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

[holmburgers]

Last night I made a small batch of emulsion for the latest matrix coatings. I included 3 drops of both FD&C Yellow 5 & FD&C Red 40 to act as extinction dyes. Yellow 5 (acid yellow 23, tartrazine) has peak absorption at 422nm and Red 40 (Allura Red) at 504nm. If anyone has spectral data on the red, I'd love to see it, as it is not in the Sigma-Aldrich handbook.

I don't know how effective this amount will be; the gelatin is red, but not exceedingly so. I have no idea what Kodak's matrix film looked like with the extinction dye, or how dark it has to be. We'll see...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Regular Matrix film was yellow. It used Tartrazine alone.

As a side note, Pan Matrix film was black and used a soluble dye. Some claim that carbon was used to form the black and it remained. Well, here is the extended story as far as I can figure out. The early Pan Matrix was black and the dye washed out. This was so Pan Matrix and Matrix images were identical and could be compared. It allowed for easy reading of the gray scale that was included. Also, Carbon Black was made from burning tallow which imparted some harmful organics to the carbon mix. So, it was not used. In later years, pure Carbon Black was made available primarily for the image transfer products, and this was used as a permanent black image in Pan Matrix film along with the silver image.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

I chose to add FD&C Red 40 kind of as an afterthought, since tartrazine's near UV absorption isn't great.

I had no idea pan matrix film was black; that's fascinating. Was the coating completely opaque? Thanks for.. the rest of the story

 

[Photo Engineer]

Pan Matrix was panchromatic. It therefore had to have a black acutance dye just as tartrazine was the acutance dye for a blue sensitive film. It was not opaque, but rather translucent like Matrix film.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

Sure, that makes sense. It got me thinking though that a black pigment might have higher tinctorial strength and would have the added benefit of making the DCG matrices easy to identify.

Glad to know it was translucent, and yet still effective in its purpose.

I think carbon printers need to appreciate how easy this process would be to do, even with their existing glop. In fact, a matrix could be made in the typical transfer method onto a gelatin-free support. The gelatin would fog highlights as it would imbibe some dye.

Can't a carbon transfer more or less stick to any smooth surface? This would alleviate the need for a specially subbed product like the Estar Melinex.

Furthermore, it might result in sharper images; not having to expose through the base.

Just a thought...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Exposure through the base is needed for any image that must adhere to the base. Exposure from the emulsion side is needed if one is to transfer the image. The acutance dye is needed to insure sharpness during exposure which is not materially decreased by exposure through the base.

PE

 

[Dewey2]

With pan matrix, you could do an easy test strip with the red filter. You processed it and then slapped it onto a white tray to judge density. Because the emulsion carried tone, you could make a pretty good assessment of exposure for another test in 3 color that you would print. This same exposure test wasn't required with chromes because your chromes had so little exposure latitude.

H-burgers, you mention fogged highlights.This was an issue that was solved with a solution of Calgon water softener in the first rinse when printing. This made a huge difference in highlights and was (for most commercial labs) a default correction.

Exposing through the base + exposing sep negs through masks + stacking assorted post masks on the negs + making multiple incremental exposures with a register carrier -- all these things effected sharpness.

This is why point source lights were used with long focal length lenses (a 105 apo-nikkor was the industry standard for 35mm). Some of the challenges were minimizing diffusion, minimizing internal enlarger reflection, minimizing chromatic aberration.

 

[holmburgers]

PE, I've been thinking of the extinction dye as necessary for creating a thin relief, but does it also enhance acutance? I can see how that would be an added benefit!

Dewey, thanks for sharing that about the Calgon. Do you recall (roughly) at what concentration it was used? The chemical I was told helped with fogged highlights is sodium-hexametaphosphate, which also appears to be a water softener.

105mm on 35mm must have made for a tall enlarger. Did you also use wet-mount carriers and the like? The surgical precision of dye-transfer labs is somewhat intimidating to me. I hope I can get by with slightly less.

I plan to get into densitometry soon and really make sense of the system as a whole.

 

[Dewey2]

I seem to remember that we mixed Calgon according to the instructions on the box and then added 5 - 10 mls per liter of first rinse depending on the amount of effect required.

Tartaro used the apo-nikkors on 8x10 Fotar enlargers modified with 5x7 Durst condensors and a low voltage pointsource. The chromes were suspended in mineral oil between glass.

Bob DeSantos had a lab in LA and he modified old Leitz Valoy enlargers for seps. If you haven't seen one of these, they have a very precise focusing system - more like a camera lens.
here's a picture: http://store.valueweb.com/servlet/vintagepaperads/-strse-68640/1957-Leitz-Valoy-II/Detail

Bob wasn't too worried about his gear being pretty, so the point light was housed inside of a coffee can that has fitted to the Valoy. Since you're (typically) making your seps the same size for every job, the enlarger is locked and braced to the wall. I even had enlargers braced to a 4" pipe that was sunk into a concrete floor.

 

[dyetransfer]

Your last paragraph is critical in understanding what is going on or what might go on. Without the proper mordant, you can even lose dye from the print back into the second or third matrix as you are doing transfers. There are a number of things that can go wrong without mordants, but you have touched on some of them.

As for the rest of it, I think it important to know what is going on in the real, perfected dye transfer process marketed by Kodak. If you don't a lot of things may get lost over the years. But, much of this is covered in Jim Browning's web site and I cannot stress the importance of his information enough.

PE

Hi Ron and Chris - I just happend across these postings by accident. Very interesting Chris, I think that DCG matrices could work very well. I commend you for your work!

A few notes - please see my recent postings about paper mordanting on the Yahoo DyeTransfer group list server - the Kodak M1 mordant will work very well, and give very sharp prints with high DMAX. Fixed out paper works well, but isn't as sharp, particularly if you are making finished prints which are rewet one or more times for retouching purposes. I have been using fixed out paper (alum mordant) for test prints, and I give an additional M1 mordanting to the paper for final prints, for the best sharpness. Note - it is advisable to vigorously clean the paper surface with a very dilute photo flo solution before use to remove unwanted M1 mordant which can poison the matrix (cause the dyes to lock into the matrix,or back transfer into the matrix). This can be mostly eliminated with cleaning, but I would still recommend using a matrix clearing bath on all
transfers.

While the Thorium Nitrate paper causes a Cyan hue shift to occur immediately, which can be desirable for quick evaluation of the color of the print without drying, the M1 mordant will actually give a much better correction of the Cyan dye hue than the Kodak paper, it is just that it doesn't occur until the print is dried. We have seen resulting blues, Cyans, and Greens which are much brighter than can be had on Kodak DT paper. M1 mordant - highly recommended if done correctly.

One note - the conditioner isn't really acidic, it tends to run neutral pH (7.0) to slightly acidic, pH 6.0. The idea is to have the paper more basic than the matrix, possibly causing electrostatic attraction of the dyes to the paper. If the pH of the paper is too low, no transfer would occur.

Regards - Jim Browning

 

[holmburgers]

Thanks Jim, your commendation is very encouraging & nice to hear.

Is this the M1 mordant post you're referring to? -> Dead Link Removed

Thanks also for the note on the conditioner. I tend to post in haste (post haste? haha) and often make erroneous claims only to learn otherwise down the road! It has been recommended that a dilute sodium acetate solution will act as a paper conditioner; given that I don't have any of the "official stuff".

Ultimately I'd like to hand-coat receiving paper, but having the M1 mordant formula might come in handy. In fact, I wonder if a plain gelatin coated paper, such as final-transfer papers in carbon, would work if mordanted in M1. I'm intrigued by the fact that these papers don't keep well. I guess I would have figured that these chemicals were fairly inert and would keep indefinitely. Does the M1 mordant have any hardening charactersitics?

The dye-imbibition system sure is a complicated beast. It's probably not any more complex than b&w silver-halide systems, but the fact that so few people practice it makes it much less prevalent in the "collective knowledge-base".

Cheers

 

[dyetransfer]

Paper Prep for DT

>Is this the M1 mordant post you're referring to? -> Dead Link Removed

Yes, that is the posting, follow the instructions there and you will get good results.

>It has been recommended that a dilute sodium acetate solution will act as a paper conditioner; given that I don't have any of the "official stuff".

There are formulas both for Kodak's version (which requires Formalin), and Bob Pace's formula which is simply a buffer solution of Trieth and AA, IIRC. If you have a pH meter (necessity), you will use it to titrate the buffer to the proper pH.


>Ultimately I'd like to hand-coat receiving paper, but having the M1 mordant formula might come in handy. In fact, I wonder if a plain gelatin coated paper, such as final-transfer papers in carbon, would work if mordanted in M1. I'm intrigued by the fact that these papers don't keep well. I guess I would have figured that these chemicals were fairly inert and would keep indefinitely. Does the M1 mordant have any hardening charactersitics?

A Baryta base paper coated with a thick gelatin coating will serve well. It needs to be hardened, but not overly hardened. If you can't incorporate a mordant when coating the paper, use the M1 mordant to post mordant it. You are right, the life of an aluminum mordant is only a few weeks. I think that it continues to harden the gelatin until it won't accept the dyes readily, or it won't conform to the the undulations in the the matrix, causing bleeding, particularly out of the image area into the borders.

Regards - Jim

 

[Photo Engineer]

There are several patents with alternate mordants that I have here somewhere. I'll try to post the numbers if I can find them. The chemicals are compatible with gelatin. The M1 mordant is NOT compatible with gelatin or emulsions which are to be coated.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

The M1 mordant is NOT compatible with gelatin or emulsions which are to be coated

Does this arise from the fact that it will harden it, resulting in a big blob of insoluble gelatin?

One patent that I know of is U.S.P. 2,952,566, assigned to Louis Condax (EK), Mordanted Photographic Imbibtion Dye Printing Blank.

Haven't actually read it yet..

 

[Photo Engineer]

The Louie Condax patent is probably one of them. But yes, the Alum in the gelatin is a good hardener. So, you must apply it or activate it after coating.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

just wanted to pass along this link to David Doubley's archive of Dye-Transfer documents. It's pretty well excellent... http://daviddoubley.com/DyeTransfer.htm

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm one of those folks hoarding matrix film, which I hope will stay good in the freezer a few more years until I retire and have enough time to seriously dye transfer print. In the meantime I've acquired all the necessary supplies and equipment, have mastered separations and masks using analog dkrm techniques exclusively, and have worked out the protocol for wash-off relief technique, which seems a little more straightforward than tanning development. This is a process which has tactile appeal (especially if you make your living using a computer and are damn sick of it); but is also capable of rendering hues with a
vivacity very difficult or impossible to achieve with inkjet or other digital color printing techniques.

 

[holmburgers]

Hi Drew,

Amen to the part about being sick of computers. That's what I always think... I spend all day on one, and when I get home I do everything in my power not to sit in front of another.

When you say wash-off relief technique, are you referring to dichromate bleaching as in Kodak's older "Wash-Off Relief" process? Are you using that with matrix films or something else? That's very intriguing, and is a 3rd technique for the formation of a relief matrix that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet.

Thanks for joining the conversation, and welcome to APUG!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi. Having tested the alternatives and the fussiness of them, I wanted a slower-acting matrice developer which I could potentially use in drums and that was easy to mix. I settled on a tweak of HC-110 with post hardening. No dichromate involved. A few minutes slower than tanning developer but much simpler and seems to give comparable results when printing. I happen to be using the newer Efke matrix film, but the older Kodak film should work similarly. Dyes are no problem. I have Kodak dyes as well as a set of Pylam dyes. There are also a variety of mordants which can be used, but uranyl nitrate is a good choice. The trick with the paper is allegedly to find one which contains pig gelatin. I have been fixing out an EMaks paper and getting sharper images than with some of the others. But I'm still in the early stages of this myself, with not much time either, since I'm also involved in Ciba, Type C, and silver gelatin printing.

 

[dyetransfer]

Hi Drew, you should try using the M1 mordant with the Emaks. That gives very good sharpness (much better than simply fixing out). The sharpness is comparable to the Kodak DT paper. I find that you do have to scrub the surface of the paper with a paper towel and a photo-flo solution to remove any residual mordant which remains on the surface. If you don't, you can get some blotches, and some mordanting of dye back in the matrix. I like to clean the matrices with matrix cleaner on every transfer when using the M1 mordanted paper, you will get more consistant results this way. Once nice thing about the Aluminum mordant is that the cyans (and greens and blues) render much better than with the Kodak paper. This increases the color gamut in that region. Note that the Cyan hue conversion only happens after drying (I'm not sure if it needs to be a hot drying. I haven't tested warm air drying to see if the conversion happens at low temperature). I like the high-gloss quality of the Emaks, and the brighter white compared to the Kodak paper. But mainly, I like the idea of not having to worry about running out of a hoarded supply. The Emaks paper is still available from Freestyle, and it is pretty inexpensive.

Another way of increasing color gamut is to display the print under LED lighting. I was trepidatious about the demise of Tungsten lighting, but now I think that LED lighting will actually be superior to Tungsten or Tungsten Halogen for viewing DT prints. I have been using an Ecosmart Bright White A19 40 W equivilent light in a Luxo-Lamp for viewing prints. While I make my final decisions based on a Tungsten Halogen light since that is still predominant in galleries, I use the LED bulb for most viewing. This bulb is rated as 3000 deg. K with an 85 CRI. I find that the effective CRI is actually higher than that since the color error is not in hue, but in chroma (saturation). The bulb doesn't disturb the hues, but it does increase the saturation, and the gamut. My only complaint is that it needs to be brighter for exhibiting prints, to get the necessary 650 lux it has to be about 2 feet away. I'll continue to look for LED lighting which is brighter than this but which has the same qualities.

- Jim Browning

 

[holmburgers]

It was suggested to me that some inkjet papers contain suitable mordants that might make them suitable for an imbibition scheme. Although they might have a matrix poisoning problem (mordant diffusing back into the blank) this could be alleviated with a thin coating of gelatin + polymer (Versa TL 502).

This seems like an incredibly appealing solution and one worth investigating.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The backward diffusion should not be a problem. Having the matrix stick to the paper might be more of a problem.

PE

 

[holmburgers]

Thanks Ron,

How did you make it to these conclusions? And are these papers coated with gelatin, or some kind of polymer?

It sure would be nice if these papers worked well. In fact, it would be quite felicitous! We shouldn't have to worry about these papers going by the wayside anytime soon.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Chris;

I tested this in a round about fashion. Take a damp finger and touch a sheet of glossy inkjet paper. My Ilford inkjet paper just about glues my finger to the surface. You see, this ability to absorb (or adsorb) the ink is needed to render the images sharply and to dry instantly. Those that do not dry instantly do not have this property. Images are less sharp and do not dry immediately.

If you use fixed photo paper for inkjet printing, you get a blurry damp image.

Some inkjet papers have a mordant encapsulated in a porous microceramic bead which is in a polymer matrix. This is generally not a good way to make a dye transfer paper.

PE

 

[dyetransfer]

DT papers are very sensitive to small particles. In fact, using powdered latex gloves will cause the matrix to stick to the gelatin so hard that it can actually pull it off, or at least blister it as you lift the matrix. Not sure if there is this sort of particles on inkjet papers, but beware of the possibility.

- Jim Browning