The more complicated path from chromes does seems to allow a greater degree of correction relative to individual dye idiosyncrasies than the direct to
pan matrix approach. But there are bigger issues. It would be wonderful to have a matrix film with less toe to it and thus less highlight block-up. At the moment Ctein and Bettina are having a bit of a tiff over the subject of dye permanence. The composition of Kodak dyes isn't really a trade secret. Their
prepackaged buffers were handy, but as far as I can tell there isn't a lot of difference between Kodak dyes and the powdered Pylam dyes which Jim B.
worked with. I have both. I don't know the composition of the current German dyes, but they have apparently been well tested. I'd be more concerned
with the nuances of how the transfer paper and mordant affects permanence. Kodak seems to have had a double coating system for their paper with the
thorium nitrate deeply embedded, and the paper could be stored and used for long periods. Alum M1 paper seems to have to be used soon, preferably
within a day of mordanting, though some very old images done this way are still looking good. A couple of us are experimenting with supplementing this
with uranyl nitrate - expensive, but it takes very little to do the job. Then there's a question of the appropriate gelatin, along with the fact that if one is
simply using some ordinary fixed-out b&w fiber-based paper, there aren't a lot of options. Again, I don't know exactly how the Germans are handling this
right now - the link to a commercial paper is well out of date. As usual, dye transfer printing is a lot like home cooking with no set rules. All kinds of ways
of doing it. Pan Matrix film could be realistically made again, or so I have been told - but there's no financial justification for it. Who would put up the money?