Making Commercial Color Separation Negatives of Transparencies for the Kodak Dye Transfer Process

[Carnie Bob]

I agree with Lachian and Koraks here, I would like to see practical examples from a worker making prints today.
I have seen some DT prints and they were lovely, but I do not know of anyone doing current work with the process.


I think the visual proof is important.. I make tri colour GB over Palladiums that can match monitor.. so when I want to get into a
discussion with someone about this process I would like to see their expertise level visually , not ripping text out of manuals and regurgitating.
I was interested in this thread because I do make daily colour separation negatives via PS to inkjet negs , and was quite intrigued to talk with someone currently making sep negs as well.

 

[warden]

My goal is to support interest in this type of process in the fine art industry. I don't have enough old stock Kodak matrix film and paper to do this commercially. This is only a very small part of my research into DT. Color separation methods are also of use to other processes.

The fact is Dye Transfer was probably one of, or possibly the most secretive color print process Kodak ever sold, excluding materials for classified military projects. This monopolization of DT by Kodak was anti-competitive with an end goal to stifle any non Kodak customer and make the market as small of possible. There is really no critical discussion about what was known by industry and how it was being used. It really is night and day between what industry did and what these publications claim. Those who had the knowledge to use this system well selfishly guarded the techniques they used, and rarely discussed them openly. The commercial success of Dye Transfer required information not generally known or obtainable through published sources.

Ok thanks for paragraph 1, which gives the context I was curious about. I’ve long been fascinated with dye transfer after seeing prints that were made that way. They just seem to have that last 2% of oomph that is marvelous to see.

As for paragraph 2, well you’re hearing from several highly experienced forum members that all that stuff is probably nonsense, and definitely tiring to read for the 30th time. But whatever, carry on!

 

[koraks]

I think "commercial success" is a difficult construct. I'm sure dye transfer prints can be made using the information that's available to the general public, if we add up everything published to date by parties in the heyday of the art as well as more recent publications from people like Ctein. Whether one can successfully sell those prints depends on many other factors in addition to how they're made exactly. Finally, given the number of dye transfer printers that have been around and the natural variability in people's temperament, surely, there have been (and maybe still are) printers who have been/were/still are perfectly happy to share everything they know, provided they have the time to answer the questions of the curious souls who set out to pick their brains. Or, simply put - it seems like it's a set of competencies too widely distributed to effectively keep a lid on it, anyway.

Of course, all that removes nothing from the fact that it's a complex skillset that takes both theoretical insight and countless hours of getting your hands dirty (and wet) in order to get anywhere at all. But isn't that the case with many of these processes?