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

[DREW WILEY]

The matrix film that Bettina Haneke uses didn't come from Ekfe, and is an entirely different formulation optimized for blue laser exposure. And no, it's not available to the public. It's possible that there was a preliminary version which did come from Efke, but I'm not going to dig through my old notes. All this didn't involve investors, but a substantial university grant, unlikely to be repeated. Any serious DT revival is likely going to be reliant on some kind of philanthropic interest.

Kodak materials weren't as consistent as you imply. Towards the end, as the older technicians were being replaced by lesser experienced ones, not only was there a flawed batch of yellow dye which got out (not to mention the flip flop in its variations), but also some lesser quality receiver paper. Matrix film was being coated with especially old machinery.

I'm aware of the mottle you describe with the Efke product. It probably wouldn't bother someone looking at a larger print, but might be slightly annoying in an 8x10 contact print. I experimented with it using using both my own variation of Wash-Off relief and with the Kodak development system. But I don't pretend to be anything more than a kindergarten level DT printer still just learning the piano chords.

The swelling issue of the Efke product can be overcome. But hopefully, if there ever again is a production run of Matrix film, several issues could be redressed.

The more relevant Kodak chemists and technicians who were involved during its heyday are no longer around. But I still contend that, going forward, if possible it would make more sense to develop a product with a more cooperative toe needing less highlight masking. Much of this problem has been overcome by the special curve-restructured profiles made possible by the laser exposure route of Bettina, as well as the film-recorder re-profiling separation negs which Jim Browning employs. But for those of us who prefer a traditional darkroom route, other tricks must be used.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kodak matrix film was very special in many ways

It really wasn't. It needed special handling because of the unhardened nature of the emulsion, but it was otherwise a very low tech product. In fact that seems to have been part of what killed it off, namely that it would have been very costly to turn it into a highly controlled, efficient and low waste (relatively) modern emulsion. You are confusing the troublesome nature of manufacturing relatively low tech (and high wastage) emulsions and the means employed to try and make them adequately consistent batch-to-batch with them having some sort of properties that you are intent on wishing into existence. They were primitive emulsions by the standards of the 1960s, never mind the 1990s.

No Kodak did not specify all characteristics Separation Negative Type I and II

It would be visible on the characteristic curve and the spectral sensitivity. Unlike what you assume, the majority market for both materials was not Dye Transfer, and the industrial colour sep market was so vast that Kodak was not the company who dictated who got the secret knowledge. Kodak were however in the business of selling lots of those films, so they sure as hell told customers exactly what it did and didn't do (and quite literally provided lengthy documents about all sorts of masking for offset & other seps that would eventually be screened). On the other hand, maybe the effects of fog on decades expired emulsions are what's distorting your understanding, a bit like how you seem to be desperately trying to get 2+2 to equal 22. Craft based colour separation processes are not particularly tricky processes up until the assembly stage. As long as the seps are correct enough, there are a lot of controls at assembly.

You also need to understand that Yule and Hunt were writing as much about optimal 4-colour reproduction for offset or rotogravure when discussing masking as they were about any other colour print process. In fact you can see (with hindsight) that both censor (or were censored) about how much they could disclose about the way that colour neg materials can utilise both masking within layers and interlayer effects (etc) to achieve near optimal colour reproduction. Getting really good colour reproduction at vast scale and speed with offset print was where the core research interest was by the time they were writing.

And if you have read Hunt properly, you will see that you are making quite a muddle out of his work, which is well explained and intended to make things clearer for the end user (such as what masks you can dispense with). There are also good (and obvious, so obvious that a glance at the data sheets will tell you) reasons why Sep Neg 1 had benefits over Super-XX, it just requires a little consideration of where Super-XX might hit the wall. There are plenty of current materials that can be co-opted.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

The matrix film that Bettina Haneke uses didn't come from Ekfe, and is an entirely different formulation optimized for blue laser exposure. And no, it's not available to the public. It's possible that there was a preliminary version which did come from Efke, but I'm not going to dig through my old notes. All this didn't involve investors, but a substantial university grant, unlikely to be repeated. Any serious DT revival is likely going to be reliant on some kind of philanthropic interest.

I spoke to Egbert and Bettina myself about this. While I can't say anything about that here, Drew doesn’t know any more than I do on this; they don't discuss technical details of their process. And what are you implying by “optimized for laser exposure”? You realize that 488 nm and 514 nm wavelengths bands of light are just parts of the a visible spectrum, which are also found in a continuous white light source as well? So its blue sensitive, and a white light source would be more than adequate to form a latent image on it as well. My source says more people than Bettina are using it with optical enlargers. Just because a material could be sensitized for a specific wavelength or have good high intensity reciprocity characteristics, doesn't make it unsuitable for white light exposure.

Kodak materials weren't as consistent as you imply. Towards the end, as the older technicians were being replaced by lesser experienced ones, not only was there a flawed batch of yellow dye which got out (not to mention the flip flop in its variations), but also some lesser quality receiver paper. Matrix film was being coated with especially old machinery.

You have no evidence of most of this. I ACTUALLY TESTED some of these alleged materials myself. Bob Pace in his Keeping Pace newsletter, mentioned the issue of the Dye Transfer paper with emulsion batch number 85803. I have a box of this (probably because people were afraid to use it) and I find it completely usable. He claimed that it was a defective batch of paper and would generate a mottle. When I tested it the densities were constant on each area of the step wedge and observed no distracting mottle pattern. Is there a bit of “imbibition grain” noise? Possibly, but it is perfectly usable paper. That “imbibition grain” appearance can occur with other situations as well most of the later production paper. Bob Pace was trying to imply that Kodak somehow lost control of the manufacturing process due to lack of master DT operators.

Yes, there was a yellow concentrate (of which I have which a bottle of) that came from Frog Prince, that did precipitate out a little over time. When it was manufactured it met their standards and would present no problems. Printers would replenish this with some older yellow dye concentrate that did not have this problem, and restore its functionality. Someone cut a corner there but it still worked when it was new, for what it was designed for.

Drew has no knowledge on how matrix film was coated at Eastman Kodak. The two individuals I spoke to, both claiming to know about Kodak matrix film manufacturing, basically said contradicting versions of the story. I won't identify these people here, except Dr. Dick Goldberg who died in 2017. It wouldn’t matter if the coating machine was “old”, it was still likely they used a very precise laminar flow of emulsion. Those tolerances can be extremely small, less than 1 micron. The overall manufacturing tolerances would need to be tighter than normal black and white pictorial films. There were more variables that would need to be tested than a simple black and white pictorial film. For example, its dye sensitometry is different than its silver sensitometry and procedures were created for technicians to measure it. Again it didn't require DT master crafts people to make good matrix film and DT materials! Its a lot of BS what Bob Pace, Tom Rankin, etc., claimed regarding Kodak's manufacturing “problems” or "defects", for their own personal selfish reasons.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

It really wasn't. It needed special handling because of the unhardened nature of the emulsion, but it was otherwise a very low tech product. In fact that seems to have been part of what killed it off, namely that it would have been very costly to turn it into a highly controlled, efficient and low waste (relatively) modern emulsion. You are confusing the troublesome nature of manufacturing relatively low tech (and high wastage) emulsions and the means employed to try and make them adequately consistent batch-to-batch with them having some sort of properties that you are intent on wishing into existence. They were primitive emulsions by the standards of the 1960s, never mind the 1990s.

I'm afraid you really don't know what you are talking about here! Kodak Matrix film 4150 was an emulsion created in the 1960's, it was not the matrix film of the 1950's. Is a dye sensitized bromo-iodide emulsion with low silver content, not “high wastage”. Since I have done some research into matrix film I can tell you that there are very special things in matrix film technology. It not a just an unhardened film with some added yellow dye. It turns out that Kodak matrix film is much more complicated than I originally thought. Master DT craft people wouldn’t normally know about this. If you think this is simple, how many kinds of tanning developers do you know about? If so, what are their reductive potentials? What is the role of Argenine in the gelatin? Some of this you wont find in the published literature.

It would be visible on the characteristic curve and the spectral sensitivity. Unlike what you assume, the majority market for both materials was not Dye Transfer, and the industrial colour sep market was so vast that Kodak was not the company who dictated who got the secret knowledge. Kodak were however in the business of selling lots of those films, so they sure as hell told customers exactly what it did and didn't do (and quite literally provided lengthy documents about all sorts of masking for offset & other seps that would eventually be screened). On the other hand, maybe the effects of fog on decades expired emulsions are what's distorting your understanding, a bit like how you seem to be desperately trying to get 2+2 to equal 22. Craft based colour separation processes are not particularly tricky processes up until the assembly stage. As long as the seps are correct enough, there are a lot of controls at assembly.

Have you seen the characteristic curve of Sep, Neg. Type I or II? Or the spectral sensitivity curves? Kodak never published it! I never said Separation films were only for DT. They have internal color isolation masking that can benefit graphic arts as well. This fact never was placed in any publication that I am aware of.

And if you have read Hunt properly, you will see that you are making quite a muddle out of his work, which is well explained and intended to make things clearer for the end user (such as what masks you can dispense with). There are also good (and obvious, so obvious that a glance at the data sheets will tell you) reasons why Sep Neg 1 had benefits over Super-XX, it just requires a little consideration of where Super-XX might hit the wall. There are plenty of current materials that can be co-opted.

I have the Hunt book myself. It covers a lot a processes and doesn't go into much detail on the use of matrices for linear color correction masks as would be required for something like DT. Looking at the correction factors for a 3x3 matrix, yes, some of the small numbers are not as significant and can be omitted without major color error. You must remember that going from a transparency to a set of imbibition dyes are two different sets. Commercial DT labs used more than two color correction masks.

Have you been able to use pictorial films to make good separations? If so, what films are you using?

 

[DREW WILEY]

"White" light might involve more scatter, although it could be narrow band filtered if necessary. Depends on what is exactly going on with that matrix emulsion. I happen to have true narrow band additive colorheads on hand, where I sometimes use the blue channel exclusively for particular reasons. In their case, it was the logistics involved, yet also challenge of keeping those blue laser exposing devices still going by hoarding up spares.

I didn't hear the consistency problems issue from Bob Pace. Well after that, and saw examples in person. Not necessarily "bad", but not "best" either.

But again, don't pretend to speak for me, or discount whom I might have spoken to myself. Lachlan already pointed out some of your inaccurate preconceptions of matrix film manufacture. And it's been cited by numerous experienced practitioners than those you just mentioned, some of whom gained access to Kodak's own formula. It has been reasonably said that matrix film was one of the simplest films to make. The bigger trick would be to make a receiver paper of equal convenience.

And it's hard to call Bob Pace "selfish" when he went out of his way to teach the craft to others. Most of his materials and even specific gadgetry are now obsolete; but he deserves a lot of credit for what he did for others in his own era.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

But again, don't pretend to speak for me, or discount whom I might have spoken to myself. Lachlan already pointed out some of your inaccurate preconceptions of matrix film manufacture. And it's been cited by numerous experienced practitioners than those you just mentioned, some of whom gained access to Kodak's own formula. It has been reasonably said that matrix film was one of the simplest films to make. The bigger trick would be to make a receiver paper of equal convenience.

You don't know what you are talking about here Drew! Lachlan did NOT point out any of my “inaccurate preconceptions of matrix film manufacture”. How much research has he done on matrix film emulsions and associated chemistry? I have found more than 300 published sources dealing with related chemistry, physics, and sensitometry of related materials. Making good matrix is not a simple task.

Assuming (in some highly unlikely scenario) some DT master printer obtained access to one of the Kodak matrix film formulations, how could they use it? There are a number of chemicals in it they don't know about (or have not means to identify based on proprietary codes), have no means to synthesize, nor would they be able to coat it on other kinds of equipment without experts in coating/material science. Manufacturing a material like matrix requires expertise in material science, physics, chemistry, engineering, process experts, and various kinds of sensitometry. It does not require a master DT craft person. So, I think if some DT operator told you they have obtained something like this they are probably bullshitting you, to make you believe in their own narrative. Even former MEC technician Frank McLaughlin (deceased) would probably not have had access to something like this. There was a lot of secrecy surrounding coating formulas.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The rebuttal to that is so conspicuous that I don't know why I even need to bother linking it. Where do you think the subsequent versions of matrix films came from - clear out of the blue? And how did several other commercial sources of dye transfer supplies, including matrix film, come into play long before that, independently of Eastman Kodak? And what makes you think Frank McLaughlin didn't pass along quite a bit? Kodak was permanently discontinuing the process anyway; they had nothing to lose. And it's also quite evident that skilled craftsmen with engineering backgrounds are perfectly capable of making their own effective smaller-scale coating machines if they have the determination to do so.

In this day and age, any chemical ingredient still extant in trace amounts can be identified and replicated by major R&D labs, or even serious University labs. It happens all the time. DT printing itself just doesn't carry enough financial incentive anymore to entice that kind of sleuthing; and any underlying patents are no doubt long expired. Dye imbibtion films came into existence well before the official era of Eastman dye transfer printing per se. The only thing stopping an even better product from emerging is lack of a market, not the technological hurdle. Kodak was basically just coasting for decades, just like "good enough" inkjet probably will once it plateaus.

Any number of Kodak products had their special tweaks. For example, their Brown Toner was especially easy to use, and could be stored for a long time in liquid form. It's no longer available; but, minus some minor preservative ingredients, a perfectly functional DIY version can be easily mixed up on demand in about ten minutes. Similarly, the allegedly secret formula for original HC-110 was dissected in a well equipped university lab, where a decade's worth personal supply was also cooked up and precisely tested for identical performance. It is still being used to develop FP4 separation negs for DT printing.

One reason legacy products continue on in unchanged form, is that once practitioners mastered certain complex skills, especially those which involved multiple-worker assembly line strategies, it would be clumsy to change, even if component products could be improved. But in this case, all the key film and paper products involved in DT printing simply aren't in production anymore. Go ahead and extol Separation Film type this and that till the end of time - all that is valid in the same sense dinosaur paleontology is - interesting, yes; but you're never going to have your own living breathing Jurassic Park. And I think Lachlan is onto something when he remarked that the alleged self-masking property you think you're seeing is just an artifact of badly outdated film.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

In this day and age, any chemical ingredient still extant in trace amounts can be identified and replicated by major R&D labs, or even serious University labs. It happens all the time. DT printing itself just doesn't carry enough financial incentive anymore to entice that kind of sleuthing; and any underlying patents are no doubt long expired. Dye imbibtion films came into existence well before the official era of Eastman dye transfer printing per se. The only thing stopping an even better product from emerging is lack of a market, not the technological hurdle. Kodak was basically just coasting for decades, just like "good enough" inkjet probably will once it plateaus.

Better technology does exist and can easily be implemented. For example, better dyes have been identified by myself and some archive sources. There appears to a double standard in this line of thinking by many online. For example, using separation films that work well like Kodak Separation Negative and Super XX, are discouraged and inferior substitutes like Tmax, FP4, HP5, etc. are promoted for experimentation, and are believe to be better by people who don't make separations themselves.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

One reason legacy products continue on in unchanged form, is that once practitioners mastered certain complex skills, especially those which involved multiple-worker assembly line strategies, it would be clumsy to change, even if component products could be improved. But in this case, all the key film and paper products involved in DT printing simply aren't in production anymore. Go ahead and extol Separation Film type this and that till the end of time - all that is valid in the same sense dinosaur paleontology is - interesting, yes; but you're never going to have your own living breathing Jurassic Park. And I think Lachlan is onto something when he remarked that the alleged self-masking property you think you're seeing is just an artifact of badly outdated film.

That is just silly. If it were due to fogging I would be seeing this with Super XX pan, which can have a high base fog, and I'm not. The identical effect occurs in different batches of Sep. Neg. film as well. The base fog level for this film isn't unusually high, for a film about 30 years old.

The self masking property can also be fine tuned. For example, the effect is not as strong with wider band filters. A Wratten #61 versus a (narrow band) Wratten #93 green, will show less correction. Its possible to expose this film with wide and narrow band filters to fine tune this effect for the type of transparency dyes one is separating to get the best isolation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sigh ... 30 yr old film says it all. You're lucky some of the emulsion didn't frill off. Too bad all those "better" films you espouse are unavailable going forward. What's the point? How does that help anyone wanting to get into the game for
themselves?

61 green filters are getting quite hard to find (I have a glass one); but many people got along with a less dense 58. I obtained identical curve results with my onboard green colorhead channel as with either the 61, or 61 and the green channel combined; so the green was quite pure in either case. Likewise with 29 red and my red channel, and 47B blue and the blue channel itself.

The nice thing about TMX100 is that it doesn't have the blue lower gamma issue that Super XX and FP4 do. I never heard of anyone using HP5 for separations, at least in relation to DT work; it has a long toe, and is quite grainy for a modern film. Delta 100 has been used, but only in relation to digital re-profiling.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

Sigh ... 30 yr old film says it all. You're lucky some of the emulsion didn't frill off. Too bad all those "better" films you espouse are unavailable going forward. What's the point? How does that help anyone wanting to get into the game for
themselves?

If anyone has any of those films they can be valuable for making color separation negatives. Its very useful for people to know how it was actually done in the industry, and not some BS about Tmax films, which were never used. And Drew himself has spoken about (on photrio.com) using old >20 year expired color transparency film, which he said worked ok being continuously frozen. I would expect some color shifting from background cosmic rays. My separation Negative Type I and Super XX pan has been stored frozen continuously for its entire lifetime. Without adding antifoggants the Dmin (base + fog) of my Sep. Neg. type I is around 0.43 DU. Its also on thick 7 mil polyester base. Why the double standard here Drew?

How can one “get into the game” with inadequate knowledge of the process of making separation negatives, in the first place? There is a very good reason why most people give up after 4-5 years of trying DT. Their separations are totally inadequate and they lack the knowledge to make good separations, due to Kodak's monopolization of DT. THIS SHOULD BE A TOTAL OUTRAGE! Go ahead and say Kodak didn't know any better, and published everything they knew, and relied on crafts people instead of engineers and scientists to make materials. Its complete nonsense.

61 green filters are getting quite hard to find (I have a glass one); but many people got along with a less dense 58. I obtained identical curve results with my onboard green colorhead channel as with either the 61, or 61 and the green channel combined; so the green was quite pure in either case. Likewise with 29 red and my red channel, and 47B blue and the blue channel itself.

And how do you know that “many people” used a Wratten #58? You don't know what the commercial labs used any more than I do. The green Wratten #61 filter is fairly lousy, it leaks a lot of red light. Even in the 1950's some commercial labs weren’t using the Wratten #61 and 47B, as they don't align well spectrally with most types of Ektachromes. I do however have a Condit exposing light with a filter wheel containing glass filters once used at a major commercial DT lab. The Wratten #61 filter I have leaks so much red light, that one can differentiate a red colored object from a black or neutral object in the dark. I find that unacceptable, and it is evident on the film.

The nice thing about TMX100 is that it doesn't have the blue lower gamma issue that Super XX and FP4 do. I never heard of anyone using HP5 for separations, at least in relation to DT work; it has a long toe, and is quite grainy for a modern film. Delta 100 has been used, but only in relation to digital re-profiling.

So according to you all the separation negatives be given the same development time? There are 3 development times for Super XX pan and 3 different development times for Separation Negative films.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nearly entire 8x10 custom cuts of TMax 100 have been devoted to DT separation negs, and repeatedly. That was one of its intended usages right from the beginning; and it was the handwriting on the wall spelling the end of Super-XX,
even though DT itself was axed by Kodak not long after.

And yes, I have been able to develop all 3 seps on TMax for the identical time, or all at the same time, to obtain the same amount of gamma with overlapping curves. It took a fair amount of work to find and fine-tune its sweet spot of reciprocity, where all three coincided. But having done that, it's highly predictable. I was using narrow-band RGB channels, including excellent internal electronic feedback control. I have good reason to believe my own special exposure source is quite superior to the old Condit colored filter system, but spelling out exactly why might be getting nitpicky. (Hint : there are two distinct ways to achieve dichroic narrow-band cutoff). My method is certainly easier to use, and there's no light leakage.

I've never tried this with a conventional YMC colorhead; but if I had to, I would be using glass 29 red, 61 green, and 47B blue filters over the lens, except in the case of Kodachrome, where 25 red is said to work better. But one has to be careful with these specific filters - they vary somewhat between brands, and even within the same brand sometimes when it comes to consistent quality control. I've also measured certain real gel (Wratten) and pseudo-gel filters.

With TM400, however, it's ironically the green separation which needs a little more development. And with all the other films, the blue separation had even more severely reduced gamma. I can't remember how Tech Pan responded, or even where I filed those particular notes, except that it seemed hopeless for critical full-scale separation work. FP4 is the film recommended by Ilford, with its own blue sep mismatch.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

Nearly entire 8x10 custom cuts of TMax 100 have been devoted to DT separation negs, and repeatedly. That was one of its intended usages right from the beginning; and it was the handwriting on the wall spelling the end of Super-XX,
even though DT itself was axed by Kodak not long after.

No, Drew really has no idea what he is talking about here. Tmax was never used commercially for optical color separations nor designed for color separation purposes. Tom Rankin created this BS back in the 1980's sometime for his own reasons. He had his assistants tell the public they used Tmax 100 film for seps, when the were actually still using Super XX pan. (See my attached internal Frog Prince draft shop manual at the beginning of this thread, written by Tom himself.) There was one exception to this, Frog made separations for the public and for students at City College of San Francisco, Dye Transfer course, using Tmax 100. Most of the work they did could not be made with Tmax100 separations. Super XX Pan was discontinued in the fall of 1994, about the same time as Dye Transfer was discontinued.

And yes, I have been able to develop all 3 seps on TMax for the identical time, or all at the same time, to obtain the same amount of gamma with overlapping curves. It took a fair amount of work to find and fine-tune its sweet spot of reciprocity, where all three coincided. But having done that, it's highly predictable. I was using narrow-band RGB channels, including excellent internal electronic feedback control. I have good reason to believe my own special exposure source is quite superior to the old Condit colored filter system, but spelling out exactly why might be getting nitpicky. (Hint : there are two distinct ways to achieve dichroic narrow-band cutoff). My method is certainly easier to use, and there's no light leakage.

And how do you know those seps are really balanced? Drew said on here he didn't use a dye based step tablet, so really has no idea what gamma he really has with respect to the transparency. So, these curves don't really match up, since silver contrast doesn't equal the dye contrast. Its easy to verify this, just plot the dye density versus the silver density of the negative.

The Condit filter wheel originally sold with 3 glass filters with similar properties to the Wrattten #29, 61, 47B. Most labs added additional filters to the wheel, (it can hold 8 circular glass filters). The Wratten #29 red is nearly equivalent to a Schott RG610 glass filter. I think the green is a Hoya G545, and the blue is a Hoya B440. The G545 has its maximum transmission at 545 nm, a close match with most E6 magenta dyes. The blue B440 has a peak transmission at 440 nm, very close to the E6 yellow azomethine dye absorption peak. I know I have analyzed the filters with a spectrophotometer. I can and have added filters with very narrow pass band.

In making contact separations, one needs a source of light of equal irradiance across the film surface. Exposing lights are not actually point sources, the best exposing light uses a diffuser to create an area of nearly equal irradiance. The Condit system has a diffuser and a variable aperture as well.

Dichroic filters are interference filters that rely on thin film interference. Has Drew ever analyzed the output of his enlarger source with a spectrophotometer?

I've never tried this with a conventional YMC colorhead; but if I had to, I would be using glass 29 red, 61 green, and 47B blue filters over the lens, except in the case of Kodachrome, where 25 red is said to work better. But one has to be careful with these specific filters - they vary somewhat between brands, and even within the same brand sometimes when it comes to consistent quality control. I've also measured certain real gel (Wratten) and pseudo-gel filters.

I would not recommended the use of those green and blue filters. Filters exist with a much better spectral match to the dyes in the transparency. And obviously Drew hasn't used isolation masks so poor filter choices are just creating more desaturation and color error.

With TM400, however, it's ironically the green separation which needs a little more development. And with all the other films, the blue separation had even more severely reduced gamma. I can't remember how Tech Pan responded, or even where I filed those particular notes, except that it seemed hopeless for critical full-scale separation work. FP4 is the film recommended by Ilford, with its own blue sep mismatch.

Tmax400 isn't a separation film nor was it ever used as one anywhere in industry. Tech pan had some special uses for red color negative interpositives and isolation masks, and its not for tricolor separations of transparencies. And where did Ilford recommend FP4 for separations? That ridiculous, it wasn't designed for it. Other manufacturers made films specifically for separation negatives of color transparencies, such as Agfatone P330P.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I appreciate anyone who aspires to contribute to the revival of such a beautiful process as dye transfer is. But it can be quite frustrating when you refuse to step out of your antique shop and recognize what has been going on in the interim, with respect to both current films and improvements in darkroom equipment.

Many tens of thousand of dollars have passed under the TMax bridge since the 1980's, regardless of a few early naysayers who just didn't want to revise entrenched habits. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. TMX100 has improved since its inception, and no longer shoulders off as readily as it once did.

TMY400 is itself a significant option because it not only shares the linearity of TMX100, but is much faster, making it more realistic for in-camera separations, where it has indeed found tricolor usage. And in fact, it is superior with respect to dual-usage negatives, being also applicable to UV printing processes (TMX100 has a UV blocker). It is somewhat less
sensitive to extreme red and 29 filters; but that's a relatively minor obstacle. Or it has been used for just the slower blue separation, leaving faster exposing red and green for TMX100.

FP4's commendation for color separations was right up front in their earlier tech sheets. The demand for that kind of usage has fallen off, so the current FP4+ tech sheet merely refers to its numerous applications generically beyond general photography. For decades, Andy Cross has been among those using FP4 and FP4+ for both both DT and color carbon separations.

And my gosh, you sure need to get up to speed on how dichroic filtration actually works in specialized applications. They can be engineered for very clean nm cutoff, superior to conventional filters. I doubt you understood a word I said. You also greatly underestimate my own suite of masking skills. Remember - you don't speak for me, nor for my equipment.
The evenness of my exposing illumination is very precisely measured, as is its intensity and repeatability.

Yes, in an ideal world, you would use a matching dye-based step tablet. But that means that every time you change a dye variable in tablet itself, or in prointng usage, or relative to the color film in play, you've got a whole new ballgame. Chrome film won't even handle that much range, and certainly not symmetrically. And with color neg, you've got very low contrast. Gotta start somewhere on a common-denominator predictable basis.

I don't know how much longer I want to keep up this conversation, if it just keeps going around in endless circles.

But in the meantime, back to an earlier complaint that your Wratten 61 was visibly leaking a lot of red and green light. Well, there's a problem with those in general - they fade over time and with usage. That wouldn't have been the case when new. So you end up with a sliding scale of diminishing quality needing frequent recalibration. More "old stuff" issues.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

I appreciate anyone who aspires to contribute to the revival of such a beautiful process as dye transfer is. But it can be quite frustrating when you refuse to step out of your antique shop and recognize what has been going on in the interim, with respect to both current films and improvements in darkroom equipment.

I'm not ignoring what has been going on in the interim. Since the 1990's several people have tried to replicate “Dye Transfer” type processes, without commercial success. In all cases they made materials that didn't work as well as the original Kodak materials. The films currently made don't have the properties of the older films. Even the best curves I'm seen from Tmax100 films are no match to the curves of Super XX pan and Sep. Neg. films. These films are unique in that they have very long flat characteristic curves. Super XX pan in particular when developed in MQ developer, has a flat region exceeding about 15 stops! It can record beyond 21 stops. No other black and white film does that that I'm aware of. In fact if we take the derivative of this characteristic curve we get a constant value throughout most of the length. Kodak Portra 400, a more recent film, has been measured to give a total dynamic range of 26 stops (although Drew probably contests this). There was apparently another kind of film used for filming rocket motor tests and nuclear detonations with even more dynamic range, although it wasn't commercially available. I believe that, technically Super XX pan and especially Separation Negative, are modern films, since they rely on technology from the 20th century and utilize corrective masking in the case of Sep. Neg. film.

And I'm not sure what improvements in darkroom equipment Drew is referring to. Basically one need to obtain some old Condit pin registration equipment or custom manufacture something. A good machine shop can build this type of equipment, but since there has been advances in 3D printing that may become an option.

Many tens of thousand of dollars have passed under the TMax bridge since the 1980's, regardless of a few early naysayers who just didn't want to revise entrenched habits. As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. TMX100 has improved since its inception, and no longer shoulders off as readily as it once did.

It has nothing to do with entrenched habits. Tmax 100 is still a fairly lousy curve. Supposedly TmaxRS developer gave the best curve. I have seen many Tmax curves and none are improvements in any area, with the exception of sharpness compared with Super XX pan, but not Sep. Neg. While it technically works, its no where as good as Separation Negative or Super XX pan, was. If one wanted to use it optically, the Tmax would need additional highlight masking, possibly Selenium toning to raise its gamma, and possibly shadow masking to linearize the shoulder of the curve. ITS NO IMPROVEMENT TO THE PREVIOUS FILMS.

FP4's commendation for color separations was right up front in their earlier tech sheets. The demand for that kind of usage has fallen off, so the current FP4+ tech sheet merely refers to its numerous applications generically beyond general photography. For decades, Andy Cross has been among those using FP4 and FP4+ for both both DT and color carbon separations.

Which version of the film tech sheet mentioned this? The curves I have seen look worse than Tmax films, but might work as a masking film. I though Andy Cross uses digital film recording with FP4+, so in that case assuming one corrects the curve shape, would probably work fine in that configuration.

And my gosh, you sure need to get up to speed on how dichroic filtration actually works in specialized applications. They can be engineered for very clean nm cutoff, superior to conventional filters. I doubt you understood a word I said. You also greatly underestimate my own suite of masking skills. Remember - you don't speak for me, nor for my equipment.
The evenness of my exposing illumination is very precisely measured, as is its intensity and repeatability.

No, I have used dichroic filters for a variety of applications, and am quite familiar with the kinds available. In fact I have a dichroic filter with a 25 nm FWHM bandpass, which I have done testing with.

Well, Drew has admitted he hasn't used many of the types of specialized masks I have spoken about here. He could also post his Tmax curves here if he has evidence they are better than the original films, which I would be interested in seeing, along with a complete reproducible procedure. If he wants to get some Tech pan and try making the 3 kinds of highlight masks, I would be interested in how that works out with that film using the techniques I disclosed here. Isolation masks can be used in duplication, internegative making, reversal printing, in addition to DT separations. So far what Drew writes, he omits this when talking about transparency duplication; he either is unaware of or deems it unimportant.

Yes, in an ideal world, you would use a matching dye-based step tablet. But that means that every time you change a dye variable in tablet itself, or in prointng usage, or relative to the color film in play, you've got a whole new ballgame. Chrome film won't even handle that much range, and certainly not symmetrically. And with color neg, you've got very low contrast. Gotta start somewhere on a common-denominator predictable basis.

Not really. A neutral tablet can be made by yourself on the type of transparency film you intend to separate. Even Bob Pace might have said this. Some are available commercially as IT8 Q60 tablets. For critical calibration this is very important. It will tell you the actual gamma of your separations with respect to the transparency you are separating.

I don't know how much longer I want to keep up this conversation, if it just keeps going around in endless circles.

I'm looking for empirical evidence of your claims, not that you know more, know better, have more experience, more successful, etc. I have made many kinds of Dye Transfer separations, masks, test prints, to get very good competence at actually making Dye Transfers well. And I have the evidence to prove it, I'm not just giving my theories and conjecture.

But in the meantime, back to an earlier complaint that your Wratten 61 was visibly leaking a lot of red and green light. Well, there's a problem with those in general - they fade over time and with usage. That wouldn't have been the case when new. So you end up with a sliding scale of diminishing quality needing frequent recalibration. More "old stuff" issues.

That is why I don't use faded gelatin filters and test them regularly using spectrophotometers. Even Frog Prince used a different green filter to the Wratten #61. Not all commercial labs used the E-80 recommended filters. Ed Evans used a different filter set in 1957, and CCA/National Graphics used better filters with their printparency process, among others.

 

[Lachlan Young]

That ridiculous, it wasn't designed for it.

Any general purpose film will work for continuous tone separations. Kodak recommended Super-XX because it was their general purpose sheet film, in a range where many of their other sheet film products were geared towards very specific markets (an extension of the mentality of 'you push the button, we do the rest'). In contrast, most of Ilford's sheet film products were and are general purpose.

The attached (I've obliterated all identifying information as if you are even vaguely familiar with the relevant literature, you'll be able to identify them) shows you information that seems to be alien to those desperate to impossibilise dye transfer. Sometimes it's a question of the right developer, other times it might have been about an emulsion aimed at the standard choice of developer in a given industry.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh, IB, you've sure got you facts mixed up, and seem to be in downright denial. And maybe a typo too - Portra 400 is a popular ordinary color neg film, and like many of them, has a relatively wide "latitude", but certainly not with respect to decent performance way out there in the Kuiper Belt; the realistically usable range is far less.

Super XX had only about I stop more of straight line down into the shadows as TMax films, that's all. And as far as nobody using TMax commercially for DT separation use, well, I'll simply spare you the embarrassment. Frog Prince was a tiny operation, way back when; I'm not referring to them, but to a fully modernized operation still ongoing, at least for awhile more.

What you refer to as Empirical evidently only refers to some kind of sensitometer measured evidence apparently. Well, I've sure done my share of densitometer plots; but the fact is, lovely dye imbibtion were being made before densitometers were even available.

I know you despise the Kodak E80 publication, but the kindly author of that told me that even the old Kodak visual densitometers were plenty adequate for DT work, since there was so much flexibility in the process in the dying and rolling stages. A person could make their own visual comparative densitometer using just a 21-step tablet, a piece of black cardboard with two paper punch quarter inch holes punched in it, and a lightbox. Sneer, if you wish; but they got some pretty darn good prints that manner. I'm all for fine equipment and precise technique; but I don't want it to become a religion - the whole point is to lead you to where the process becomes easier and more spontaneous, not more and more complicated!

I've made sheet film step tablets with every significant type of chrome film I've ever intended to print, and some color neg films too. I've got whole sets of them. But there are many times where a relatively modern non-yellowed Stouffer step tablet gets one from Point A to Point B faster. I hope I don't need to explain that in detail. Kodak even had their far more expensive reference versions. I won't go into how industrial spectrophotometers are themselves calibrated.

I recently sold off my last 75 sheets of 8X10 Tech Pan. I have no more use for it; but I certainly do know what it is good for, and what it is not.

Now back to TMax 100. It is a far better masking film than Pan Masking ever was. Sure, it has an antihalation layer, so you need a supplementary diffusion sheet. But one can get a a very long straight line even at quite low gamma if they have the right developer. I've shared the trick so many times already that there's no sense repeating it here. Even FP4 makes a fine masking film if you know how to handle it analogously.

The one legit complaint about TMX is that when the separation gamma is significantly boosted in combination with a
straight line developer, it can develop a slight reverse "dowagers' hump" in the middle (versus the typical sag). But that's a minor complaint.

I still don't know how you can go forward if you refuse to take into account currently manufactured films. Super-XX,
Color Sep, and Imagesetter films aren't going to come back.

Otherwise, in terms of repeatedly trying to speak for me, and what I have or have not done or tested, or "admitted," consider this my last warning, or else my engagement in the conversation is over. There are other opportunities elsewhere to more cordially discuss DT options going forward. I've never gotten this kind of convoluted "Retro-Techno Berlin Wall" from any of them.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

Any general purpose film will work for continuous tone separations. Kodak recommended Super-XX because it was their general purpose sheet film, in a range where many of their other sheet film products were geared towards very specific markets (an extension of the mentality of 'you push the button, we do the rest'). In contrast, most of Ilford's sheet film products were and are general purpose.

No, not any general purpose film will work well for continuous tone separations. For separations of color transparencies each of the three narrow-band spectral exposures needs to be recorded on film as linearly proportional to the dye curves of the transparency. This requires proper spectral sensitivity characteristics, and there must not be any significant non-linearity in the response throughout the entire curve. Manufacturers don't normally publish how the spectral sensitivity changes as a function of exposure. The nonlinear effect of exposure on the spectral sensitivity of Tmax 100 will result in a characteristic curve that is not completely flat for some separations. The red or the green separations exhibit the greatest change in spectral sensitivity characteristics during exposure. According to Kodak Technical Publication F 4016, one can see a change in the normalized spectral sensitivity curve from 0.3 D to 1.0 D. Kodak Separation Negative films and Super XX pan film will keep constant tonal linearity across all wavelengths along the entire curve. Some of these problems with spectral sensitivity have been discussed in Gorokhovskii, General Sensitometry (1965) and Gorokhovskii, Spectral studies of the photographic process, London Focal Press 1965.

I have heard that Ilford FP-4 will work ok although it will give a flat curve at a higher gamma. It probably doesn't have a completely flat curve throughout the entire density range of the transparency. The latest datasheets I have of Super XX pan, indicate it was for some narrow specific markets, perhaps that wasn't always true.

The attached (I've obliterated all identifying information as if you are even vaguely familiar with the relevant literature, you'll be able to identify them) shows you information that seems to be alien to those desperate to impossibilise dye transfer. Sometimes it's a question of the right developer, other times it might have been about an emulsion aimed at the standard choice of developer in a given industry.

The curve on the left is Ilford Ortho Plus, the middle is a Kodak film that might be Super XX pan in DK-60a with white light exposure, and the one on the right is definitely Super XX pan in HC-110 with white light exposure. Is this to try to say I don't know my curve traces very well, Lachlan? Curves of significance are made using narrow band light, not white light.

 

[warden]

No, not any general purpose film will work well for continuous tone separations. For separations of color transparencies each of the three narrow-band spectral exposures needs to be recorded on film as linearly proportional to the dye curves of the transparency. This requires proper spectral sensitivity characteristics, and there must not be any significant non-linearity in the response throughout the entire curve. Manufacturers don't normally publish how the spectral sensitivity changes as a function of exposure. The nonlinear effect of exposure on the spectral sensitivity of Tmax 100 will result in a characteristic curve that is not completely flat for some separations. The red or the green separations exhibit the greatest change in spectral sensitivity characteristics during exposure. According to Kodak Technical Publication F 4016, one can see a change in the normalized spectral sensitivity curve from 0.3 D to 1.0 D. Kodak Separation Negative films and Super XX pan film will keep constant tonal linearity across all wavelengths along the entire curve. Some of these problems with spectral sensitivity have been discussed in Gorokhovskii, General Sensitometry (1965) and Gorokhovskii, Spectral studies of the photographic process, London Focal Press 1965.

I have heard that Ilford FP-4 will work ok although it will give a flat curve at a higher gamma. It probably doesn't have a completely flat curve throughout the entire density range of the transparency. The latest datasheets I have of Super XX pan, indicate it was for some narrow specific markets, perhaps that wasn't always true.



The curve on the left is Ilford Ortho Plus, the middle is a Kodak film that might be Super XX pan in DK-60a with white light exposure, and the one on the right is definitely Super XX pan in HC-110 with white light exposure. Is this to try to say I don't know my curve traces very well, Lachlan? Curves of significance are made using narrow band light, not white light.

I haven't read every post in this thread, some of which is over my head sorry - I'm curious after watching this thread from a distance though what your ultimate objective might be. Are you operating a dye transfer company, or starting one? Are you looking to supply customers with supplies to produce dye transfers? Is this simply an academic exercise? Just curious. Perhaps you already touched on this and I just missed it.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

I haven't read every post in this thread, some of which is over my head sorry - I'm curious after watching this thread from a distance though what your ultimate objective might be. Are you operating a dye transfer company, or starting one? Are you looking to supply customers with supplies to produce dye transfers? Is this simply an academic exercise? Just curious. Perhaps you already touched on this and I just missed it.

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.

 

[koraks]

My goal is to support interest in this type of process in the fine art industry.

I applaud that. DT is one of the things that 'maybe, some day, if I have time...' I might consider trying my hands on. From that perspective, I would find a description of the process as someone actually practices it today very useful. Preferably with some photos, videos etc. to tease me into actually giving it a go, and filling the gaps inevitably left by a verbal description.

A lengthy back & forth about whether a particular, long-discontinued type of film was or wasn't specifically intended for masking...uhm, a little less so.

I still have in mind running this thread through AI and condensing it into maybe one page of practically-oriented information.

 

[IB Photochemistry]

Gosh, IB, you've sure got you facts mixed up, and seem to be in downright denial. And maybe a typo too - Portra 400 is a popular ordinary color neg film, and like many of them, has a relatively wide "latitude", but certainly not with respect to decent performance way out there in the Kuiper Belt; the realistically usable range is far less.

I can't locate the source I used, so I'm not sure which film was 26 stops of range. Cine films can have more than 21 stops. Portra NC160 has 23.9 stops of dynamic range according to Frédéric Cao in a publication. Portra 400 can have at least 19 useable stops, and there are people who have over exposed it 6 stops and still got it to work by scanning it and correcting the color crossover. Even there it shouldn't really be over exposed more than 1 stop to print well in the darkroom.

Super XX had only about I stop more of straight line down into the shadows as TMax films, that's all. And as far as nobody using TMax commercially for DT separation use, well, I'll simply spare you the embarrassment. Frog Prince was a tiny operation, way back when; I'm not referring to them, but to a fully modernized operation still ongoing, at least for awhile more.

It has a lot more than that, probably several stops more compared to Tmax films. That “fully modernized operation” was digitally recording on Tmax or Delta 100 films, not optically separating. I would just assume that soon a “fully modernized operation” might demand AI powered robots, to limit the human interaction with the process, reduce costs and increase production. It flies in the face of a hands on craft type process. Guy Stricherz preferred Super XX pan and never used Tmax. He occasionally used Sep. Neg. films.

What you refer to as Empirical evidently only refers to some kind of sensitometer measured evidence apparently. Well, I've sure done my share of densitometer plots; but the fact is, lovely dye imbibtion were being made before densitometers were even available.

But they weren't made very well and the quality was poor.

I know you despise the Kodak E80 publication, but the kindly author of that told me that even the old Kodak visual densitometers were plenty adequate for DT work, since there was so much flexibility in the process in the dying and rolling stages. A person could make their own visual comparative densitometer using just a 21-step tablet, a piece of black cardboard with two paper punch quarter inch holes punched in it, and a lightbox. Sneer, if you wish; but they got some pretty darn good prints that manner. I'm all for fine equipment and precise technique; but I don't want it to become a religion - the whole point is to lead you to where the process becomes easier and more spontaneous, not more and more complicated!

Who made good DT prints with a visual densitometer? The human eye can't easily differentiate between hundreds of gray tones.

I've made sheet film step tablets with every significant type of chrome film I've ever intended to print, and some color neg films too. I've got whole sets of them. But there are many times where a relatively modern non-yellowed Stouffer step tablet gets one from Point A to Point B faster. I hope I don't need to explain that in detail. Kodak even had their far more expensive reference versions. I won't go into how industrial spectrophotometers are themselves calibrated.

Then you can make your own dye based step tablet using new film, so its not yellowed. The dye based tablets are superior for color sensitometry.

I recently sold off my last 75 sheets of 8X10 Tech Pan. I have no more use for it; but I certainly do know what it is good for, and what it is not.

Well, if you thought it was so good for highlight masks, why did you sell it?

Now back to TMax 100. It is a far better masking film than Pan Masking ever was. Sure, it has an antihalation layer, so you need a supplementary diffusion sheet. But one can get a a very long straight line even at quite low gamma if they have the right developer. I've shared the trick so many times already that there's no sense repeating it here. Even FP4 makes a fine masking film if you know how to handle it analogously.

I strongly doubt that. Pan Masking film has unique characteristics. While others have used FP4 for masking I don't believe it will work as well for DT type separations. And Drew hasn't used it for DT seps either. His only test with DT separations involved direct separations, no masking. I have never tried FP4 for separations or masking but might test it out of curiosity.

The one legit complaint about TMX is that when the separation gamma is significantly boosted in combination with a
straight line developer, it can develop a slight reverse "dowagers' hump" in the middle (versus the typical sag). But that's a minor complaint.

It is due to the nonlinear spectral sensitivity and many avoided it for that reason.

I still don't know how you can go forward if you refuse to take into account currently manufactured films. Super-XX,
Color Sep, and Imagesetter films aren't going to come back.

How can I not “go forward” using my old materials? I have a small supply of Separation Neg .film and Super XX pan film, Pan Masking film, Litex p911, Kodalith pan, Kodalith, etc. I'm limited by the Kodak Matrix film and Dye Transfer paper.

 

[Lachlan Young]

have in mind running this thread through AI and condensing it into maybe one page of practically-oriented information.

In seriousness, all it would create is a digital hallucination of an all too analogue hallucination.

Kodak and others produced colour separation guides (and other materials aimed at supporting various graphics arts procedures) that are largely not difficult to translate into modern currently available materials, as long as you aren't approaching the procedure from a perspective that requires you to believe that Kodak was hiding information from the end user. The main challenge with dye transfer is getting access to the matrix film (from the hoards that have never seemed to use any of the more recent production batches of the stuff) without having to resort to emulsion making/ scaling. It also really does not help that some are desperate to impossiblise the process (and other separation processes) to paper over yawning gaps in their own knowledge or lack of craft skill. These are not ultra precision processes, but they do require an ability to use and leverage craft skills to get good outcomes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ditto to what Lachlan just said.

There are still extant multiple websites and even a dedicated DT forum proving the non-secretive nature of this, although there were of certain cases in its commercial heyday that had their own special methods. Claiming Kodak was somehow conspiratorial to obtain a monopoly is ludicrous. How could they sell more materials to more users doing that? They didn't have a monopoly on DT supplies anyway. I'm leaving this particular thread now, due to both a repetitious misrepresentation of facts, and numerous cases of twisting of my own words, including on post 122. This thread has become a tarpit of misleading statements. Ai won't cure that. Bye.

 

[koraks]

The main challenge with dye transfer is getting access to the matrix film (from the hoards that have never seemed to use any of the more recent production batches of the stuff) without having to resort to emulsion making/ scaling.

Yeah, this would be one of my main concerns, which is why I'd welcome anyone with practical suggestions in this area in particular. I agree we can do without the faff.

Ai won't cure that.

Durhurh. My point is that 5 pages of bickering/diatribe could be condensed into a set of 4 to 8 key arguments/issues, which someone could then take or leave as they desire.