You're right Ron... :(
But jeez, they make it sound so easy in the patents!
Ok, full disclosure:
The etching procedure was, etching in 104°F water, changed about 3 times, then plunged into 90% IPA to dehydrate it, then 5% sodium sulfite (kinda old though...), cool water wash & rinse in distilled water.
Honestly, OTOMH I can't remember if I did a pre-soak before the hot water etch and I probably should've. Also I think my procedure next time should be a little different: 68° water pre-soak, 104° water etch, 68° water set, 5% sodium sulfite clear, 68° water wash for several minutes, distilled water rinse and finally dehydration in 90% IPA.
As for the transfer, I soaked the DT paper for 10 minutes or more in cool water (15°C roughly... and yes, I'm mixing my units...) and squeegeed flat on glass - no conditioner to speak of.
I guess I need to get my procedure down pat & work out all the mechanical/manipulatory faults so that we can really see what's going on.
Did you use the DT paper conditioner? Or, anything like it? There is a set sequence of events here to follow to insure even transfer. Jim Browning is your source for all of this.
Just joining in...
I (Greg Lucas) worked at Tartaro Color back around 1971 and was reading this thread with many memories of those days. I admit, I jumped to the last page without reading all of the posts so I don't know if anyone followed up on the idea of a data storage site for keeping at least the facts of DT alive. I'd be happy to contribute in any way if that's ongoing or still being considered.
Howdy Greg, thanks for jumpin' in!
Yeah, there's a lot to read on this thread, so I don't blame you for not reading it all. I guess I'd have to suggest that posting here is a great place, if not the best place, to preserve information for the future. I think the APUG archives will only become more valuable as time goes on, and Sean and the rest of the APUG support staff are very committed to keeping servers online for many, many years to come.
However, David Doubley's website has an excellent archive of dye-transfer information, including what appears to be all of Bob Pace's Keeping Pace newsletters. There's so much good info there, and I'm sure I've only scratched the surface.
Of course there's also Jim Browning's website, and the Yahoo! Dye-Transfer group. Honestly though, I think APUG is becoming or has already become the "clearing house" for all things analog. The platform is modern, easy to navigate and search, and is easily accessible to everyone on Earth. The Yahoo! group, although a very valuable archive in its own right, sees significantly less traffic and is more cumbersome to navigate in my opinion.
My point, I guess, is an invitation to share your knowledge here!
And Ron, sorry I never saw your post from last year. No, I used no paper conditioner of any sort, just a water pre-soak and squeegeeing. One of my problems with uneven dying could be related to agitation while my matrix was in the bath, and by 'agitation' I'm actually referring to the complete lack of any movement! My mistake.. and perhaps this could have something to do with my problems.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced of that. When viewed obliquely against light, these spots of no dye appear to relate to my gelatin relief; or in other words, I think there is no gelatin, hence no dye capture. I'm starting to wonder if my sensitizing procedure is to blame.
Since we're exposing through the base, we need the innermost gelatin to be completely sensitive to UV, a requirement that is never asked of carbon transfer printing where only the outermost gelatin needs sensitized. Obviously it works ok, because most of the image is there, but I seriously suspect that incomplete sensitization and consequent areas of solubilization might be partly to blame for my fugly matrices.
Check out eBay item # 120853419375 (just search that number), or go here.
It's an amateur dye-transfer print (not very attractive), but it has an interesting RGB graph included; evidence of the printer's work with the process.
An interesting artifact...