Color Dye-Transfer Prints for the Modern Hobbyist - *Imbibition for For the People!*

[holmburgers]

That's not a bad idea at all; taking separations from a still life the old-fashion way.

I'm discouraged to hear, but curious why you say to avoid C-41 negs. Ultimately I'm hoping to make prints from my archive of personal shots, a lot of which are on C-41.

I did a little research about Tartaro Color and I found a lot about Frank Tartaro and the lab. Sounds like you were a part of the golden age!

It's easy to see how ink-jet printing is completely satisfactory for nearly all modern printing needs. However, when you were rolling your last dye-transfer print, I was probably rolling around on a tricycle in "short pants"! For that reason these archaic methods are fascinating & refreshing to me; the preparation, the knowledge behind it, the research & history, but most importantly the physical aspect of actually making it.

Something I'm curious about and don't have a great grasp on is how to correct color. Let's say we want to warm up the lighting in the print; do we affect this in the dying, the matrix or the separation neg?

 

[Dewey2]

Do a search for "color one shot camera" and see what comes up. I actually made dyes from 5x7 one shot plates that a portrait photographer was still using in the 80's. Registration was done dying and drying mats and then aligning visually and punching. OH... and these were 40x60".

For the same reason that you couldn't set your color head to default filtration, you can't use default exposures or development on color negs. I've made quite a few dyes from negs and getting a balanced set of interpositives was always time-consuming and unpleasant. This usually became a black hole of lost time.

Color correction was done in various ways. If you had an image with a dramatic issue (like outdoor film shot under tungsten) it would pay to make exposure compensations in the separation negs - otherwise you try for default exposures from transparencies. For matrix film, you would have default exposures for a test strip. Corrections were all seat-of-the-pants at this point and you would correct for density and color in your full-sized set of mats. If your first full-sized print looked pretty good, you would use precise amounts of sodium acetate in the first rinse to subtract color (image is too magenta; add 5ml of sodium acetate to the rinse). You could also add highlight reducer (Calgon water softener) to the rinse and you could adjust dye contrast with acetic acid or triethanalomine (sp?) but this would ruin your dye for future use.

All this localized color and tone control was remarkable compared to C-prints which were much more limited. Add to this the deep blacks, extreme color gamut and beautiful gelatin surface and you have an explanation for why the medium was sought out by art photographers. The real commercial value was in advertising of course. Retouchers could use the same dyes to work on the print and as a result, the retouching was integrated into the image and wouldn't "shoot through" or reveal itself to a color separation camera or scanner the way ink airbrushed onto a C-print often would.

I agree with you that there's great satisfaction in producing something, but I also think about the fact that Cartier-Bresson didn't print his own work.

 

[Photo Engineer]

OTOH, Ctein makes prints from color negatives all the time and with great success. This method, which is premasked, makes some of the finest dye transfer prints I have ever seen!

PE

 

[Dewey2]

I believe he was making them with Pan Matrix film - a product aimed at the serious amateur market. Yes, this method can produce gorgeous dyes directly from color negs. It had limitations, but cut out all the separation neg steps.

Kodak discontinued the product in the mid/late 80's.

Most commercial dye labs would take a color neg and make a Vericolor print film (basically, a big transparency that you processed in C-41) and then make conventional separation negs. Not the best method, but the most common.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ctein bought the entire remainder of the Kodak Pan Matrix stock in the 90s. Since the color negative films are masked, they inherently produce initial prints with the right color and image characteristics. I've seen prints made by Louie Condax, Spot Inkley and others at EK that were produced by all of the methods described here so far and some experimental methods never seen outside of Kodak. They all work to some extent or the other.

Neg-Pos is always best! This can be proven over and over.

PE

 

[Dewey2]

Holy smokes! That's a commitment. Unfortunately, the product was subpar at the end of its life. Because it was not a money-maker, production was delegated to new staff who didn't even know what it was used for. I spoke to a couple of engineers who inherited the product and it was obvious that Kodak was continuing low-level production until they were certain there would be no legal issues with discontinuing it - can't really blame them. I hope the batch that Ctien bought was up to standard.

I agree with you. There's lots of ways to skin a cat, but the direct method is always best. The Vericolor method was always unsatisfactory. The interpositive/negative method could be good and provided lots of control, but lacked the richness of Pan Matrix.

 

[michaelbsc]

I'm discouraged to hear, but curious why you say to avoid C-41 negs. Ultimately I'm hoping to make prints from my archive of personal shots, a lot of which are on C-41.

This is pretty disheartening to me, too.

Dewwy, can you explain why the no longer existent Pan Matrix film worked, but others are fraught with trouble?

 

[Dewey2]

Pan Matrix was aimed at the market of advanced color darkroom users - portrait, landscape, wedding photographers and artists. Labs never really embraced it because the busy/successful ones had their hands full making dyes from transparencies for ad agencies (a much more lucrative market).

Pan Matrix was relatively simple when compared to the other methods. Direct exposures were made onto 3 matrix films through red, green and blue filters. The film was available in 14x17 and another larger size - prepunched for registration. You could use a standard B+W enlarger with a glass or oil carrier to keep your neg from moving, expose your 3 mats, develop in Kodak tanning developer and then you're ready to print.

They stopped making this product a few years before they discontinued the entire dye transfer product line. There simply wasn't a market for it.

I've made dyes from negs using Pan Matrix and by making interpositives. With a very good quality neg, you can't beat Pan Matrix, however the separation method allows for infinite control. One of the last ones I made used over 140 sheets of film for all the masking I did on an underexposed neg. Today you would just crank some curves in PhotoShop.

 

[holmburgers]

Separation Positives from C-41 Negatives

So back to C-41 neg's for a moment... a while back I calculated the average density of a well exposed C-41 negative, ≈5.5.

My thinking is to measure the incident light at my baseboard, and contact print a 4x5" C-neg onto b&w pan film, applying this density as a kind of filter factor. From the incident reading you use f/1 for your exposure time (since there is no aperture to attenuate the light), apply filter factors for the Wratten filters being used and also reciprocity-failure corrections. Ideally the exposure times should all be the same, so perhaps apply ND or if you're using an enlarger as the light source, adjust the aperture.

This should get in the ballpark of properly exposing a C-41 separation, and if I take 2 bracketed shots of each separation to give me 6 total sheets I can develop them all at once in my MOD pro-plates 4x5" processor.

Now.. am I missing something? Sure a C-41 negative 'looks' different, but what is so fundamentally difficult about making a positive separation from it? Does the mask skew the balance of light so that each layer requires a radically different exposure and if so, wouldn't that be fairly constant, thus allowing you to apply whatever skew there is across the board?

If you've got a set of good, straight-line, separation positives, these can be projected onto X-ray film to make the enlarged negatives. At least that's the plan...



One last thing of tangential interest that I'll add... the old Pinatype process required separation positives to make dye-imbibition prints. This is because it used a planographic matrix as opposed to a relief matrix. This is exactly the kind of a matrix used in bromoil/oil printing, wherein there is no hot-water etch and you're left with an image of untanned & tanned gelatin. Since this was under a positive, the highlights are tanned and thus do not imbibe liquid so easily, whereas the "soft" gelatin in the shadows does. The obvious discrepancy here is that the tanned gelatin of a relief matrix clearly accepts dye, so how are we supposed to get clean highlights? The key is in the dye itself. The Pinatype process used a different class of dyes, proprietarily known as "Pina dyes"; the chemical structure having never been disclosed. However, dyes with this property are known and in Friedman's book. Figuring out a planographic-matrix imbibition scheme would allow you to make prints from positives.

But I include this mainly for historial interest, unless of course someone wants to take it upon themselves!

 

[Dewey2]

Put a small step tablet in the border of the C-41 neg so you can measure shadow and highlight density through the negative film base. Red and green can probably be developed the same, but blue will need significantly more processing time. You may be right about the mask skewing the balance - all I can tell you is that unlike a transparency, each neg will be dramatically different.

Once you have your interpositives, a set of gamma one negs is cake.

 

[holmburgers]

Sounds good, I will give that a try with the step tablets.

I'm interested in why the blue filter separation needs the extra development. What exactly does it accomplish? (sorry, I'm pretty wet behind the ears when it comes to H&D kind of stuff).

When you 1st mentioned it, I thought I heard a bell ringing somewhere in my head.... check out this line from instructions for the Pinatype process, "The separations are first converted into positive transparencies. These, with the exception of the yellow, should be very soft, hence they might be made upon a color-blind negative material. The yellow image should be developed fairly hard."

 

[Dewey2]

I can't tell you why, but it's consistent through many processes. Maybe panchromatic material has a lower inherent gamma in the blue sensitive range. The red and green are also different, but not worth addressing for your current tests.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If color negatives varied in balance this would be a tragedy and would renter neg-pos systems untenable in the industry. As it happens, Kodak has maintained the same balance with negatives from the first to present, and I can print them on color paper with nearly the same balance. The same holds true for dye transfer from what I could glean back in "the day".

The R/G/B speeds of the various color negative films are kept in as much control as are positive films in order to simplify all varieties of color printing, and with the exception of CU Color Negative from the 60s, all color neg is controlled. So, if you have trouble printing using color negatives, the problem is elsewhere than in the negative.

However, printing with R/G/B separation filters either from color positives or color negatives is a true pain. The best way is to use a special tricolor camera that does the job for you taking the original.

PE

 

[Dewey2]

Sounds like my experience in making seps from color negs wasn't as good as yours.

The "one shot" camera was certainly easier than making seps from a chrome or neg, but the image size was rarely consistent, so you had to fiddle with enlargement size to keep the matrix films in register. You also (ideally) had to do substantial postmasking to address color and contrast issues.

Holmburgers, those digital sep. negs are looking a lot better. In fact, Tartaro was experimenting with a hybrid digital neg dye transfer at the end of his career. Digital meant (even then) a lot of color and curve control + no flare.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dewey;

My experience was vicarious via Louie, Spot and Ctein.

PE

 

[michaelbsc]

Dewey, it sounds as if the "special" quality of the Pan Matrix film was in its convenience to get a positive tanned matrix relief from a C41 image in one step. Is the spectral sensitivity of the emulsion any different than other modern pan emulsions like TMax 100?

PR?

 

[Dewey2]

Yes, a direct-from-neg solution, convenience and accessibility for advanced darkroom users were the point of the product. Plus, it produced really beautiful dyes. Maybe it was the directness of the process or the greater range of color negs, but they could look really spectacular.

I don't recall that it was anything unusual about its sensitivity, but exposures through the blue filter could run quite long.

Of course, this product is long gone except for any that's been hoarded in a freezer. And despite the respect I have for anyone attempting to revise the dye transfer process, I think that the challenges are pretty substantial. I hope the payoff is worth it.

 

[holmburgers]

If we forget about analog separation negatives the process really isn't all that challenging; not much different than carbon, especially in the making of the materials.

My desire is not necessarily to reproduce the fidelity, color, saturation & rendering of a professional made dye-transfer print (yet). I figure if people are getting enjoyment & making attractive prints from tri-color gum, which is far from technically perfect reproduction, then spitting images of reality from this imbibition scheme need not be the goal.

As time passes and ideally more people jump on the bandwagon, each step will become more refined and the collective wisdom will grow, with new ideas & contributions springing forth. I think that carbon & dye-imbibition are poised to potentially be the only "analog" options for printing color photos in the future, and I would love to see a renaissance. The beautiful thing is that it can appeal to digital shooters just as equally.. and no darkroom needed!

Check out this print... http://gary.saretzky.com/photohistory/goldensky/index.html The scan is low quality, but this is an imbibition print made by F.E. Ives at the request of Elias Goldensky, using his tripack film and a Hi-Cro camera in 1916 (information courtesy of Gary Saretzky). I see a lot of potential from this print.

 

[Dewey2]

I understand your point completely. I would love to experiment with tricolor carbon from large format, but I'm concerned that I would a) never see my family b) go broke c) spend all my time in the darkroom and not shooting.

Likewise, I could imagine shooting with my iphone and printing small Epsons with the same satisfaction.

The darkroom is definitely addictive. It's a tragedy that the films once available for the intermediate steps are mostly gone. Pan masking, pan highlight, separation negative film, super XX are all gone. For me this seems like a closed (maybe slammed shut) door, but to your credit, you seam to see it as a puzzle.

On the bright side... you're probably getting some killer deals on used gear. Every now and then I look at darkroom stuff on Ebay (darkroom porn) and lust for a Leitz Focomat IIc or a Durst 5x7 for a crazy low price.

 

[holmburgers]

Dyes

This extensive list includes a number of dyes that are suitable for the dye-imbibition process.

I haven't done any checking yet, or specifically looked at the product offerings of any companies, but it's entirely possible that there are a handful of companies in the U.S. that will sell these (3 listed below) or better yet send you a sample of the dye for free. I had great luck obtaining pigment samples for color-carbon in this way. The amount that you receive as a sample will probably be enough to make many, many prints.

http://www.organicdye.com/ - http://www.pylamdyes.com/ - http://www.classicdye.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyan:
- Acid Blue 45, EK cyan dye for Kodak Dye Transfer Process. Blue not really cyan in color.
- Toluidine Blue I - CAS: 3209-30-1,CI# 63340, lightfast bright cyan hue, note: this is NOT "Toluidine Blue O" or Basic Blue 17.
- Acid Blue 277 - high lightfastness, much bluer that CI Acid Blue 45 transfers well. High mobility.
- Direct Blue 87 - I thought this was a bit poisonous but it was mentioned in a publication and it has a good cyan color.
- Reactive Blue 5 - one of the Morey Bard's dyes. Not good spectral purity; similar to Acid Blue 45.
- Reactive Blue 19 - nearly the same color as CI Acid Blue 45, higher light fastness. From Morey Bard of B.E.E.
- Acid Blue 258, TECTILON BLUE 6G - more green and saturated than Acid Blue 45. Doesn't transfer very well.
- Tracer RB Blue - Possibly CI Acid Blue 88 or 80

Magenta:
- Acid Red 58 - same dye that was used in Kodak Magenta. Possibly available from Crescent Chemical Co. Inc.
- Acid Red 80 - slightly yellower than Acid Red 58, less gelatin absorption.
- Acid Red 131 - reddish magenta color.
- Acid Red 167
- Acid Red 249, Orco Milling Brilliant Red B - bright magenta color
- Acid Red 257
- Acid Red 264 - Dr. Jay Patterson claims is good a magenta.
- Acid Red 274 - bright color, good spectral purity.
- Acid Red 388 - bright color, good spectral purity.
- Direct Red 83 - reddish magenta color.
- Direct Red 227 - good magenta color.
- Direct Red 243 - reddish magenta color.
- Direct Red 75 - similar to Direct Violet 62, good for transparencies.
- Reactive Red 49 - dark magenta.
- Reactive Red 66 - similar color to Acid Red 58 but yellower.
- Ramazol Brilliant Red R.F.C. (Hoechst) - possibly CI Reactive Red 35. Bright color, slight permanent stain.
- Hostalen Red 4 B.N. (Hoechst) - Reactive dye unknown CI name
- Acid Violet 7
- Direct Violet 47 - similar to Direct Violet 62.

Yellow:
- Acid Yellow 17 - good light fastness
- Acid Yellow 19 - bright yellow color and spectral curve but not heat stable
- Acid Yellow 34 - good yellow color, good spectral curve, high light fastness
- Acid Yellow 42 - good yellow color
- Acid Yellow 151 - metal complex might be slightly poisonous. Has good saturation.
- Acid Yellow 169 - greenish yellow.
- Acid Yellow 174 - high light fastness, good spectral curve.
- Acid Yellow 200 - good yellow color and spectral curve.
- Direct Yellow 11
- Direct Yellow 12
- Direct Yellow 14
- Direct Yellow 44
- Direct Yellow 50
- Direct Yellow 86 - medium yellow.
- Direct Yellow 106 - reddish yellow.
- Direct Yellow 142 - has long absorption tail, but has good color.
- Reactive Yellow 15
- Reactive Yellow 24
- Reactive Yellow 37 - bright yellow might have leak in spectrum.
- Reactive Yellow 86 - greenish color; low saturation narrow peak.
- Direct Orange 37 - can be used in mixture with compatible dye.
- Direct Orange 26 - can be used in mixture with compatible dye.
- Reactive Orange 86 - can make a good yellow for transparency use.
- Basilin Yellow E.3R. (Hoechst)

Green:
- Acid Green 25 - medium bluish green dye
- Acid Green 41 - bright bluish green dye. Not compatible with most mixtures of Anthraquinone dyes including Acid Blue 45.

Neutral:
- Procion Black SP-4 - I haven't located the CI number. Good fastness, fairly neutral on Kodak DT paper.
- Direct Black 38

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be enough to get anyone started, eh?!

Also, for anyone that wants a "plug & play" solution, investigating the Procion Reactive Dyes would be a good place to start. These are readily available.

Lastly, it should be noted that I cannot take credit for this extensive list, or the hard work that went into creating it. That goes to Michael Garelick; a passionate and uncompromising researcher into this process.

 

[Dewey2]

Wow.You're pretty serious about this.

I was contacted by Michael. He's got a good handle on this.

Is this info being compiled in any sort of common area? It would be good to start a DT group site to warehouse all this data. Has anyone contacted Guy Stricherz? He was the last man standing in NYC with his lab CVI, which made dyes for big shot art photographers. He would have the freshest memory of masking techniques, developing times, etc.

 

[michaelbsc]

Is this info being compiled in any sort of common area?

I think Chris's article here is a first stab at getting things compiled.

I think he's done a bang up job.

In fact, I make a motion that we rename it Holmbergurs Dye Transfer method.

 

[holmburgers]

I'm serious about it in the sense that I really enjoy doing it, reading about it and ultimately thinking about a photographic system and all its complexities. Since graduating college it's become my sole "academic" pursuit, and the support of people I've met online has been great. I've been pointed in the right direction many times.

I'm also lucky to have a relatively relaxed job... If only I could get paid for this!

Mike G. really latched onto my idea to produce DCG matrices and has elevated the project orders of magnitude.

Guy Stricherz sounds like a good man to get in touch with as well; there are undoubtedly countless "tricks of the trade" that lie with only a handful of people.

You know, the funny thing is.. I've maybe seen 5 dye-transfer prints with my own eyes since undertaking this, but, when reading I have a most vivid imagination.

 

[Dewey2]

It's great that you're doing this. And I agree that it's a bang-up job.

I hope that you get to see more dyes. They all share common elements that make them beautiful, but it's interesting that the quality varies wildly.

A lot of Elliot Porter's dyes are rather mediocre - despite his strong identity with the process. And William Eggleston is all over the place. Some are very nice, while others have all the subtlety of a color Xerox.

I still remember being overwhelmed by Bruce Davidson's Subway show of oversized dyes. And Mappelthorpe's flowers were absolutely, meticulously flawless. These were a pet project of Frank Tartaro's. I made seps on most of these and Frank was rejecting whole sets of seps for a microscopic dust spot.

I bought some Harold Edgerton dyes a few years back (bullets going through apples and cards, etc.) and I'm tortured every time I look at them and see dirty highlights and plugged shadows. I wonder if sound engineers have trouble enjoying music?

 

[holmburgers]

Amazing you mentioned those 1st two; the only prints I have seeen were one of Eggelston's shots of Graceland (National Portrait Gallery) and several of Porter's prints of his 35mm work (Amon Carter Museum). The latter were surprisingly uninspriring.

That's great though, that means I haven't seen the best.

Always loved Edgerton...