actual printers vs dye transfer prints

gds506.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi
> does anyone know if there is any other color print technique that
> rivalize with the dye transfer prints in quality, gamut and ¨long
> lasting life¨.
> I read some time ago that dye transfer is the only color print
> technique that can make prints in fiber based paper.
>
> What about the thermal dye transfer print process, lambda prints,
> frontier prints, inkjet plotters?
>
> Is dye transfer still the king in color prints?

I'll try again,
Not certain what the life of a dye-transfer print truly is, there is a
lot of myths out there.
One myth is that thermal dye transfer ie dye sublimation is a long
lived medium. Kodak seems to have the edge on life expectancy of
dye-sub prints and that is no longer than a chemical print - 30 years
or so, depending on storage conditions.
The new series of Epson printers (2400, 4800, 7800, 9800) has gotten
their drop size down to almost invisible. Most reviews of the K3 inks
say phenominal. Having worked with non-standard ink on an older Epson
printer. I just wish I had the $5K for a new 9800.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: actual printers vs dye transfer prints 

Wow, dye transfer. It has been over 60 years since I heard that name.

I did dye transfer prints, it usually took about two days to make one print,
but the quality was super deluxe.

But you are talking about printing in today's world, not in a dark room.

Apparently some of the new color printers are very good, but I will stick
with dye sub.

www.alldigital.fotopic.net
 >> Stay informed about: actual printers vs dye transfer prints 

"tomm101" <monego.RemoveThis@valley.net> wrote in message
news:1129063228.420157.246050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

gds506.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi
> does anyone know if there is any other color print technique that
> rivalize with the dye transfer prints in quality, gamut and ¨long
> lasting life¨.
> I read some time ago that dye transfer is the only color print
> technique that can make prints in fiber based paper.
>
> What about the thermal dye transfer print process, lambda prints,
> frontier prints, inkjet plotters?
>
> Is dye transfer still the king in color prints?

I'll try again,
Not certain what the life of a dye-transfer print truly is, there is a
lot of myths out there.
One myth is that thermal dye transfer ie dye sublimation is a long
lived medium. Kodak seems to have the edge on life expectancy of
dye-sub prints and that is no longer than a chemical print - 30 years
or so, depending on storage conditions.
The new series of Epson printers (2400, 4800, 7800, 9800) has gotten
their drop size down to almost invisible. Most reviews of the K3 inks
say phenominal. Having worked with non-standard ink on an older Epson
printer. I just wish I had the $5K for a new 9800.

Tom

There are a fair number of systems for making Prints.

There is the Inkjet system, as used by most people at home, nowadays.

There are still some people using wet photographic processes using C46
chemicals, and Mono chemicals, and some still reversal printing from Slides.

Then of course there is the Dye Transfer System, (which has nothing to do
with Computers), and is an old way of making very permanent mono prints
using Printers Ink.

Older than that was the Tinplate system, and lots more.

If you really want to know about all those systems you should look up a good
photographic encyclopedia.

Roy G
 >> Stay informed about: actual printers vs dye transfer prints 

>
> I'll try again,
> Not certain what the life of a dye-transfer print truly is, there is a
> lot of myths out there.
> One myth is that thermal dye transfer ie dye sublimation is a long
> lived medium. Kodak seems to have the edge on life expectancy of
> dye-sub prints and that is no longer than a chemical print - 30 years
> or so, depending on storage conditions.
> The new series of Epson printers (2400, 4800, 7800, 9800) has gotten
> their drop size down to almost invisible. Most reviews of the K3 inks
> say phenominal. Having worked with non-standard ink on an older Epson
> printer. I just wish I had the $5K for a new 9800.
>
> Tom
>
> There are a fair number of systems for making Prints.
>
> There is the Inkjet system, as used by most people at home, nowadays.
>
> There are still some people using wet photographic processes using C46
> chemicals, and Mono chemicals, and some still reversal printing from Slides.
>
> Then of course there is the Dye Transfer System, (which has nothing to do
> with Computers), and is an old way of making very permanent mono prints
> using Printers Ink.
>
> Older than that was the Tinplate system, and lots more.
>
> If you really want to know about all those systems you should look up a good
> photographic encyclopedia.
>
> Roy G

Roy,
I'm very familiar with all the output options. What I was saying is
that the standard (never was really standard) dye transfer is only as
stable as its inks , I know Kodak tried hard here but I really don't
have a clue on the actual life expectancy of those inks, are they
better than C46, probably, are they as good as the current pigment ink
jet printers? I really don't know. I do know that a color lab in NY
charged $100 for an 8x10 dye transfer in 1969 when I was a college
student wanting the best for my probably not to deserving pics. Hate to
think of what one would cost now.
The other item was the original post mentioned thermal dye transfer
which is dye sublimation printing. Just wanted to clear the air about
some myths that go with that process.
Still think anyone wanting color prints should explore the latest
technologies in inkjet printing.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: actual printers vs dye transfer prints 

You may want to research the history and technology of the original three
strip Technicolor process as these were all dye transfer prints.
If you look in old book stores you can probably find some old volue
detailing the many steps in the creation of dye transfer prints and wonder
not only why, but how, people managed to turn these things out.
You may have at home some old prints made from slides in the late 1940s as
many of these were made using dye transfer techniques. Those I have
inherited lasted longer than prints made from traditional media but still
show color shift and fading.
Once you understand these issues, unless you feel yourself on a mission from
God Herself to resurrect the technology, you will hug and kiss the next high
end inkjet printer you learn to use properly.
 >> Stay informed about: actual printers vs dye transfer prints 

gds506.TakeThisOut@gmail.com writes:

> does anyone know if there is any other color print technique that
> rivalize with the dye transfer prints in quality, gamut and ¨long
> lasting life¨.

> I read some time ago that dye transfer is the only color print
> technique that can make prints in fiber based paper.

> What about the thermal dye transfer print process, lambda prints,
> frontier prints, inkjet plotters?

> Is dye transfer still the king in color prints?

The `King' is still tri or quad chrome carbro. Dye transfer
is a close second. Digital seperations and some new materials
are causing a bit of a revival.

I think there are only 3 DT comercial printers left.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (0 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
 >> Stay informed about: actual printers vs dye transfer prints 

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:10:57 GMT in rec.photo.digital, "bmoag"
<aetoo.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If you look in old book stores you can probably find some old volue
> detailing the many steps in the creation of dye transfer prints and wonder
> not only why, but how, people managed to turn these things out.

Back in the 60s I worked in a large-format document imaging
darkroom in SF, mostly doing archival retrieval and recreation of
as-built drawings of Saudi oil refineries for Bechtel.

Turned out that since we had the largest vacuum frames, stat
cameras, and darkroom trays in the city, we were made to order
when Eliot Porter needed to print some lifesize dye transfer
prints of a Glen Canyon wall for his famous photo exhibit of dye
transfer prints of Glen Canyon, taken with an 8x10 view camera
before the canyon was dammed.

We had about 10 days training on the process, then our darkroom
crew of 4 hippies helped Porter and his assistant in making the
separation negatives, contact printing them, dying the images,
and squeegeeing them all togther. We only had to reprint 2 of 9
panels (the wall was printed in 9 strips). Amazing how we could
get perfect 4 color image registration on such large images,
though we did use 6 registration holes.

Porter was a real master of the technique, and I never could have
afforded to take classes from him. Unfortunately, it required so
much time, expense, and trouble that I never tried it again on my
own.

I understand from a friend that runs a custom art printing
service using large format Epsons that their inks now rival dye
transfer for permanence. They do a lot of art reproductions on
high quality art papers.
 >> Stay informed about: actual printers vs dye transfer prints 

>Is dye transfer still the king in color prints?

Kodak discontinued the materials a few years ago so dye transfer is
basically dead.

>does anyone know if there is any other color print technique that
>rivalize with the dye transfer prints in quality, gamut and ¨long
>lasting life¨.

Pretty much every color print technique known to man the past 25 years
would beat dye transfer prints for gamut and image quality, if you like
bright vibrant colors. Dye transfer prints had a much longer print
life than any of the earlier processes though, that was why people used
it. But now that digital prints have projected print life estimates of
60-125 years that advantage has, er, faded.

I've seen many dye transfer prints, including maybe a dozen that Jim
Bones printed for Eliot Porter that are for sale in a gallery in Santa
Fe and ones printed for a special portfolio for Ernst Haas for his book
"Creation". They look fine but the colors are a bit muted and lacking
in gamut and I wasn't interested in buying one. Basically when
Cibachromes came along, with acceptable print life for collectors and
much brighter colors, there wasn't as much need for dye transfer
prints. You can buy the Porter prints for maybe $1,500 - $2,000 in
Santa Fe today for example, while right beside them on the same wall
are Cibachromes (Ilfochromes) from Christopher Burkett selling for up
to $7,000 and selling quite nicely. Basically the dye transfer prints
just don't look all that good in comparison.

>I read some time ago that dye transfer is the only color print
>technique that can make prints in fiber based paper.
>What about the thermal dye transfer print process, lambda prints,
>frontier prints, inkjet plotters?

Many inkjets print quite nicely on fiber based fine art paper,
especially ones with swappable black inks so you can optimize the
blacks for either coated glossy papers or uncoated fine art cotton
fiber papers. For example, the Epson Pro models with Ultrachrome inks
print beautifully on Somerset Velvet Fine Art paper with long print
life.

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: actual printers vs dye transfer prints