PDA

View Full Version : Making a Dye Transfer Matrix film



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

jd callow
07-14-2007, 06:21 PM
I made some final edits and deletions. Please see if that works...

rmazzullo
07-14-2007, 06:30 PM
Sorry if I deleted any good info, if missed some stuff, or if my deletions were a bit heavy handed -- I simply can't read everything. I see value here and would rather you have to repeat yourselves than to throw the baby out w/ the bath water.

Agreed. Once again, cooler heads have prevailed. Thanks for preserving the thread.

Bob M.

ben-s
07-14-2007, 06:47 PM
Soory if I deleted any good info, if missed some stuff, or if my deletions were a bit heavy handed -- I simply can't read everything. I see value here and would rather you have to repeat yourselves than to throw the baby out w/ the bath water.

I'm inclined to think you're right. Thanks for stepping in.

Neanderman
07-14-2007, 10:32 PM
Although stable, many pigment dyes are made from heavy metals such as Cadmium, Lead, Mercury and etc.

So, getting stability can be a two edged sword.

PE

This is exactly the point I was trying to get to with the mordant question. Thanks for making it more succinct.

Ed

dyetransfer
07-15-2007, 12:38 AM
No Bob, actually I can't (I haven't done Dyes for over 30 years).
In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by "the quality" of dye transfer. Their yellows suck, the margins aren't necessarily very sharp, and without extensive contrast and highlight masking even Ansco Printon looked better at the time (at least until it faded into oblivian in 6 months).


It does seem like this thread is getting dangerously off-topic. I feared that when I made the original posting. But I have to address this comment.

The gamut of a well made dye print is very similar to that of Ektachrome film, the shape of the gamut is more-or-less the same, just shrunken (reduced saturation). This means that the process is fairly predicitable for reproducing color from a chrome. Inkjet prints, and even type C prints have much larger deviations from the Ektachrome gamut, and a smaller gamut volume.

The only area where DT prints suffer is in very saturated true cyans, and that just happens to be where CRT monitors are also lacking saturation. Yellows in dye prints are some of the best of all color reproductions. I'm not sure why Bill's yellows weren't good, I find that a dye transfer reproduction will render yellows that a type C print will have problems with. The Reds are also much better in a dye print because of the pure yellow dye.

You disparage the qualities of a dye print made without masking. This is like discussing the qualities of an inkjet print after soaking it in a mud puddle overnight. You have to do extensive masking (HL, and color correction) to get a decent dye print for most subjects. The print will look hopeless dingy with a horrible cast that you can't get rid of with color balancing. Masking is necessary since it isn't built into the process as with color negatives.

Dye Transfers have the best blacks that I have seen, and the best shadow reproduction of any process (Including toned B&W Silver Fiber prints). This is partly because of the extreme dye loading possible, and partly due to the superb F surface which has a very high gloss without looking 'plastic' This is the same surface as a silver-gelatin F surface fiber paper. I routinely target a dmax of 2.70, but it is possible (but not necessarily desirable) to get Dmax readings of > 3.20 on a dye print!

With proper on easel border masking, you can get good white borders with a sharp, well registered edge, but it is difficult to do. I generally elect to not do white borders, and trim the prints when dry mounting them, or cover the edges with an overmat.

My testing of dye fading puts a Dye print at somewhat less stable than the Fuji type C paper, but much better than a Cibachrome. I too have several dye prints 50 years old which have been on display, showing very little fading.

I consider dye transfer prints to be highly collectable, and should generally be stored in portfolio boxes, and not exhibited for long periods of time. This is true of any expensive collectable print. In a portfolio case, the dye print should last hundreds of years without fading or discoloration.

Finally, there is in intangable quality to a well made dye print, a richness and a '3-D' liquidity which I haven't seen in any other process. This quality can't be completely explained with technical measurements - but it is real, and the reason why a few of us are going to such extreme efforts to preserve the process for the future.

Regards - Jim Browning

www.dyetransfer.org

Bill Mitchell
07-15-2007, 06:34 AM
Folks, I will butt-out. Enjoyed the brief discussion, but fear that I probably was a negative rather than a positive influence on the thread.
Good luck on keeping the process alive.

z-man
07-17-2007, 03:32 AM
It does seem like this thread is getting dangerously off-topic. I feared that when I made the original posting. But I have to address this comment.

The gamut of a well made dye print is very similar to that of Ektachrome film, the shape of the gamut is more-or-less the same, just shrunken (reduced saturation). This means that the process is fairly predicitable for reproducing color from a chrome. Inkjet prints, and even type C prints have much larger deviations from the Ektachrome gamut, and a smaller gamut volume.

The only area where DT prints suffer is in very saturated true cyans, and that just happens to be where CRT monitors are also lacking saturation. Yellows in dye prints are some of the best of all color reproductions. I'm not sure why Bill's yellows weren't good, I find that a dye transfer reproduction will render yellows that a type C print will have problems with. The Reds are also much better in a dye print because of the pure yellow dye.

You disparage the qualities of a dye print made without masking. This is like discussing the qualities of an inkjet print after soaking it in a mud puddle overnight. You have to do extensive masking (HL, and color correction) to get a decent dye print for most subjects. The print will look hopeless dingy with a horrible cast that you can't get rid of with color balancing. Masking is necessary since it isn't built into the process as with color negatives.

Dye Transfers have the best blacks that I have seen, and the best shadow reproduction of any process (Including toned B&W Silver Fiber prints). This is partly because of the extreme dye loading possible, and partly due to the superb F surface which has a very high gloss without looking 'plastic' This is the same surface as a silver-gelatin F surface fiber paper. I routinely target a dmax of 2.70, but it is possible (but not necessarily desirable) to get Dmax readings of > 3.20 on a dye print!

With proper on easel border masking, you can get good white borders with a sharp, well registered edge, but it is difficult to do. I generally elect to not do white borders, and trim the prints when dry mounting them, or cover the edges with an overmat.

My testing of dye fading puts a Dye print at somewhat less stable than the Fuji type C paper, but much better than a Cibachrome. I too have several dye prints 50 years old which have been on display, showing very little fading.

I consider dye transfer prints to be highly collectable, and should generally be stored in portfolio boxes, and not exhibited for long periods of time. This is true of any expensive collectable print. In a portfolio case, the dye print should last hundreds of years without fading or discoloration.

Finally, there is in intangable quality to a well made dye print, a richness and a '3-D' liquidity which I haven't seen in any other process. This quality can't be completely explained with technical measurements - but it is real, and the reason why a few of us are going to such extreme efforts to preserve the process for the future.

Regards - Jim Browning

www.dyetransfer.org

AMEN


vaya con dios

Photo Engineer
07-17-2007, 09:45 AM
Back in the mid 60s, Louie Condax and Spot Inkley the grand old men of Dye Transfer at Kodak used to come over to the color paper offices and talk about the differences between the two product families ("C" and "R" papers vs Dye Transfer).

One of the things we all recognized was that you could get comparable quality from DT and direct printing if you used masking and separation exposures. The big difference then was the dye stability and the selectable dye hues of DT.

However, Kodak did introduce some dye sets that led to either worse color or worse stability. One DT yellow dye was so narrow in bandwidth and so short in wavelength that the colors were too desaturated, and some colors took on a yellowish cast as there was not enough sideband in the dye.

Another dye (or the same one) had worse image stability compared to a previous dye. It was better for light, but worse for heat IIRC. So, there was continual fiddling with the product that led to many variations in it just as there was in color papers. See my history of that here as well for a hint.

IDK the history of DT at all, but I do know that it went through many many changes during its lifetime including changes to the Matrix films and the DT paper support, as well as the dyes used.

PE

z-man
07-17-2007, 01:03 PM
Back in the mid 60s, Louie Condax and Spot Inkley the grand old men of Dye Transfer at Kodak used to come over to the color paper offices and talk about the differences between the two product families ("C" and "R" papers vs Dye Transfer).

One of the things we all recognized was that you could get comparable quality from DT and direct printing if you used masking and separation exposures. The big difference then was the dye stability and the selectable dye hues of DT.

However, Kodak did introduce some dye sets that led to either worse color or worse stability. One DT yellow dye was so narrow in bandwidth and so short in wavelength that the colors were too desaturated, and some colors took on a yellowish cast as there was not enough sideband in the dye.

Another dye (or the same one) had worse image stability compared to a previous dye. It was better for light, but worse for heat IIRC. So, there was continual fiddling with the product that led to many variations in it just as there was in color papers. See my history of that here as well for a hint.

IDK the history of DT at all, but I do know that it went through many many changes during its lifetime including changes to the Matrix films and the DT paper support, as well as the dyes used.

PE

pe

i raised this pt in a post that was censored:

my own exposure( no pun intended) to dt was as a production method for turning out large nos of quality posters for point of sale adv for hollywood

the fact that the large envestment in time in the drkrm would pay off in the ease of production of large nos of consistent output puts dt in the 'printing' clasification in the same way that the need for quality imaging output for the book publishing industry drove the development of early continuous tone monochrome photography

fox-talbot started both continuous tone photo and the printing trade witdh his paper neg process and the discovery of the screening processs that lead to halfltone tech in all its various forms-his own output was first for the publishing trade

i am sure that, my own narrow personal knowledge notwithstanding, different needs by clients drove the many changes that kodak made in the process-

any thoughts on my assertions please

vaya con dios

Photo Engineer
07-17-2007, 02:34 PM
Nieman Markus in Dallas sold dye transfer family portraits in their 1965 - 67 catalogs (IIRC) for $10,000 each and advertized them as being an investment for your children or granchildren or some such to emphasize their stability.

I really don't remember the details, but this is the gist of it.

As for your previous post, I had forgotten but did not want the facts we both seem to have remembered to be lost. I was thinking over what was now missing and that above post came to mind.

PE

Donald Miller
07-26-2007, 09:56 AM
I'll bet the digital prints won't last 55 years though.

The new Endura and CA papers might last even longer.

PE

I responded to this assertion earlier and my responses have been deleted. I don't want to start an argument here but I think that it is important to deal with the facts that are available.

Ron, in his response to my deleted response, said that his statement above was based upon a short course that he took on the subject and, as I understood him, he seemed to indicate that his information was forthcoming from Wilhelm.

I have contacted Wilhelm Research Institute regarding the results of their tests on various printers, inks and media on which prints could be made. Their position is that color prints produced with the Epson Printers with the K3 ultrachrome inks will last over 100 years (depending on the print base) and that black and white prints will last longer.

They go on to say that the HP printer (Z 3100 model) will produce prints that last 250 years.

I don't know where Ron is getting his information at Wilhelm but it seems to be at variance by quite a bit from what he has stated.

As I said, I don't want an argument. For those who are interested, you can check the facts on the Wilhelm Research Institute website (this is where they directed me). I just want to have the facts be what the are and have been determined to be in reality.

I shoot film, I have no axe to grind in this matter. Just wanting to be factual and fair on this matter.

Photo Engineer
07-26-2007, 12:28 PM
Donald;

The problem is one of light intensity, heat and humidity. Factoring these in change the equation drastically.

Wilhelm uses 500 fc and Kodak uses 100 fc (It may be 300 and 100, as I don't have the figures with me now) and these change the results. There is also reciprocity in the Arrhenius equations when you reduce the high intensity fade or high temp + humidity fade back to ambient.

All of this confuses the issue. The end result is that the average museum curator is expecting a liftime of 60 or so years for digital prints and longer for chromogenic (analog) prints.

Pigment prints made on a digital printer will last much longer, but some involve heavy metals. I have no information on them at this time.

My information is based on 4 hours of 1:1 talking with Henry Wilhelm and then a 1 hour tour of the RIT Image Stability lab, followed by the 4 hour course in image stability.

Henry did not mention image smear. That was brought out in the short course and later found by an APUG member on Henry's website after I posted the information here earlier. It was on the Wilhelm site, but he failed to even mention this possibility.

So, I would say that there are many possible answers to a very simple question. You have a brief answer from a telephone conversation and I have a lifetime experience doing the work personally and talking to the researchers in the field. What more can I say?

PE

Donald Miller
07-26-2007, 12:48 PM
Ron,

So am I understanding you correctly? You are now saying that the source that you quoted as the basis for your response to me is not a valid source? And that you are saying that the man that you supposedly were in close communion with during this short course is not valid in his processes and procedures? Is this what I am hearing here Ron, old buddy?

And am I correct that your lifetime of experience has more validity than a recognized authority in the field? My My, old bud...how things have changed.

Do you have published findings of the test processes that you have ephemerically determined as being more accurate? Have you arrived at publically published findings of the longevity of the inks in the same manner that Wilhelm has done? If so, perhaps you would favor us with the substantiating documentation of your determinations.

My original response to your original assertion still stands...Fifty five years is what you said.

Photo Engineer
07-26-2007, 01:03 PM
I said nothing of the sort Donald, and don't put words in my mouth.

If you want more exact figures, the museums figure that prints already hanging will be less than 55 years (some as short as 10 years) and new prints going up will be about 60 years or so. It varies with paper and ink.

Henry Wilhelm is a reliable reporter, but several different organizations use different methods than he does, such as light intensity, heat, humidity and atmospheric contaminants. Therefore, results and predictions differ.

PE

Donald Miller
07-26-2007, 01:18 PM
Ron,

You keep trying to wiggle away from what you said...I will just continue to say that the source that you quoted is at odds with what you said that he said. His institute's test results are at total variance with what you have said. I addressed pigmented inks in my original response to you and you discounted the basis of my mention of carbon pigmented inks as being longer lasting...now you have totally reversed yourself on that.

Nowhere, that I have found has anyone, anywhere, other than you made mention of heavy metals in ink formulation. If you can not verify the validity of this assertion, why do you mention it? Most people would call that playing loose and fast with the facts.

Now you are taking this to some unnamed museum curators as your source. Will the next thing be that we will find that those unnamed museum curators are not in agreement with what you are saying here as well?

Why don't you just admit that you let your mouth get away from the verifiable factual basis for your comments. No one is to blame...just that the facts are a lot different than what you said.

jmcclure
07-26-2007, 10:32 PM
As long as the discussion is about ANALOG film, colors, etc then OK. BUT who give a rats behind about digital prints here? This is supposed to be a forum section about Emulsions and how to make and use them.

dyetransfer
07-27-2007, 11:05 AM
As long as the discussion is about ANALOG film, colors, etc then OK. BUT who give a rats behind about digital prints here? This is supposed to be a forum section about Emulsions and how to make and use them.

Good point! I for one and pretty bored by 'inkjet does everything' mentality these days. Calling them 'giclee' prints doesn't make it any better. The absolute pinnacle of bad taste is making an inkjet print and calling it a platinum print, because you used some set of inks some manufacturer brand named 'platinum'. Absurd! 4 color carbon, dye transfer, color gum printing, these are actually hand made works of art requiring craftmanship to produce. Mastering the the processes takes decades. While there are still many making 'analog' B&W prints, hand crafted color prints are becoming so rare most people will never see one. A pity.

Photo Engineer
07-27-2007, 12:26 PM
JM, Jim;

I agree completely.

PE

Photo Engineer
07-28-2007, 11:17 AM
I can only make suggestions here for this, but I can make a pretty fair guess as to how you can do it from Jim's basic formula above.

This will allow you to make Dye Transfer prints from color negatives.

First, split the formula into 3 parts after you do the sensitization with hypo in the original formula. One part label BLUE and put this away.

Take one of the remaining parts and sensitize with a green sensitizing dye. I suggest a dye like SDE8006 or SDA9204 from H. W. Sands. Label this can of emulsion GREEN. The raw emulsion should be magenta in color.

Take the remainder and sensitize with a dye such as SDA3057. Note: This dye is normally a green sensitizer, but in the presence of iodide undergoes "J" aggregation and forms a red sensitizer. If you get only green sensitivity, add a small amount of KI to the emulsion and hold for 15' before adding the dye. I suggest about 0.3% (mole % of KI / mole of silver). The raw emulsion should be cyan in color, not magenta. If it is magenta, the "J" aggregate has not formed.

The dyes should be used at about 100 mg/mole / mole of silver.

When done spectrally sensitizing these emulsions, mixing them 1:1:1 will give a pan sensitive matrix film emulsion which then must be treated using the rest of Jim's formula HOWEVER, use a black dye in place of the Tartrazine that he uses. The pan film must use a black dye at about the same concentration.

Of course, you can coat 3 different films making a Red, Green and Blue film set, but this is not advised due to the possibility of curve shape problems between the emulsion types.

These dyes are available at the rate of about $100 / gram. They are used commercially in photographic products by major manufacturers and so I know that they are good and work just fine.

I don't use them due to expense and difficulty coating in total darkness, as well as the fact that the green dye is much too long and broad for any real camera work. It should work in this application.

Remember, this is a suggested starting point. I did each of the above, but did not go on to mix them, as the coating of pan materials was just out of my reach and not a current objective of my work.

As a side note, this is one way to make a pan sensitive film for camera use. Jim's emulsion is usable in this fashion if you harden the coating rather than leave it unhardened.

PE

z-man
07-29-2007, 07:16 AM
As long as the discussion is about ANALOG film, colors, etc then OK. BUT who give a rats behind about digital prints here? This is supposed to be a forum section about Emulsions and how to make and use them.

i believe that my title is the correct american vernacular?

i basically agree with you EXCEPT that such prints are the output for sale by many socalled 'authorities' in both gel and 'alt' process photog who have been flaming all and sundry is this thread and in others on this forum

i differ from pe in his assesment of the epson ultrachrome products-i use them he doesn't

as output i don't think that inkjet printers should be excluded since they are in fact what in the printing trade are properly called "duplicators" since they use halftoning but don't have pressure or form rollers-the "press" part of "printing press" is litteral: a sheet fed or web "press" actually has a delicatly adjustable pressure mechanism-that is the most important final control of the out put

by your logic injet printers would be excluded from all 'photography'

where does that leave all the heavy hitters here who make $ from the prints that they sell?

what about all the alt photo printers who create the enlarged negs on inkjets EXCLUSIVELY???????

so sorry-should say "FLAMING FLYING RAT'S A**HOLE"

vaya con dios