Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/04/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree. Dye transfer is a fine process, but it fulfilled a need when originated that is now not pertinent. One might be forgiven if questioning the need for a print that lasts longer than the usual chromogenic wet process paper (Epson vs. Kodak/Fuji). Considering appearance, I don't think there is a speck of difference to even a discerning viewer between a really good print and one I make on my Epson 3880. You can carry the quest for perfection to the highest degree, and become another Lloyd Chambers, but that doesn't serve art, and only blurs the line between craft and art more. But we all spend too much time fretting over our craft, or we wouldn't be here. Bill Pearce -----Original Message----- From: Lew Schwartz Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 5:21 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Eggleston The current crop of inkjet pigment inks are nothing to sneeze at either. You may be right about the dye transfer, however, Early on, Eggleston's were produced this way to accommodate the art market's concerns about archival issues ... not only for the prints, but for the archival black and white separation negs that are the background of the process. Damaged or destroyed prints can (in theory) always be replaced. At a recent Eggleston show in NYC, dye transfers and inkjet pigment prints were shown side by side. None of my crowd, whom consider themselves discerning, could tell the difference. Perhaps inkjet pigment prints were described as "newer" than dye transfer to the reporter and he, not knowing any better, misreported it as a new color process. On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Phil Swango <pswango at att.net> wrote: > Lew Schwartz wrote: >>Any idea what "utilized a new color printing process allowing for >>high-quality reproductions" refers to? > > Not exactly but I've seen it referred to as pigment prints using digital > technology. The prints are really large -- I read they were 40x60 inches. > The original editions were done with the now obsolete dye transfer > process, which was used mostly for commercial printing in the past. I'm > not sure how the new prints could have a richer gamut than the old ones, > considering the superb reputation of dye transfer. More here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-transfer_process > > > > -- > Phil Swango > 307 Aliso Dr SE > Albuquerque, NM 87108 > 505-262-4085 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- -Lew S. _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information