• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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

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.
 

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!
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Bob, I am currently actually MAKING DYE TRANSFER PRINTS now, unlike Drew and Lachlan. I made some transfers last year and would like to make another in the next month or two. What kind of examples do you want to see? I have pictures of masks and separation negatives, curves, etc.


I used all of the techniques I disclosed here. It wouldn't have worked out very well if I used only the methods from publications specifically on Dye Transfer. I did that originally more than 10 year ago and was it clear to me some key pieces of information was missing.
 
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!
Click to expand...

These forum members saying this never worked in a commercial DT lab that I'm aware of. There are a few people on Photrio who I know of that have done this commercially, but haven't commented on this thread either way.
 
IB Photochemistry said:
These forum members saying this never worked in a commercial DT lab that I'm aware of. There are a few people on Photrio who I know of that have done this commercially, but haven't commented on this thread either way.
Click to expand...

I’m happy to see in post 129 that you have been making DT prints! I for one would enjoy seeing some pictures of the prints and maybe a description of your working methods. That type of printing is a true rarity these days, and I’ll value learning from you even without seeing your resume or knowing your work history.
 
Seconded!!
 

I take Iphone pictures all the time of my prints, I think that is what I am interested in, basically some background images making the prints would also be wonderful to see.
 
IB Photochemistry said:
I made some transfers last year and would like to make another in the next month or two. What kind of examples do you want to see?
Click to expand...

I'm not Bob, but I would also be very interested in seeing pics of these prints if you can share them here or on DM. I appreciate your efforts to throw light on the technical side of this awe-inspiring process.
 
IB - Why should I be forced to repeat that you do not speak for me? Where did I - me, I myself - ever state that I hadn't made masks and separation negatives specifically for dye transfer purposes, or hadn't dyed and rolled out matrices? I never said that - you did - and it's both presumptuous to say that about me, and entirely incorrect.

What I did state is that I regard myself as a beginner at this, and probably don't have the time or income to perfect the process to anywhere near the same degree as I have done with Cibachrome and chromogenic color printing. I made numerous matched separation and masking sets prior to the pandemic. How do I know I'm on the right track with these? Because I made DT prints of color test targets (MacBeth Chart) taken on more than one kind of chrome sheet film, which came out well balanced and properly hue saturated as actual DT test samples. That's what I mean by "playing the piano chords". I could hypothetically start up again anytime, but don't have much incentive, since I already have more efficient ways to make world-class color prints.

As far as simplicity versus complexity goes : I know career DT printers who rarely masked at all, and relied almost entirely on dye pH adjustments, rolling tweaks, and selective bleaching to obtain excellent prints. With Pan Matrix Film in particular, a densitometer isn't even really needed, since there are no separations to begin with. It can all be done by eye.

But I've also seen a work routinely requiring 16 sheets of film per image - dual separations for each of the three colors - a high contrast version with its mask set, and a low-contrast equivalent with its own set sets (both sets used to expose the same respective sheet of matrix film - in order to cleanly span the whole contrast range); plus typically another mask or two. Result - it worked, but only garden-variety, and as grainy as hell. Have you ever researched that approach?

In other words, there are many ways to get the job done. DT printers tend to take their own paths, and maybe or maybe not write about it afterwards. Finding the right supplies today anymore is a far bigger problem. At least I've identified current films which do work quite well for both masking and tricolor separations.

Masking protocols are not mutually interchangeable between DT, carbon, Ciba, Chromogenic printing, B&W silver printing, etc. They all differ. Likewise, with tricolor separation strategy.
 
Last edited:
I will soon post some examples of some Dye Transfer prints I rolled myself, some of my equipment used, and separation negatives, and masks.
 

I think what I said was you made at least one set of separations for DT but didn't make highlight masks. You then seemed to agree with me that you didn't make highlight masks, but that I was “twisting my [your] words”, then you went on about that you thought it wasn't necessary. I don't know if you made Principle masks or not since I don't know where on the site or if you said you did. You did imply that 3 sheet DT from transparencies could be fine, so I might have incorrectly interpreted that as such, that you didn't make principles masks. Again I don't know if you did or not. And yes I am aware you tried to rolling some matrices you made once. I haven't seen any pictures of them.


I disagree with this.

Pan matrix requires careful use of flash controls to correct color and spacial modulation, and a desitometer can be useful there. Pan matrix does have an automatic masking function that I have not fully investigated yet. Its a corrective mask for the Kodak printing dyes, not an isolation mask of imaging dyes. No publications exist of this function, but it is detailed in an archived collection of relevant materials.


Yes, I am aware of “ganged” separations. I haven't researched it as much as some of the more basic approaches used in the industry. Basically one makes two sets of separation negatives, one too contrasty the other slightly flat, and two sets of principle masks and two sets of highlight masks. Then usually, with this approach two isolation filters are used, such as Wratten #29 and Wratten #25 with to different sets of separations, so therefore there would be 4 red separation negatives of both contrasts and dye sidebands contrasts.


That is your opinion. I don't want to keep going over with you, why you think I'm wrong about the old materials. For the interest of historical accuracy the old materials need to be referenced. I have other information to add on this thread with respect to the making of commercial DT separation negatives.
 
Carnie Bob said:
I do make daily colour separation negatives via PS to inkjet negs
Click to expand...

If you cut away all the irrelevant noise that has been generated on this thread, dye transfer's neg density requirements are essentially those of digital negs for silver gelatin. No great magic to it. It's a process of the 1930s/40s that ceased research in 1965.

The bigger issue is one of scaling the matrix emulsion for craft scale use/ manual blade coating tests, vis-a-vis more industrial making of it, or for that matter industrial scale coating of it (given that nobody seems to want to let go of their unused hoards of the Fotokemika batch).
 
There again you go, IB - don't pretend to know what I did or didn't do. Your assumptions are wrong. Of course I did highlight mask tests - but there's more than one way to skin a cat there too.

The last person who used Pan Matrix Film (and bought up so much that it required a second mortgage on his house), and did so for many years professionally, would significantly disagree with your description of its usage. No flashing was involved, just a basic enlarger - plus pin-registered easel of course. I've been in those digs; and it was a pretty darn simple setup.

Lachlan - high-end DIY slot coaters have been used to make private use prototyping matrix film in bulk. I doubt the blade technique would be appropriate.
 
Last edited:

This sounds like a half-understood muddle between various extended techniques used when chromogenic printing on current higher contrast papers, and/ or trying to force a troublesome neg into dye transfer without really understanding either. A properly exposed (this is the key aspect here) colour neg is inherently masked for colour and contrast control (with limitations on misuse for maintaining sufficiently accurate colour - as you should know if you have done even the bare minimum of colour critical work with colour neg, for that matter, had to get misused CN film to produce a good print). Getting the density equalised sufficiently on an overexposed sky is not the matter at hand when discussing the baseline fundamentals of the process.

There were no great secrets in the Pan Matrix emulsion. Its lack of sophistication in terms of emulsion technology is what killed it. It was early 1950s in terms of emulsion fundamentals.

I also happen to know people who taught dye transfer (and other colour separators from elsewhere in graphic arts) at a further/ higher education level in the UK from the 1960s onwards as part of advanced colour printing techniques, and the clear opinion I have heard was to the effect of 'Pan Matrix was much easier to work with, compared to working from transparencies', not lots of lengthy claims about needing complex pre-flash etc.

DREW WILEY said:
high-end DIY slot coaters have been used to make private use prototyping matrix film in bulk. I doubt the blade technique would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

That was not my point. A proper coating blade as discussed by Ron Mowrey is capable of delivering coatings of very high quality. The problem is emulsion scaling. The volumes involved in the open source JB emulsion are very much greater (and will by all accounts readily scale up to industrial scale) than you would want to make for initial coating experiments, but if you scale down (from 5L to 500ml, for example), you may run into non-linearity (Debye and Hückel). It's a (potentially wasteful) headache rather than a complete stoppage, and would be solved very readily were a company like Adox or Foma to make a batch of decent size and bottle it in 1L quantities. It would then be much more easily stored cold, then the portions needed for coating a given set (or sets) of matrices could be used, rather than having to rejig the emulsion to enable sub 1L makes (making a 5L batch is getting industrial, fast).
 

The function of any separation negative is to allow the light to pass through the negative and in all cases have an effect on the substrate that is coated with an emulsion, Once you understand the basic theory indeed anyone can make separation negs. For my work I do not use the K but rather make a modified black and white conversion which I then turn into a negative to use as a Luminosity negative which provides detail , density and base tone.
To Lachian Youngs point I use the same calibrated profile to make my inkjet negative and the same profile is good for any process you want. Once you have the base Luminosity tones input/output calibrated everything will fall in place for years if you use the same working materials for each process.
I would suggest that these negs or pos will work with DT as any other process.
 
A key difference is in the masking, Bob. The masking is not only in relation to contrast adjustments, but also corrective of certain dye deficiencies in the case of DT printing. There are certainly workarounds, depending. My own aim was to establish a general protocol using currently available films which could thereafter be tailored to more specific applications - DT either from chromes or color neg originals, or even in-camera tricolor separations, as well as, at least for fun experimentation purposes, sequential tricolor exposure of RA4 media.

Alas, it proved to be quite difficult to find suitable shots in the field for in-camera 8x10 separations; maybe in the desert; but here on the coast it's windy most of the time, and I didn't want just "still life"
options.

These separations were fully worthy of DT work from chromes, however; or, with significant additional headaches, from color negs via inter-positives.

Sequential RA4 exposure from pin-registered separations? Yeah, I've got the right equipment and a few sets of candidate separations, but never fussed with it yet beyond that point. Maybe someday down the line. It's a low priority project. The problem with RA4 is that it's geared to low contrast negs, whereas DT typically needs higher gamma; so a set of common-denominator separation probably wouldn't be realistic. I know how to make contrast-increase masks, but that's just more film waste getting harder to justify at today's significantly higher prices in terms of "what-if?" projects. I've seen results of that sequential sep neg approach before on RA4 media; and it doesn't really add anything special.

The best DT work I've ever personally seen was that of John Wawrzonek. He subsequently heavily invested in the Evercolor pigment printing system, in an attempt to gain more permanent images. That was a commercial failure after a few years. Besides the huge runs of pre-coated film, they used full sized imagesetter separations for contact, capable of up to 40X60 inch prints, if I recall correctly. A huge Olec-Stosser pin-registered setup with pins on every side. No expense spared, all in a distinct modern industrial space I visited. What most people don't remember is that they also offered similar
quad color contact workflow onto Fuji RA4 paper. I still have a sample somewhere. That was a flop too, but a novel approach.
 
I would argue that the separations we make for our process address the needs of masking and as well colour correction. Its only Logical.
 
Carnie Bob said:
I would argue that the separations we make for our process address the needs of masking and as well colour correction. Its only Logical.
Click to expand...

Bob I have a couple of questions. What inkjet negative material do you use to output your negative too and what is a Luminosity negative. I have never heard of that term and when I searched for it - it comes back as a reference to astronomy. I am just setting up to make a couple of separation negatives and it would be interesting to try and and make an inkjet negative at the same time of the same image
 
LAB - L is the luminosity of the image which equates on the print as detail and tone.

I make a modified Black and White conversion to help me apply more colour in all the channels . This inverted negative is now what I use instead of the K to print Palladium or Cyanotype layers if I am doing a full colour image, this is what I call the Luminosity negative and not a K negative as others printers use worldwide

For Silver I just do a nice BW conversion , invert and flip horizontal and use it for the negative

I am using a pictorico like material that has been calibrated to match input LAB values to Output print LAB values.
Basically an overhead projection film.

It is very fragile and does not take a lot of impressions before needing to be discarded , but for us it takes 10 mins to make a neg.
 
It is definitely faster than having to make masks and separation negatives with film. My goal is to be able to make separation negatives to project onto a matrix film. I have been fighting with trying to make separation negatives and masks from 35mm transparencies and a process like this would really make life easier. Thanks for your reply.
 
There again you go, IB - don't pretend to know what I did or didn't do. Your assumptions are wrong. Of course I did highlight mask tests - but there's more than one way to skin a cat there too.
Click to expand...

But he didn't make the type of highlight masks typically used in DT. In fact he made some rather disparaging remarks against me saying “imagined and historically incorrect “, to the kinds of masks I discovered in my research, and which I can document, were being used in the industry. In my view, he had no idea about Long Range Highlight masks versus highlight masks, so I'm fairly sure he hasn't made them. This is only my opinion.

One can take the information I have found and question its merit or ignore it, its up to the readers. I am trying to encourage critical thinking on this and the many areas I have discovered, to not simply try to defend what is commonly believed by others. I am certainly not claiming to be the arbiter on color separation making, as there are still a number of things I still don't know about.


We don't know that. And I don't want to reference that individual on this platform.
 
Well, refusing to reference a particular individual who more than anyone else worked with Pan Matrix Film pretty much says it all. But I'll honor your feelings and not divulge the obvious myself.

I've already expressed my concept of both highlight and general masking - "There's more than one way to skin a cat". So, yes, you are correct to assume I didn't do it the same way you have. But you're incorrect in assuming that intermediate high value masks were routine. All kinds of tricks can be come up with on the fly as needed. And with DT, there's the easier and more common option of selectively bleaching back highlights. Regardless, smooth progressive highlight control is one of the bigger challenges in DT.
 

No, Lachlan you have the misunderstanding. All chromogenic color materials, E6 films, RA-4 papers, and color reversal papers, have internal color masking for correction of their OWN DYES. Lachlan is making a muddle of the dyes used in the NEGATIVE FILM and the DYES USED IN THE PAPER. I think we can both agree these are not the same type of dyes?

Different dyes require a different type of masking. Dye Transfer dyes do not have the same spectral characteristics of the coupler produced dyes in color negative film. If the dye densities from the color negative are transferred to a matrix film, they will have insufficient color correction. Masking correction is required when using any real set of dyes. In fact Kodak acknowledged this a few times, for example, in a publication titled Three Color Separation Prints from Color Negatives using Resisto Rapid Pan Paper, where red and green light correction masks could be used with this process.

There were no great secrets in the Pan Matrix emulsion. Its lack of sophistication in terms of emulsion technology is what killed it. It was early 1950s in terms of emulsion fundamentals.
Click to expand...

How much research have you done Lachlan into matrix film formulations? Pan Matrix 4149 was a 1960's emulsion, it had another designation before that. Kodak decided to discontinue it a few years before Dye Transfer was discontinued; it had nothing to do with “lack of sophistication”.

Do you still think this was just unhardened Super XX pan mixed with dye? Its not, and we know that because of its far red sensitivity. It also had a light scattering medium in the emulsion designed to scatter the pre-flash exposure. Similar emulsions used a mixture of carbon black and Titanium Dioxide pigment, I have found from my research.


Kodak customers knew about these other secret techniques everyone else didn't know about. The flash procedures were a selfishly guarded trade secret, that does not appear in any published literature on Dye Transfer. Most of the industry used color transparencies not color negatives, and it often worked better to separate the color negative and print it using matrix film, because multiple images were often added and that gave more control over the process. Frog Prince, CVI, Tartaro, etc. almost never worked with Pan Matrix. Besides the flash procedure various tweaks were used in the tanning developer for each matrix individually, from what I understand. I think Tartaro Color Lab simply made a transparency from a color negative then separated it like any other transparency, others made interpositves and masks.


Again Lachlan how much do you know about matrix film? Matrix was coated to very tight tolerances by Kodak. These are your opinions not facts. From my research the Browning emulsion was never very good. I spoke with Dr. Dick Goldberg, who designed the Printparency matrix film, and he said the Browning formula wasn't a very good film. Those who want to know why can research his work. The Browning film was basically slopped together using a simple Bromoiodide emulsion. It doesn't use the correct gelatin, it has no dye sensitization, there is no DOH added as a hardness stabilizer, and it wasn't coated on corona treated polyester stock, among other problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register