The Making of a Dye-Transfer

IB Photochemistry said:

Unfortunately I probably won't be able to post most of my information here, since this forum may not permit this.

Click to expand...

In case you have any questions about this, please feel free to reach out and we'll discuss the possibilities. When it comes to copyrighted materials, there are indeed limits to what we'll encourage or allow people to upload to Photrio for the obvious reason of legal liability. Such limitations evidently do not apply to original work of which the author decides to publish it here on Photrio.

Personally speaking, I'd be very interested in learning more about the technical details of DT processes, and the possibilities of reviving this process with presently available materials.

IB - I think you'd discover, IF enough people live long enough, that the remaining practitioners are a lot more open than the old stereotype, and information isn't anywhere near as hoarded and "secret" as it once was. Yes, that latest run of materials which Bettina uses is proprietary, but mainly due to tailoring the matrices to their unique blue laser exposure method, and the fact they need to conserve all those remaining materials for their own use, since any subsequent coating would be financially and logistically problematic. My own matrix film was made by Efke. And mordanting one's own receiver paper is quite easy in an individual low quantity sense, even if yet another time consuming chore.

I am not an expert on the process by any means, but have talked to many individuals who had widely varying approaches in technique; and I have sufficient supplies to have done some tests of my own to verify certain hunches of mine. My preferred approach is more akin to the original wash of relief technique rather than later Eastman DT; that was also true of certain major labs at one time. And there were several other options for necessary supplies than Kodak. But I'm never going to find the time at my age to master the process. I have other ways of making very high quality color prints.

I had no problem finding suitable substitute dyes; and since I have a Kodak dye set to compare them to, the visual differences are minimal. Jim Browning pretty much simplified all that. Of course, one of the advantages of DT is that one can select from all kinds of dyes and tailor them to specific images. A serious lab could stockpile many to choose from, and even blend them to a degree; but's that's not so practical for a personal darkroom budget.

Better masks and separations can be made today, using current films like TMax100, than was ever possible in the heyday of dye transfer.
Or there would be those who go hybrid, and scan images, then output them via precise film recorders onto film. Jim Browning does this.
But use of image-setters is dwindling as the last of its special output film runs out. But here again, the cost of sheet film itself has skyrocketed; and dye transfer printing requires a lot of it.

I would certainly welcome any kind of revival of the process, or even further archiving of legacy information. But any kind of realistic commercial revival would require serious philanthropic help. Even what they are doing in Germany was dependent on a big grant. Making money at it in this day and age would be highly problematic; and the process has an especially long learning curve, and needs quite a bit of darkroom space, at least if larger prints are involved. And it's always going to be quite expensive. If I were several decades younger and independently wealthy, it would intrigue me; but I got caught up in the Cibachrome wave, which served me quite well until it dried up too.

DT's appeal as a highly malleable pre-press process was left behind in the dust long ago. And if the gamut of inkjet is still rather disappointing, chromogenic RA4 printing and color neg films themselves have come a long ways from back when they were parallel to DT, both in terms of permanence and distinctly improved color reproduction. Whether people learn how to qualitatively optimize that opportunity or not is a different question.

It's quite astonishing how complicated people want to make Dye Transfer. It isn't. If it was it would (ironically) probably have been easier for Kodak to keep making it, as it would likely have been relatively more straightforward to manufacture efficiently. The problem seems to have had a lot to do with how obsolete (primitive) much of the emulsion technology used had been allowed to become (and the costs of fixing that relative to a principle market that was being hit hard by a digital transition - no, DT's key historic markets weren't really fine art) - and frankly, anyone who thinks there was a high resolution/ acutance use for DT has not seen a well made DT up close (yes, there were/ are uses for in-flight sep negs- but they were printed on materials that allowed the hard work required to gather the information to be transmitted most efficiently to those who need the aforesaid visual data - i.e. Chromogenic, Ciba etc).

The matrix film is a relatively coarse grained unhardened bromoiodide with adequate curve characteristics. If somewhere like @ADOX Fotoimpex wanted to, they could make matrix emulsion in bottled form for hand coating - if sufficient real demand existed. None of the components are in any way chemically sophisticated by today's organic chemistry standards, it's just that they might require initial investments that people are unprepared to make. There are possibly more favourable (and/ or less nasty) paper mordant/ dye relationships than others, if people want to expend time money and effort on that. For all the denigration of 'fixed out papers' upthread, there were people (also mentioned in this thread) who are documented as having successfully used Ilford 5K matt paper to make matte dye transfers. I think a lot of people don't understand that colour assembly processes are (need to be) pretty loose until final assembly. DT was supposed to be accessible to the relatively well-heeled amateur as a hobby printing method.

Anyway, there are other processes open - 4-colour photogravure is far more interesting to me than yet another beating of the same old dead horses about dye transfer.

At some point in my distant history I contemplated the Dye Transfer Process after seeing an exhibit of prints by a photographer I don’t remember.
Went out and bought the how-to book “Dye Transfer Made Easy”. The start-up cost were more than I could afford at the time. End of story.

DREW WILEY said:

I had no problem finding suitable substitute dyes; and since I have a Kodak dye set to compare them to, the visual differences are minimal. Jim Browning pretty much simplified all that. Of course, one of the advantages of DT is that one can select from all kinds of dyes and tailor them to specific images. A serious lab could stockpile many to choose from, and even blend them to a degree; but's that's not so practical for a personal darkroom budget.

Click to expand...

No, the other dyes I think you are referring to produce a different color space and the differences are not trivial. The Acid Yellow 11 has problems maintaining densitometric additivity and linear proportionality. I have tested it multiple times myself. Acid Red 80 is redder than Acid Red 58 (the Kodak Magenta) and Acid Blue 45 is the same cyan used in the kits, however it was further purified and desalted. The Acid Blue 45 has a lot of magenta crosstalk, so using it without the Thoriumaluminate mordant will give a cyan with too much magenta contamination.

None of Jim Browning's dye formulas are really new information. I have a list of dyes that are light stable and work with "dye transfer" type processes I can share here that work much better, if people are interested. Some of these have been shared on here before.

If you have what you regard as a superior dye set, then by all means share it for sake of others potentially interested.

But there is no such thing as an "ideal" dye set; it all depends on your priorities. Kodak kept fiddling back and forth, especially with their choice of yellow, trying to juggle the potentially competing variables of hue purity, retouchability, ease of selective bleaching, and permanence. Then, just like back in Technicolor movie days, you've got the matter of tailoring the color palette to specific visual outcomes, with multiple dye set options coming into play trying to achieve a particular look.

I fooled around with uranyl nitrate as a substitute for thorium as the secondary mordant. Seems to work, and it too is only mildly radioactive, and wouldn't even fog a sheet of film placed overnight under a small bottle of it. But hypothetically dealing with any of these kinds of radioactive ingredients on commercial scale anew is likely to encounter serious regulatory hazmat barriers. And the biggest factor restricting a revival of any of this can be summed up in a single word : Money.

DREW WILEY said:

Better masks and separations can be made today, using current films like TMax100, than was ever possible in the heyday of dye transfer.
Or there would be those who go hybrid, and scan images, then output them via precise film recorders onto film. Jim Browning does this.
But use of image-setters is dwindling as the last of its special output film runs out. But here again, the cost of sheet film itself has skyrocketed; and dye transfer printing requires a lot of it.

I would certainly welcome any kind of revival of the process, or even further archiving of legacy information. But any kind of realistic commercial revival would require serious philanthropic help. Even what they are doing in Germany was dependent on a big grant. Making money at it in this day and age would be highly problematic; and the process has an especially long learning curve, and needs quite a bit of darkroom space, at least if larger prints are involved. And it's always going to be quite expensive. If I were several decades younger and independently wealthy, it would intrigue me; but I got caught up in the Cibachrome wave, which served me quite well until it dried up too.

Click to expand...

You like to claim on here that better masks and separations can be made on TMax100 film, but where is your evidence of this? I think Ilford FP4 and HP5 might be able to be made to work but certainly not as well as the old films. The idea of using Tmax100 film was for amateurs, not highly demanding professional labs. Tmax films do not have desirable characteristics for making excellent quality separations of color transparencies.

There was a lab called Frog Prince who would claim to people who asked that they were using TMax100 film. This was intentional disinformation, and misinformation, which was common practice among Dye Transfer labs. They sold seps. for amateurs and students to use, made on Tmax film. Tom Rankin was actually using Super XX pan in the mid 1980's after the new Tmax films came out and later Kodak Separation Negative Type I and II films, after they got a Versamat processor. There is a reason I know this, I have one of the older Frog Prince shop manuals with the Super XX pan method. I could ask it it would be ok to share here.

How do you know any revival would require philanthropic help? I certainly believe there is a real market for it, not just a few people making dye prints. There should be a real high quality color alternative to the digital inkjet crap that is mass produced regularly, and the type C with its shortcomings.

My "evidence" is hundreds of color prints. And my many densitometer plots prove it too. And I'm certainly not going to waste my time debating it on this forum versus shoot from the hip preconceptions. Your notion that TMax was intended for amateurs and not for professionals is ludicrous. It was THE "silver bullet" film engineered by Kodak to outright replace a whole suite of previous films, specifically including color separation applications.

With masking, I can achieve a very long straight line, even at very low contrast gamma, using TMX and the appropriate developer. Pan Masking film could never do that. I can also process all three RGB separations on TMX for the identical time and get tightly overlapping curves, without worrying about the infamous "blue bump" gamma mismatch of the blue separation like afflicted Super-XX and FP4. HP5 would be a miserable color sep choice due to its long toe and sheer graininess, plus other disqualifying characteristics.

Super-XX itself was also quite grainy, and required a dedicated coating machine just like Matrix film did. But the problem wasn't just keeping all that old gear going, but retaining the necessary chain of experienced technicians. The whole system was going obsolete. And once a tricolor separation protocol is pinned down at the lab end, it takes a LOT of work to recalibrate everything for a different film; that's why certain people didn't shift over to TMax, despite its superior overall performance.

The former operator of Frog Prince might still be alive in the Bahamas. He likes to make big dye transfer prints of insects. Accusing him or others of deliberately deceiving people with disinformation is not acceptable. Yes, I have encountered a particular former lab owner who could be particularly cantankerous and jealously secretive over his heterodox but otherwise effective methodology, which I will not explain here. But most have been quite generous with information. It's all legacy related anyway now; commercial competition is non-existent. There might be a tiny handful of "hired gun" printers still out there, using up the last of their materials for select clients; but I'd hardly classify them as commercial labs in the former sense.

And as far as "crap" goes, it's no secret that I'm not personally attracted to generic inkjet printing; but I do know certain individuals who are damn good at it. And I've been known to call the bluff of those who blindly adhere to the old stereotype of C-prints somehow still being an impoverished stepdaughter. A former big DT lab owner's jaw dropped once he saw a few of my own Fuji chromogenic prints in person. It's all about OPTIMIZING your chosen medium, and not settling for mere generic performance. Wonderful color prints can be made all kinds of ways.

Once again, any general purpose film can be used to make separations without strange conniptions or funny developers. That means essentially all Ilford films (no staining developer silliness or utter nonsense about HP5+'s curve shape please) can be used, Tmax 100 too. Super-XX was Kodak's main general purpose sheet film pre-Tmax, that's all. The separation neg films may have had more favourable characteristics for heavier lab usage, but by all accounts were more demanding of sufficient and thorough agitation than less primitive technology emulsions (e.g. Tmax) were. That's all there is to it, the rest is frankly bizarre fantasies posing as psychological obstacles to actually doing the work.

I agree somewhat with you Lachlan, at least if your concept of a film lab happens to be synonymous with a Spanish Inquisition torture chamber. Let's just say that color separations are a helluva lot easier to make on films designed with that application in mind to begin with; and there are relatively few of those. For those who scan and can digitally recontour film curves, some of this can be simplified; but even then it helps to start with the most appropriate film amenable to the straightest line possible in all three separations. And "pan" films aren't even all the same in terms of exact spectral sensitivity, and certainly not in terms of divergent reciprocity failure responses to deep color separation filters, where it really gets gnarly.

I don't mean to be disrespectful to your own experience, but just want to give a heads up to those tempted to walk into that dark chamber without forewarning. I presume your real name is Torquemada, given your "any film will work" advice. Sure, all kinds of film are hypothetical for color separations, that is, if people are comfortable with frustrating workflow and funky results. Serious color reproduction is a quite different subject, requiring real commitment and proper materials, whether generating separations from chrome film or directly in-camera using tricolor filters.

Regardless, hoping for the reinvention of Super-XX or Eastman Color Separation Film, or Pan Masking Film, is a pipe dream. Matrix Film and even Pan Matrix Film are more realistic aspirations. But I certainly can't afford to invest any of my retirement nest egg in any kind of problematic venture (or misadventure) like that.

DREW WILEY said:

My "evidence" is hundreds of color prints. And my many densitometer plots prove it too. And I'm certainly not going to waste my time debating it on this forum versus shoot from the hip preconceptions. Your notion that TMax was intended for amateurs and not for professionals is ludicrous. It was THE "silver bullet" film engineered by Kodak to outright replace a whole suite of previous films, specifically including color separation applications.

With masking, I can achieve a very long straight line, even at very low contrast gamma, using TMX and the appropriate developer. Pan Masking film could never do that. I can also process all three RGB separations on TMX for the identical time and get tightly overlapping curves, without worrying about the infamous "blue bump" gamma mismatch of the blue separation like afflicted Super-XX and FP4. HP5 would be a miserable color sep choice due to its long toe and sheer graininess, plus other disqualifying characteristics.

Super-XX itself was also quite grainy, and required a dedicated coating machine just like Matrix film did. But the problem wasn't just keeping all that old gear going, but retaining the necessary chain of experienced technicians. The whole system was going obsolete. And once a tricolor separation protocol is pinned down at the lab end, it takes a LOT of work to recalibrate everything for a different film; that's why certain people didn't shift over to TMax, despite its superior overall performance.

The former operator of Frog Prince might still be alive in the Bahamas. He likes to make big dye transfer prints of insects. Accusing him or others of deliberately deceiving people with disinformation is not acceptable. Yes, I have encountered a particular former lab owner who could be particularly cantankerous and jealously secretive over his heterodox but otherwise effective methodology, which I will not explain here. But most have been quite generous with information. It's all legacy related anyway now; commercial competition is non-existent. There might be a tiny handful of "hired gun" printers still out there, using up the last of their materials for select clients; but I'd hardly classify them as commercial labs in the former sense.

Click to expand...

Tmax was designed as a commercial pictorial film not a separation negative film. You have no evidence it was made for separation making other than what what you believe. Kodak Separation Negative Type I for example, is slightly sharper than TMax100, but that is not the major point that makes separations films made specifically for this application superior. It has desirable spectral sensitivity, a very long flat curve, and can be used at 0.90 to 1.40 gamma. In addition it has internal masking built into it.

Other manufacturers made separation negative films as well. Agfa made p330p which might have been marginally better than 4133 and 4131. Other films existed as well. There are also separation films for color negatives that have different characteristics.

The separation procedure I have (and use myself) uses Super XX pan. The method I may be able to share does not use any Tmax films for masking or separation making.

I don't know nor spoke to, the person in the Bahamas and possibly he prefers TMax. My point is I have a problem with mis and disinformation to maintain a monopoly to prevent others from using a process. The person who supplied me with their internal manual was kind enough to do so, and I will not identify him.

In fact looking at (6:09) of the video of Guy Stricherz one can see the notch codes on the Eggleston separation negs., what appear to be two triangle notches close together, indicating Super XX pan.

Well, you seem to have very little knowledge of the history behind TMax, or how it was specifically engineered, targeted, and marketed toward the Dye Transfer trade at its inception. That would be perfectly obvious if you perused the relevant specific contemporaneous literature rather than general current marketing pages. And just where do you suppose you're going to come up with more Super-XX film? It's been a long time since any of it was actually made. (Incidentally, double triangle notches appear on a number of sheet films, although Stricherz undoubtedly used Super XX, at least at one point - who knows how far back in time those separations were actually made?)

That person now retired in the Bahamas is who once ran Frog Prince here in the Bay Area. That was a long time ago, right around when TMax first came out, so it's perfectly understandable why there would have been an overlap of two different films. There was nothing deceptive about both films being present in the same lab, as if they were trying to hide some trade secret through misinformation. Once TMax picked up momentum, the handwriting was on the wall and Super-XX was doomed, although stockpiles of it remained for awhile.
Either teach the dog (or frog) a new trick, or risk going out of business.

The only film of their own which Ilford specifically recommends for color separations is FP4, and a few dye practitioners do use that. Jim Browning has recently switched to Delta 100 instead of TMax 100 due to the significant price hike of 8x10 TMax; but he has the ability to reconfigure film curves digitally using his custom made laser film recorder. In terms of a native curve, darkroom-style, TMax is much better,
albeit pricey, especially now.

Well, I’m way over my head with regards to Dye transfer printing but here is what the all knowing google ai told me
AI Overview

(Quoted text below is AI output, not human-generated text or validated/reliable information)

Yes, Kodak TMAX film, particularly TMAX 100, is considered an excellent choice for creating dye transfer separation negatives due to its high sharpness, fine grain, and design that was originally intended for color separation purposes; making it a preferred option for this technique.

Key points about using TMAX for dye transfer separations:

• High quality results:
  TMAX's fine grain and sharp image quality are ideal for capturing the necessary detail in separation negatives, leading to high-quality dye transfer prints.
  
  
• Designed for color separation:
  Kodak originally developed TMAX film with color separation applications in mind, making it well-suited for this process.
  
  
• Better than older films:
  Compared to older films like Kodak Super XX, which were sometimes used for dye transfer separations, TMAX provides superior results.

Click to expand...

Ai is simply picking up random bits of actual web archived information originally published by Kodak, and in this case, doing so rather accurately. Finding those actual sheets buried deep in the web can take some patience, however.

All the older DT literature was geared around Super-XX film. It had a long reign. By the time TMax showed up, and began displacing a number of older films, Kodak was already starting to get flaky with respect to ongoing commitment to dye transfer. In a corporate sense, the right hand wasn't communicating well with the left hand, which is a rather common fault in these many-armed octopus corporations too big for their own good. And they themselves were pioneers in some of the digital technology which would dramatically change the printing trade, then photography itself. They cut themselves off at the pass. And then the quality control of certain dyes and receiver paper batches became less dependable as older more-experienced technicians retired. And two giant monsters were already emerging to speed up the doom of DT - Cibachrome, and behind that somewhat later, Inkjet.

In terms of general photography, all kinds of common developers are amenable to TMax. For that kind of usage and its initial marketing, they enlisted John Sexton to take pictures with TMax and develop it in ordinary D76, their most popular developer. But for technical color separation usage, with as straight a line as possible desirable, that's why they next came up with dedicated TMax Rs developer - another indicator of at least one of TMax's intended commercial uses.

It's value in masking of various types I have partially explained elsewhere. In that respect, an alleged "self-masking" separation film would be of no value. You want to independently control the two as needed. Masking for dye transfer can become complex, and differs quite a bit from Ciba masking, which in turn differs from color neg film masking; and then you've got masking of black and white shots, as yet another category. TMax is highly malleable in these various applications. FP4 is good too, but not as visually fine enough grained where small film sizes are involved.

IB Photochemistry said:

I have a list of dyes that are light stable and work with "dye transfer" type processes I can share here that work much better, if people are interested. Some of these have been shared on here before.

Click to expand...

Yes, this would be interesting for sure. Even if not for people working on this presently, it would be invaluable information for those who come across it when searching for it. Please go ahead!

IB Photochemistry said:

I have one of the older Frog Prince shop manuals with the Super XX pan method. I could ask it it would be ok to share here.

Click to expand...

If this lab has gone out of business and it's an old manual (let's say >30 years), then it's something we generally allow to be posted. The reason is that in such a case, the slight risk of a copyright claim issue affecting Photrio is outweighed by the risk of the information getting lost forever. So, again, please go ahead.

IB Photochemistry said:

There should be a real high quality color alternative to the digital inkjet crap that is mass produced regularly, and the type C with its shortcomings.

Click to expand...

There are some, but the niche is small. The carbon transfer work of people like @Katayounpd / Katayoun Dowlatshahi, Calvin Grier, Micheal Strickland, Tod Gangler etc. comes to mind. The gamut will likely be smaller than of any dye process due to the inherent differences between dyes & inks, but there are other rationales/print characteristics that play a role as well. Carbon, esp. color carbon, has been going through a distinct revival in recent years. I know for sure that there would be some interest in a modern dye transfer process if it would be taught in workshops. They wouldn't attract a massive crowd, but it may be enough to keep a small core of dedicated professionals/artists at work, just like we see in the carbon arena.

I'd like to ask @DREW WILEY and @IB Photochemistry to please keep the debate constructive and civil. It has been so far, but I also recognize that positions are quite firm and choice of words seems to drift down into hyperbole here and there. Let's try to not let it slide off any further; the discussion itself is too relevant and interesting to let it go to waste on bickering. Thanks.

Erik L said:

here is what the all knowing google ai told me

Click to expand...

AI summaries are notoriously unreliable especially for relatively arcane/poorly documented (in online documents) subjects. I will edit your post to make it more clear that the text you posted is a quote from AI. Before we know it, people start actually believing that stuff (not to mention that AI will reinforce itself because it "sees" its own garbage being posted online!)

Information is far less rare than it might seem. And copyright or not, there is the basic matter of courtesy when posting the notes or manual of someone still alive, who is still sometimes active on a different forum, and might not be happy about its use without permission.

The official Kodak marketing pages from that era can be retrieved, and I probably have xerox copies of them on hand in some binder somewhere, which would be just as big a headache to dig up. But let's remember those were marketing statements to begin with, and not necessarily working technical details. The relevant technical pages about TMax in relation to DT can probably be retrieved too; I know who wrote them.

But an awful lot of legacy information is geared around films and materials no longer made. And potential equipment choice have changed at lot too, mainly for the better.

Frankly, there is still a tremendous amount of working information on the DT process still on the web, including a few reproduced thick handbooks - but not necessarily open for redistribution, just reading! There are also a number of how-to videos, as well as videos of historic interest, like Jim Bone's tour of Eliot Porter's old darkroom where he served as his assistant.

The most predominant teacher of the past was Bob Pace. Another person's manual you want to look into is David Doubley, which he does not allow to be downloaded. And despite a certain amount of criticism of Kodak's own old procedural manual, there is quite a bit useful in it, and the author of that is still alive, I think. Other relevant writers are too.

DREW WILEY said:

It's value in masking of various types I have partially explained elsewhere. In that respect, an alleged "self-masking" separation film would be of no value. You want to independently control the two as needed. Masking for dye transfer can become complex, and differs quite a bit from Ciba masking, which in turn differs from color neg film masking; and then you've got masking of black and white shots, as yet another category. TMax is highly malleable in these various applications. FP4 is good too, but not as visually fine enough grained where small film sizes are involved.

Click to expand...

You still need principle masks with Kodak separation film. The self-masking property effects a certain part of the correction process, that can save a lot of time and labor if you are familiar with the complete separation process. It was a feature that was never published, as far as I can find. It would be interesting if others here can state that they are aware of this. Given the groupthink mentality of DT operators its highly unlikely they will acknowledge this fact here.

IB Photochemistry said:

Given the groupthink mentality of DT operators its highly unlikely they will acknowledge this fact here.

Click to expand...

They probably won't comment if they are collectively accused of a groupthink mentality - which is the kind of qualification we really don't want or need here on Photrio. Having said that, I don't know of any DT practitioners who actively post on this forum anyway. It would be nice if they would feel free to join in on the discussion. So I kindly request that we make a welcoming atmosphere. Thanks for your consideration.

DREW WILEY said:

Information is far less rare than it might seem. And copyright or not, there is the basic matter of courtesy when posting the notes or manual of someone still alive, who is still sometimes active on a different forum, and might not be happy about its use without permission.

The official Kodak marketing pages from that era can be retrieved, and I probably have xerox copies of them on hand in some binder somewhere, which would be just as big a headache to dig up. But let's remember those were marketing statements to begin with, and not necessarily working technical details. The relevant technical pages about TMax in relation to DT can probably be retrieved too; I know who wrote them.

But an awful lot of legacy information is geared around films and materials no longer made. And potential equipment choice have changed at lot too, mainly for the better.

Frankly, there is still a tremendous amount of working information on the DT process still on the web, including a few reproduced thick handbooks - but not necessarily open for redistribution, just reading! There are also a number of how-to videos, as well as videos of historic interest, like Jim Bone's tour of Eliot Porter's old darkroom where he served as his assistant.

The most predominant teacher of the past was Bob Pace. Another person's manual you want to look into is David Doubley, which he does not allow to be downloaded. And despite a certain amount of criticism of Kodak's own old procedural manual, there is quite a bit useful in it, and the author of that is still alive, I think. Other relevant writers are too.

Click to expand...

It is my belief, based on my research efforts, that all of the knowledge needed to properly use the Dye Transfer system at a professional level came from an Eastman Kodak Company training program operated from inside the Eastman Kodak Marketing Education Center (EKMEC), a former training department inside Kodak Office in Rochester, New York. Training was not available to the general public and was given only to customers and their sponsored affiliates, as well as college instructors to a lesser degree. The Dye Transfer process could not be commercialized by any professional lab that did not posses the proper knowledge to control it.

Kodak affiliated labs got this knowledge from EK to make DT prints to ISO and ASTM standards (color print standards) for Equivalent Neutral Density (END) of 5000K or 5500 K illumination. The masking equations were derived from using an END standard. I believe Kodak was running a kind of monopoly here.

There is still a great deal of secrecy as to data, and techniques once used by professional Dye Transfer labs to control the system. So far NOT A SINGLE former commercial DT operator has decided to publish this information they still have. This is both shameful of EK to used this model, and of the many operators who have a groupthink mentality. Equally shameful is that fact that the most non affiliated DT printers who have acquired this information selfishly guard this to this day.

On rare occasion former DT technicians or operators say they wont provide this information, but usually its a series of excuses such as: claim of disposed of records, records lost, records damaged in water main break, never recorded and forgot, your questions aren't important, or "your wasting your time", etc.

Again Drew, none of those sources have anything of much value for critical use of DT. They are helpful to those not familiar with the basic process, and will not be of use to those who want to make prints that “blow away” the digital inkjets.

Most of the problems with overall quality one will encounter with DT, come from poor separations. I think the importance of this is at least 70-80% of the time, possibly more. There (so far) is no good published procedure(s) to make excellent separations for DT. And it makes sense that selfish people are not going to give this away, even if they haven't used it in 30, 40, 50, or more years ago.

My good friend Andy Cross continues to produce dye transfer prints in Brisbane, Australia. I have several of his prints in my collection. Andy also teaches the process
in a workshop context or to students on an individual basis.

I apparently have to repeat that the dye transfer process was hardly unique to Kodak. Perhaps the largest DT lab of all several decades ago didn't use Kodak supplies at all, or even follow their recommended protocols.

There is all kinds of literature out there, and practical tips, how to make separation negatives suitable for dye transfer work. The problem is that nearly all of that revolves around discontinued films like Super-XX. During that era there were also Service Bureaus who could make the separations for you, especially for contact printing via special image setter film.

And as for only Kodak allegedly teaching it, well, when my own brother went to Brooks Photo Academy in the 60's, all the students were expected to learn at least the basics of it, right there, even though very few would go on to specialize in it. And DT was marketed to home users as well for quite awhile; and that fact mandated a certain amount of open information.

I learned to make precise separations on my own, with only a few verbal hints from others. But I have some rather specialized equipment on hand. Among the realistic candidate modern films I've tested and plotted are TMX100 (by far the best), TMY400, and FP4; and of course Super-XX back when it was routinely available. These tedious tests didn't have DT printing exclusively in mind, but various potential tricolor options. I have a great deal of masking experience. (Andy Cross uses FP4 for both DT and color carbon)

With a single exception, I've found the remaining persons who are (or were) highly skilled in this field to be quite friendly and open about their technique. They have nothing to lose. Rather, they seem to be glad when there is renewed interest. It's not like back in the day when assembly-line style big labs were aggressively competing with each other for high volume work. Now it's the progressively fading hope that enough individual practitioners will be cumulatively interested enough to allow another custom coating of matrix film somewhere.

Any serious effort to make color separations and masks in a chemical darkroom has to take into account the relevant films of today, not long discontinued ones. Super-XX is gone; Kodak Color Separation Film is gone; Tech Pan is gone; Pan Masking film is gone; and none of these are coming back.

IB Photochemistry said:

It is my belief, based on my research efforts

Click to expand...

As with so many assembly processes, it comes down to the eye of the assembler, and the specifics of reference conditions relative to final viewing. A 5000k or 5500k reference viewing standard related to a very large percentage of DT being used for materials that had to go through commercial reproduction after significant retouching. All you are trying to do is ensure that all the compositing/ retouching interventions aren't too obvious and that the colour in a printed magazine (for example) more-or-less resembled the colour that went into repro.

All the manufacturers essentially had significant (sales related) training arms that would effectively hold your hand through making professionally acceptable (if doctrinally narrow - mainly so you could not screw it up) outcomes from all sorts of processes that would make you (lab owner) money that would flow back to the manufacturer - you seem to be confusing the desire of lab owners in the analogue era to make money with them being some sort of artists (effectively a venn diagram with pretty small overlap).

The latter official Kodak Dye Transfer Process was essentially an update geared to speeding up standardized high volume commercial workflow. Yet at the same time, this allowed convenient pre-packaging of dyes, buffers, and developing agents for personal darkroom use. For some, the rushed nature of the development was not ideal for their own needs, and there were numerous instances of reversion back to the previous "wash-off relief" method of development and tanning of the matrices, both commercially and among amateurs. This is evident in the little Mindy Bede handbook, Dye Transfer Made Easy, as well as by squeezing out some of those alleged "trade secrets" held by certain big labs, which were probably known by their competitors all along anyway, who simply preferred to use a different methodology. I personally wanted something slow enough for realistic large drum processing, so briefly experimented with both methods, not enough to perfect anything, but enough to confirm certain realistic updates and possibilities.

The nature of the process makes it possible to make rather strong corrections during the rolling processes, and with regard to pH tweaking the dyes; so certain shortfalls in the separations negatives are possible to post-correct. But the more on target the masked separations are to begin with, the less hassle and costly waste afterwards.

Keep in mind all this was being done already before densitometers ever existed, and then only simple visual ones for quite awhile. When Bob Pace said it was impossible without one, he was speaking from the standpoint of a commercial lab operator who specialized in complex pre-press prints, often involving considerable pre-Photoshop "comp" registration gymnastics. That is not always the case in a personal artistic scenario. And due to an inherent amount of dye bleeding, a minor bit of mis-registration is not as evident or annoying as in acute direct printing methods like Cibachrome. Just view any true Technicolor movie and you can see all kinds of misregister haloes, exaggerated by the small film size.

DREW WILEY said:

And as for only Kodak allegedly teaching it, well, when my own brother went to Brooks Photo Academy in the 60's, all the students were expected to learn at least the basics of it, right there, even though very few would go on to specialize in it. And DT was marketed to home users as well for quite awhile; and that fact mandated a certain amount of open information.

Click to expand...

No, not allegedly, Kodak DID HAVE A Dye Transfer training program. I would be interested in hearing from people here, what their actual experience there was like. It was supposedly discontinued in 1992. Numerous publications mention its existence, and I have spoken to people who visited. Robert Speck (the so called “inventor”) headed this program until 1974 or 76. Murray Patton and others taught DT in the 1980's there.

Please re-read my own words. "And as for ONLY Kodak allegedly teaching" such and such. Or I could have phrased it, "As you allege that only Kodak" did so. The point being, there were considerably more opportunities for training or coaching than what Kodak themselves provided.