often called "C"-prints even to this day) has little to do with their relative light fastness properties.  It is because early chromogenic color prints exhibited severe fading (mostly the cyan dye) and yellow-brownish stain formation in the highlights even when not exposed to light (i.e, their dark-keeping properties are poor) whereas Dye Transfer, Cibachrome, and Kodachrome have excellent dark keeping properties as long as humidity is not too high. Modern chromogenic systems (e.g., Fuji Crystal Archive paper) use much better color coupler technologies and improved thermal stability for cyan, magenta, and yellow dyes. thus, modern chromogenic prints exhibit greatly improved dark fade and stain resistance, but Dye Transfer prints, Ciba, etc., are still superior in long term dark keeping.  Museums curators that are serious about collecting chromogenic color prints know that cold storage is required, even for Fuji Crystal Archive materials, if the prints are to remain in excellent condition over several decades, no matter how carefully one avoids exposing the prints to light.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[slackercruster]

Wow, that is weird. Prints fading from humidity?

I've tested ink jet that is cured for 6 months vs dye transfer. the dyes beach ou within 24 hours. ink jet stays firm. Fresh ink jet bleeds though unless cured and it hits water.

[slackercruster]

OK, fair enough.  However, without comparing the same image content and also controlling sample moisture content and temperature during the experiment, you may very well mis rank some of these products in terms of light fastness. About all you will learn is that the dyes used in historic photographic processes are only moderately light fast at best. This is already well known and documented in the photo conservation literature.

The reason Dye Transfer prints, Cibachromes, and Kodachrome slides have a deserved reputation for being significantly more stable over time than chromogenic color processes (often called "C"-prints even to this day) has little to do with their relative light fastness properties.  It is because early chromogenic color prints exhibited severe fading (mostly the cyan dye) and yellow-brownish stain formation in the highlights even when not exposed to light (i.e, their dark-keeping properties are poor) whereas Dye Transfer, Cibachrome, and Kodachrome have excellent dark keeping properties as long as humidity is not too high. Modern chromogenic systems (e.g., Fuji Crystal Archive paper) use much better color coupler technologies and improved thermal stability for cyan, magenta, and yellow dyes. thus, modern chromogenic prints exhibit greatly improved dark fade and stain resistance, but Dye Transfer prints, Ciba, etc., are still superior in long term dark keeping.  Museums curators that are serious about collecting chromogenic color prints know that cold storage is required, even for Fuji Crystal Archive materials, if the prints are to remain in excellent condition over several decades, no matter how carefully one avoids exposing the prints to light.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Thanks for the rundown. I guess my test mimicks more of the household environment. It was not my test to start with. Was told by Bob Pace in the 70's to give some Agfacolor prints I was showing off to him the sun test. Within a few weeks the Agfacolor started to fade. Type C held up.

[langier]

I spent a couple of semesters in college as the only student self-teaching the craft of die-transfer and learning a lot about chemistry, plotting curves, consistency and more. I took the course syllabus and started from square one with in-camera separations of a still life and from there ran separations from my color transparencies. I never use the pan matrix film we had to go directly from color negs.

The first good print took four months, the next couple took just six weeks. Once I completed this, my professor had me teach the next two students who managed to get a couple of good prints each, though both later left the program. I had the advantage of learning from others and getting pointed in the right direction by my mentor of the time Al Weber and the great color landscape photographer Phil Hyde who took the time to answer many of my questions.

I can tell you that in the 1970s when I did this, Dye Transfer was the ultimate color process however, Cibachrome with the same Azo dyes became my process of choice for its convenience. If you knew how to craft a good Kodachrome or Ektachrome transparency and knew how to choose one that would print well (colorful and not too contrasty), it worked well. If you knew masking (I certainly did after a year of crafting die transfer separations), you could even make better prints!

Today, I can't find any process that has the depth and brilliance of those high-gloss Ciba prints, though Fuji did have a similar print quality without the cross-over issues. However, the prints I do today, are better than most of those, though I wish I could find that hi-gloss surface for some of my prints! The Pictorico comes close, but isn't quite the same!

I can say without a doubt that the learning curve of Dye Transfer was steep (not quite as bad as carbro!), but one of the most important building blocks in the craft of photography for my career!

[John Nollendorfs]

However, note that photos can sometimes take sudden, quantum-like jumps in their quality.  Back when I was printing on Epson 3000's and 1700's, I had several prints just tacked up on the walls.  They were doing fine until we turned on the swamp cooler one June.  Within about a week they all went from wonderful to heavily faded, presumably just from going from the typical 10% desert humidity moving up to about 80% from the swamp-cooled air.  It was kind of jaw dropping!  That experience is one of the reasons I like to use coated, mounted canvas.

The trouble with inkjet dyes had to do with what Wilhelm called dye interactions. The dyes are fairly fade resistant when not intermixed. The first light fade inkjet testing involved pure color patches, and showed quite good fade resistance. Later tests with mixed colors, showed this fade resistance didn't hold up. Wilhelm attributed this to "catalytic interaction". When certain color dyes dots are allowed to intermingle, their fade resistance drops dramatically. This is why Ilford introduced swellable polymer printing papers for use with their dyes. The swellable polymer isolated the dye dots. However higher humidity allowed the dyes to migrate within the polymer. So under low humidity, dye prints would last a long time, but with humidity levels over 50%, their fade resistance would start dropping very fast.

Pigmented inks don't seem to exhibit this "catalytic reaction" problem, which is why most of the research has been centered with improving pigmented inks.

If you know your film chemistry, you know that the film & paper dyes were separated into gelatin layers. This helped in reducing the dye interaction problems compared to early dye inkjet prints.