A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

actual printers vs dye transfer prints



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 5th 05, 02:09 PM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 šlong
lasting lifeš.


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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
actual printers vs dye transfer prints [email protected] Digital Photography 0 October 14th 05 12:13 PM
ISO and actual sensitivity in DSLR's (D70, *istD, 20D, S3...) Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 138 March 30th 05 07:28 PM
ISO and actual sensitivity in DSLR's (D70, *istD, 20D, S3...) Alan Browne Digital Photography 253 March 30th 05 07:28 PM
Digital darkroom Paul Friday Medium Format Photography Equipment 84 July 9th 04 05:26 AM
Archival inksets for inkjet printers. Steve House In The Darkroom 29 February 10th 04 10:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.