Making a Dye Transfer Matrix film

Photo Engineer · Jul 13, 2007

Pigment prints have the chance of being more stable than dye transfer prints, but still smear. Endura and CA prints contain stabilzing agents that confer extremely long life on the dyes.

The basis of my comments is the ICIS (International Congress of Imaging Science) short course I took last year, and conversations with Henry Wilhelm personally, along with other discussions here.

It is also based on many years of work in dye stability, and in keeping up with the work and tests run by Wilhelm.

I really wish you would not doubt that when I post something, I base it on my professoinal opinion as a photo engineer that was gained by over nearly 50 years of work in imaging science. I do grant that there are ongoing improvements in all products. Fuji just introduced their CAII paper with even better dye stability, and they presented a paper on the stability at the same ICIS conference last May. So, my knowledge came from the forefront of research.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jul 13, 2007

Bill Mitchell said:
No Bob, actually I can't (I haven't done Dyes for over 30 years).
In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by "the quality" of dye transfer. Their yellows suck, the margins aren't necessarily very sharp, and without extensive contrast and highlight masking even Ansco Printon looked better at the time (at least until it faded into oblivian in 6 months).

Bill;

This is interesting. I have Printon prints stored in a folder with some Type C prints that I made in 1957. They both look fine. It really depends on storage.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jul 13, 2007

For the information of everyone out there, azo dyes used in many digital prints and also in Dye Transfer and Cibachrome do not have to have very high stability. Some do and some do not. It depends on the dye, the matrix incorporating the dye or enclosing it, and the chemicals added to that dye.

Keeping depends on light intensity, heat, humidity and etc. It also depends on atmospheric contaminants.

At the present time, museums use 100 fc for illuminating displays. They estimate that a digital dye print made this last year will last for about 40 - 60 years and a digital pigment print will last longer (I don't have figures on that), while an Endura or CAII print can last for about 100 - 200 years. And the latter have no image smear.

Dye Transfer prints would fall short of the stability of todays chromogenic papers, Ilfochrome and pigment digital prints. At one time, DT prints had rather poor dye stability. It varied as Kodak improved the dye set. When I left the Ektacolor 70 project, Ektacolor 70 and DT were near parity for some tests, but differed for others. Since then, there has been a lot of changes in both Kodak and Fuji products in line with better overall stability.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jul 13, 2007

Salaam alaikem. (sorry about the spelling)

To everyone, regardless of opinion or religion.

PE

z-man · Jul 13, 2007

printers do what the client pays them to do

Bill Mitchell said:
There is a reason that the Dye Transfer process is called that -- it uses/used Azo dyes which, while relatively stable, aren't in the same longevity league as mineral based pigments, such as those used in oil paints. I believe the process prior to Dye Transfer (and washoff relief) was tricolor carbon printing, which should be more archival.
Do printers use dye or pigment based ink for magazines, newspapers, etc? Do they fade because of the crappy paper, or because of the inks?

bill-

during my time as THE pre-press inspector for the largest high speed web converter in this country-probably the world-i had to ok each and every plate coming out of prep on my tour , before any tour supervisor would even accept the plate on the floor, let alone look at it and then hang it on press-the co subcontracted and delivered for everyone from the gov printing office on up- so while i was there i saw a lot of dfferent work

i had spent a yr running the print shop for a college in a major us university may yrs before and inbetween and after i would periodically work as a process camera operator, stripper and plate maker in many different shops

in my experience, even when clients are educated as to possiblities the bottomline allways trumps all considerations

if you pay for permanace in inks and in supports you should get it

not everyone in biz is honest-i allways tried to be, ex: flat color blue pigment ink(not 4/c process blu) for offset planographic press impression is very permanant and takes a very long time to dry; the client allways wants the work yesterday so a faster drying less permant ink would usually be chosen BY THE CLIENT

the high speed kodak copiers that use plastic pigments took most of this work for the reason that they are dry to pack and ship dirctly off press and permanant for as long as the support-CHOSEN BY THE CLIEINT- continues to exist

the client often choses an ink/support combination that is designed to be fugitive and self destruct soon after it is delivered to the end user

the output of the "printing" industry is as varied as the clients requirements

there was once a process that used gelatine emulsion prints as a master to form a lead mother from which printing "plates" were made in a waysimilar to the way vynal lps
were made

the out put was tipped into books and most could not tell them from original continuous -tone photo prints

photography-as we know it today -is the result of a long ongoing growth that is really just a side bar to the main issue- the "printing" trade

vaya con dios

Photo Engineer · Jul 13, 2007

My statement was consistent throughout. I see no deviation.

Sorry Donald. You can disagree all you want. I suggest that others go to the Wilhelm Institute site for data that is objective in a sense in that they prefer 500 fc rather than 100 fc, but otherwise good.

Also, the RIT site for image stability is good.

That is more objective than us arguing.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jul 14, 2007

I think it best that we leave the personal comments behind us. I appreciate the comments of all concerned.

Thinking about dyes overnight as I did, I would like to add to my above post on pigment dyes.

Although stable, many pigment dyes are made from heavy metals such as Cadmium, Lead, Mercury and etc. The rich magentas, yellows and cyans come from among these. Remember, cadmium yellow? That is one example, as is red lead another.

So, getting stability can be a two edged sword.

Just a pointer. I'm not sure what the pigments contain, nor how they are presented onto the paper. These should all be taken into consideration.

PE

Bill Mitchell · Jul 14, 2007

Time to close this thread. It's useful life has expired.

jd callow · Jul 14, 2007

I'm voting we keep it open and I'm asking all to play nice. I think there is a good deal of value to be found here. I'll prune the thread...

jd callow · Jul 14, 2007

Soory if I deleted any good info, if missed some stuff, or if my deletions were a bit heavy handed -- I simply can't read everything. I see value here and would rather you have to repeat yourselves than to throw the baby out w/ the bath water.

jd callow · Jul 14, 2007

I made some final edits and deletions. Please see if that works...

rmazzullo · Jul 14, 2007

jd callow said:
Sorry if I deleted any good info, if missed some stuff, or if my deletions were a bit heavy handed -- I simply can't read everything. I see value here and would rather you have to repeat yourselves than to throw the baby out w/ the bath water.

Agreed. Once again, cooler heads have prevailed. Thanks for preserving the thread.

Bob M.

ben-s · Jul 14, 2007

jd callow said:
Soory if I deleted any good info, if missed some stuff, or if my deletions were a bit heavy handed -- I simply can't read everything. I see value here and would rather you have to repeat yourselves than to throw the baby out w/ the bath water.

I'm inclined to think you're right. Thanks for stepping in.

Neanderman · Jul 14, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Although stable, many pigment dyes are made from heavy metals such as Cadmium, Lead, Mercury and etc.

So, getting stability can be a two edged sword.

PE

This is exactly the point I was trying to get to with the mordant question. Thanks for making it more succinct.

Ed

dyetransfer · Jul 15, 2007

Dye Transfer Qualities

Bill Mitchell said:
No Bob, actually I can't (I haven't done Dyes for over 30 years).
In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by "the quality" of dye transfer. Their yellows suck, the margins aren't necessarily very sharp, and without extensive contrast and highlight masking even Ansco Printon looked better at the time (at least until it faded into oblivian in 6 months).

It does seem like this thread is getting dangerously off-topic. I feared that when I made the original posting. But I have to address this comment.

The gamut of a well made dye print is very similar to that of Ektachrome film, the shape of the gamut is more-or-less the same, just shrunken (reduced saturation). This means that the process is fairly predicitable for reproducing color from a chrome. Inkjet prints, and even type C prints have much larger deviations from the Ektachrome gamut, and a smaller gamut volume.

The only area where DT prints suffer is in very saturated true cyans, and that just happens to be where CRT monitors are also lacking saturation. Yellows in dye prints are some of the best of all color reproductions. I'm not sure why Bill's yellows weren't good, I find that a dye transfer reproduction will render yellows that a type C print will have problems with. The Reds are also much better in a dye print because of the pure yellow dye.

You disparage the qualities of a dye print made without masking. This is like discussing the qualities of an inkjet print after soaking it in a mud puddle overnight. You have to do extensive masking (HL, and color correction) to get a decent dye print for most subjects. The print will look hopeless dingy with a horrible cast that you can't get rid of with color balancing. Masking is necessary since it isn't built into the process as with color negatives.

Dye Transfers have the best blacks that I have seen, and the best shadow reproduction of any process (Including toned B&W Silver Fiber prints). This is partly because of the extreme dye loading possible, and partly due to the superb F surface which has a very high gloss without looking 'plastic' This is the same surface as a silver-gelatin F surface fiber paper. I routinely target a dmax of 2.70, but it is possible (but not necessarily desirable) to get Dmax readings of > 3.20 on a dye print!

With proper on easel border masking, you can get good white borders with a sharp, well registered edge, but it is difficult to do. I generally elect to not do white borders, and trim the prints when dry mounting them, or cover the edges with an overmat.

My testing of dye fading puts a Dye print at somewhat less stable than the Fuji type C paper, but much better than a Cibachrome. I too have several dye prints 50 years old which have been on display, showing very little fading.

I consider dye transfer prints to be highly collectable, and should generally be stored in portfolio boxes, and not exhibited for long periods of time. This is true of any expensive collectable print. In a portfolio case, the dye print should last hundreds of years without fading or discoloration.

Finally, there is in intangable quality to a well made dye print, a richness and a '3-D' liquidity which I haven't seen in any other process. This quality can't be completely explained with technical measurements - but it is real, and the reason why a few of us are going to such extreme efforts to preserve the process for the future.

Regards - Jim Browning

www.dyetransfer.org

Bill Mitchell · Jul 15, 2007

Folks, I will butt-out. Enjoyed the brief discussion, but fear that I probably was a negative rather than a positive influence on the thread.
Good luck on keeping the process alive.

z-man · Jul 17, 2007

dyetransfer said:
It does seem like this thread is getting dangerously off-topic. I feared that when I made the original posting. But I have to address this comment.

The gamut of a well made dye print is very similar to that of Ektachrome film, the shape of the gamut is more-or-less the same, just shrunken (reduced saturation). This means that the process is fairly predicitable for reproducing color from a chrome. Inkjet prints, and even type C prints have much larger deviations from the Ektachrome gamut, and a smaller gamut volume.

The only area where DT prints suffer is in very saturated true cyans, and that just happens to be where CRT monitors are also lacking saturation. Yellows in dye prints are some of the best of all color reproductions. I'm not sure why Bill's yellows weren't good, I find that a dye transfer reproduction will render yellows that a type C print will have problems with. The Reds are also much better in a dye print because of the pure yellow dye.

You disparage the qualities of a dye print made without masking. This is like discussing the qualities of an inkjet print after soaking it in a mud puddle overnight. You have to do extensive masking (HL, and color correction) to get a decent dye print for most subjects. The print will look hopeless dingy with a horrible cast that you can't get rid of with color balancing. Masking is necessary since it isn't built into the process as with color negatives.

Dye Transfers have the best blacks that I have seen, and the best shadow reproduction of any process (Including toned B&W Silver Fiber prints). This is partly because of the extreme dye loading possible, and partly due to the superb F surface which has a very high gloss without looking 'plastic' This is the same surface as a silver-gelatin F surface fiber paper. I routinely target a dmax of 2.70, but it is possible (but not necessarily desirable) to get Dmax readings of > 3.20 on a dye print!

With proper on easel border masking, you can get good white borders with a sharp, well registered edge, but it is difficult to do. I generally elect to not do white borders, and trim the prints when dry mounting them, or cover the edges with an overmat.

My testing of dye fading puts a Dye print at somewhat less stable than the Fuji type C paper, but much better than a Cibachrome. I too have several dye prints 50 years old which have been on display, showing very little fading.

I consider dye transfer prints to be highly collectable, and should generally be stored in portfolio boxes, and not exhibited for long periods of time. This is true of any expensive collectable print. In a portfolio case, the dye print should last hundreds of years without fading or discoloration.

Finally, there is in intangable quality to a well made dye print, a richness and a '3-D' liquidity which I haven't seen in any other process. This quality can't be completely explained with technical measurements - but it is real, and the reason why a few of us are going to such extreme efforts to preserve the process for the future.

Regards - Jim Browning

www.dyetransfer.org

AMEN

vaya con dios

Photo Engineer · Jul 17, 2007

Back in the mid 60s, Louie Condax and Spot Inkley the grand old men of Dye Transfer at Kodak used to come over to the color paper offices and talk about the differences between the two product families ("C" and "R" papers vs Dye Transfer).

One of the things we all recognized was that you could get comparable quality from DT and direct printing if you used masking and separation exposures. The big difference then was the dye stability and the selectable dye hues of DT.

However, Kodak did introduce some dye sets that led to either worse color or worse stability. One DT yellow dye was so narrow in bandwidth and so short in wavelength that the colors were too desaturated, and some colors took on a yellowish cast as there was not enough sideband in the dye.

Another dye (or the same one) had worse image stability compared to a previous dye. It was better for light, but worse for heat IIRC. So, there was continual fiddling with the product that led to many variations in it just as there was in color papers. See my history of that here as well for a hint.

IDK the history of DT at all, but I do know that it went through many many changes during its lifetime including changes to the Matrix films and the DT paper support, as well as the dyes used.

PE

z-man · Jul 17, 2007

de facto purpose of dt and others

Photo Engineer said:
Back in the mid 60s, Louie Condax and Spot Inkley the grand old men of Dye Transfer at Kodak used to come over to the color paper offices and talk about the differences between the two product families ("C" and "R" papers vs Dye Transfer).

One of the things we all recognized was that you could get comparable quality from DT and direct printing if you used masking and separation exposures. The big difference then was the dye stability and the selectable dye hues of DT.

However, Kodak did introduce some dye sets that led to either worse color or worse stability. One DT yellow dye was so narrow in bandwidth and so short in wavelength that the colors were too desaturated, and some colors took on a yellowish cast as there was not enough sideband in the dye.

Another dye (or the same one) had worse image stability compared to a previous dye. It was better for light, but worse for heat IIRC. So, there was continual fiddling with the product that led to many variations in it just as there was in color papers. See my history of that here as well for a hint.

IDK the history of DT at all, but I do know that it went through many many changes during its lifetime including changes to the Matrix films and the DT paper support, as well as the dyes used.

PE

pe

i raised this pt in a post that was censored:

my own exposure( no pun intended) to dt was as a production method for turning out large nos of quality posters for point of sale adv for hollywood

the fact that the large envestment in time in the drkrm would pay off in the ease of production of large nos of consistent output puts dt in the 'printing' clasification in the same way that the need for quality imaging output for the book publishing industry drove the development of early continuous tone monochrome photography

fox-talbot started both continuous tone photo and the printing trade witdh his paper neg process and the discovery of the screening processs that lead to halfltone tech in all its various forms-his own output was first for the publishing trade

i am sure that, my own narrow personal knowledge notwithstanding, different needs by clients drove the many changes that kodak made in the process-

any thoughts on my assertions please

vaya con dios

Photo Engineer · Jul 17, 2007

Nieman Markus in Dallas sold dye transfer family portraits in their 1965 - 67 catalogs (IIRC) for $10,000 each and advertized them as being an investment for your children or granchildren or some such to emphasize their stability.

I really don't remember the details, but this is the gist of it.

As for your previous post, I had forgotten but did not want the facts we both seem to have remembered to be lost. I was thinking over what was now missing and that above post came to mind.

PE

Donald Miller · Jul 26, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
I'll bet the digital prints won't last 55 years though.

The new Endura and CA papers might last even longer.

PE

I responded to this assertion earlier and my responses have been deleted. I don't want to start an argument here but I think that it is important to deal with the facts that are available.

Ron, in his response to my deleted response, said that his statement above was based upon a short course that he took on the subject and, as I understood him, he seemed to indicate that his information was forthcoming from Wilhelm.

I have contacted Wilhelm Research Institute regarding the results of their tests on various printers, inks and media on which prints could be made. Their position is that color prints produced with the Epson Printers with the K3 ultrachrome inks will last over 100 years (depending on the print base) and that black and white prints will last longer.

They go on to say that the HP printer (Z 3100 model) will produce prints that last 250 years.

I don't know where Ron is getting his information at Wilhelm but it seems to be at variance by quite a bit from what he has stated.

As I said, I don't want an argument. For those who are interested, you can check the facts on the Wilhelm Research Institute website (this is where they directed me). I just want to have the facts be what the are and have been determined to be in reality.

I shoot film, I have no axe to grind in this matter. Just wanting to be factual and fair on this matter.

Photo Engineer · Jul 26, 2007

Donald;

The problem is one of light intensity, heat and humidity. Factoring these in change the equation drastically.

Wilhelm uses 500 fc and Kodak uses 100 fc (It may be 300 and 100, as I don't have the figures with me now) and these change the results. There is also reciprocity in the Arrhenius equations when you reduce the high intensity fade or high temp + humidity fade back to ambient.

All of this confuses the issue. The end result is that the average museum curator is expecting a liftime of 60 or so years for digital prints and longer for chromogenic (analog) prints.

Pigment prints made on a digital printer will last much longer, but some involve heavy metals. I have no information on them at this time.

My information is based on 4 hours of 1:1 talking with Henry Wilhelm and then a 1 hour tour of the RIT Image Stability lab, followed by the 4 hour course in image stability.

Henry did not mention image smear. That was brought out in the short course and later found by an APUG member on Henry's website after I posted the information here earlier. It was on the Wilhelm site, but he failed to even mention this possibility.

So, I would say that there are many possible answers to a very simple question. You have a brief answer from a telephone conversation and I have a lifetime experience doing the work personally and talking to the researchers in the field. What more can I say?

PE

Donald Miller · Jul 26, 2007

Ron,

So am I understanding you correctly? You are now saying that the source that you quoted as the basis for your response to me is not a valid source? And that you are saying that the man that you supposedly were in close communion with during this short course is not valid in his processes and procedures? Is this what I am hearing here Ron, old buddy?

And am I correct that your lifetime of experience has more validity than a recognized authority in the field? My My, old bud...how things have changed.

Do you have published findings of the test processes that you have ephemerically determined as being more accurate? Have you arrived at publically published findings of the longevity of the inks in the same manner that Wilhelm has done? If so, perhaps you would favor us with the substantiating documentation of your determinations.

My original response to your original assertion still stands...Fifty five years is what you said.

Photo Engineer · Jul 26, 2007

I said nothing of the sort Donald, and don't put words in my mouth.

If you want more exact figures, the museums figure that prints already hanging will be less than 55 years (some as short as 10 years) and new prints going up will be about 60 years or so. It varies with paper and ink.

Henry Wilhelm is a reliable reporter, but several different organizations use different methods than he does, such as light intensity, heat, humidity and atmospheric contaminants. Therefore, results and predictions differ.

PE

Donald Miller · Jul 26, 2007

Ron,

You keep trying to wiggle away from what you said...I will just continue to say that the source that you quoted is at odds with what you said that he said. His institute's test results are at total variance with what you have said. I addressed pigmented inks in my original response to you and you discounted the basis of my mention of carbon pigmented inks as being longer lasting...now you have totally reversed yourself on that.

Nowhere, that I have found has anyone, anywhere, other than you made mention of heavy metals in ink formulation. If you can not verify the validity of this assertion, why do you mention it? Most people would call that playing loose and fast with the facts.

Now you are taking this to some unnamed museum curators as your source. Will the next thing be that we will find that those unnamed museum curators are not in agreement with what you are saying here as well?

Why don't you just admit that you let your mouth get away from the verifiable factual basis for your comments. No one is to blame...just that the facts are a lot different than what you said.

Making a Dye Transfer Matrix film

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

z-man

Photo Engineer

Photo Engineer

Bill Mitchell

jd callow

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

rmazzullo

ben-s

Neanderman

dyetransfer

Bill Mitchell

z-man

Photo Engineer

z-man

Photo Engineer

Donald Miller

Photo Engineer

Donald Miller

Photo Engineer

Donald Miller

Making a Dye Transfer Matrix film

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency