I didn't say that they were tricky to make..Not tricky. Simply a skill.
Alternate facts. It's all the rage.I also said that people that had experience making them did not corroborate your facts.
Top quality Ektacolor printing and best efforts with Ciba (which required contrast control with B&W masks) were both more demanding, as was carbro printing.
You've read that somewhere.
That's all arguable but that wasn't what started this discussion. You made the claim that the dye transfer process produced simple, inexpensive prints which is far from the truth. The standard prints of the 50s and 60s, which were negatives directly printed onto paper allowing fast, high volume production, were far simpler than the dye transfer method which would have meant custom, slow, low volume production.
If the dye transfer process was so simple why did it not catch on over traditional printing. It died because of low demand, despite its high quality and image control capabilities, because of its complexity long before Cibachrome did, and traditional printing is still around.People prefer simpler.
it wouldn't have been cost effective without a mass volume. 20 kid class would have taken 16 hours of printing, vs whatever the time was to enlarge 20 prints. unless school photographers were working for peanuts i do not think the final prints would have been fast or cheap, which is what you claim. and from someone who DID THEM they were anything but fast and cheep.People do prefer simple, you're right. Consider certain politicians for example. But that doesn't erase the history of dye transfer, does it? And, by the way, my statements about use of dye transfer for cheap school photos (mass photos of little kids) was correct... that you don't know that is your issue, not mine.
I don't think I will ever buy a digital camera, I can use my smartphone, and my film cameras for my serious photography.
it wouldn't have been cost effective without a mass volume. 20 kid class would have taken 16 hours of printing, vs whatever the time was to enlarge 20 prints. unless school photographers were working for peanuts i do not think the final prints would have been fast or cheap, which is what you claim. and from someone who DID THEM they were anything but fast and cheep.
sorry for being skeptical that your school's class photographs were cheep and dye transfer ... do you have the prints still ? if you do, please scan and enlarge one edge and post it to this thread so we can seeif it is a dye transfer.
My two penn'orth says a good photo is a good photo, on film or digital. I like the texture film and a vintage lens offers a scene, but they're trimmings not the main course. I like my digital to look like digital photography - sharp, high contrast, colour saturated, impactful - and film work to bring out the unique characteristics of the medium.
My fear - and it's a well founded one - is film will be more accessible as a heritage image source in coming decades, as digital storage media evolve. Even if you're dedicated to on and offline storage, and change media as required in your lifetime, it's unlikely anyone who inherits your work will be similarly motivated. Without a hard copy paper trail it's just another file to be deleted.
When I hear the words "art photographer" I imagine an over-processed landscape with a signature in one corner. I find the term "photographer" covers most bases. Unfortunately the majority, good, bad and indifferent will remain as virtual files, and subsequent generations won't get to say which is which.remember that the work of most "art photographers"
Those notions about the "time" are imaginative, undoubtedly valid for artiste types, but not for professionals in mass production (school photos) or for the standardized lighting of studios
Sorry my uncle does not have an internet connection and has no interest in commenting about your false statements. All I can tell you is I read him some of your statements and he laughed.I hope your uncle will take part in this discussion.
I'm guessing you were trying to belittle/insult him? He is toolmaker, machinist and commercial photographer for more than 70 years. Instead of your current "tack" maybe you should contact people who actually made dye transfer prints or currenlty make them and / to educate yourself on how labor intensive and time consuming they can be.
Sorry my uncle does not have an internet connection and has no interest in commenting about your false statements. All I can tell you is I read him some of your statements and he laughed.
When I hear the words "art photographer" I imagine an over-processed landscape with a signature in one corner. I find the term "photographer" covers most bases. Unfortunately the majority, good, bad and indifferent will remain as virtual files, and subsequent generations won't get to say which is which.
I disagree, and don't think it's ok that photographs go away. We don't know which photographs will be valuable to future generations, our families, communities or the wider world. The difference in the past was virtually every image finished as a hard copy of some kind, on a wall or hidden in a drawer somewhere awaiting discovery. Now the situation is reversed and a tiny fraction become more than a virtual file requiring fleeting software and peripherals. Art photography certainly exists, but its main appeal is to other art photographers, curators and connoisseurs. Fine as the work is it is not representative of the democratic nature of the photographic image as a whole. Also, most art photography isn't fine but derivative and imitative, mostly of painting and other photography. Great photography will look after itself. It's the other stuff that requires somewhere to live beyond the moment.That's OK. It's OK that most photos will go away, just as they always have in the past. Me, I think I do honor people when I call them "photographers".
Sounds like a fun guy.
I disagree, and don't think it's ok that photographs go away. We don't know which photographs will be valuable to future generations, our families, communities or the wider world. The difference in the past was virtually every image finished as a hard copy of some kind, on a wall or hidden in a drawer somewhere awaiting discovery. Now the situation is reversed and a tiny fraction become more than a virtual file requiring fleeting software and peripherals. Art photography certainly exists, but its main appeal is to other art photographers, curators and connoisseurs. Fine as the work is it is not representative of the democratic nature of the photographic image as a whole. Also, most art photography isn't fine but derivative and imitative, mostly of painting and other photography. Great photography will look after itself. It's the other stuff that requires somewhere to live beyond the moment.
Those notions about the "time" are imaginative, undoubtedly valid for artiste types, but not for professionals in mass production (school photos) or for the standardized lighting of studios.
Except for racial skin, color and density were identical for each head using the caucasian "Kodak girl" standard. The kids weren't individually evaluated, were combined and gang printed for the most part. Exposures began with "ring arounds" (similar to today's NIK) from which the photographer/tech would make group evaluations. The rival process of the day for those studios was often Ansco, which was was easier for photogs who didn't quite have the technical skills required by Kodak's C22 ancestors (much less Ektachrome).
I hope your uncle will take part in this discussion.
Just wanted to remind us that the vast majority of school and formal portraits were, as we all know, shot on 46 mm long roll color neg, and school sessions involved hundreds of kids...not 20. Beattie long roll cameras.
weird ... and all this time i thought they shot your school portaits with one of these
There's nothing tricky about processing, registering, and printing with dye transfer's pan matrix films. It just wants disciplined darkroom practices (and of course Kodak's pin registration system).
...Google it
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?