Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Dye Transfer Print Sale  (Read 4462 times)
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« on: January 07, 2010, 12:45:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi folks:  There was an announcement on Mike Johnston's site that another dye transfer print sale is upcoming.  More information here:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...solution-9.html (at the bottom).

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
JamiePeters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2010, 12:14:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that if anyone is interested in the prolonged future of photographic sales and the promotion of photography as a whole would not endorse a process such a process as  Dye Transfer.  I personally bought some of the prints from Eliot Porter and they have faded alot.  If anyone is interested in what Henry Wilhelm says about the process just go and look it up.

The dye transfer process although very beautiful is subject to fading 10% in just 10-12 years.  Since it is made with dyes they will inherently fade no matter what kind of glass you put on it.  But hey don't take anybodies word on it, but you can trust what Henry Wilhelm says about it.  As Wolcott said in some article on Luminous Landscapes we need to protect the photographic market and it starts here.  JP

Quote from: wolfnowl
Hi folks:  There was an announcement on Mike Johnston's site that another dye transfer print sale is upcoming.  More information here:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...solution-9.html (at the bottom).

Mike.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2010, 01:16:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JamiePeters
I think that if anyone is interested in the prolonged future of photographic sales and the promotion of photography as a whole would not endorse a process such a process as  Dye Transfer.  I personally bought some of the prints from Eliot Porter and they have faded alot.  If anyone is interested in what Henry Wilhelm says about the process just go and look it up.

The dye transfer process although very beautiful is subject to fading 10% in just 10-12 years.  Since it is made with dyes they will inherently fade no matter what kind of glass you put on it.  But hey don't take anybodies word on it, but you can trust what Henry Wilhelm says about it.  As Wolcott said in some article on Luminous Landscapes we need to protect the photographic market and it starts here.  JP

Ctein's response to a near identical Stephen Best comment about the original offer...

Quote
Dear Stephen,

  On display, dye transfer and Ilfochrome had similar display rates (although dye transfer faded primarily in the yellow, which was not as quickly visible to human viewers). Indeed, by the end of the millenium, RA-4 papers had well exceeded both.

  BUT...

  in terms of dark keeping, which is at least as important when considering long-lived prints, dye transfers beat the pants off of everything except pigment prints (which have basically been unavailable for most of the past 50 years, except to do-it-yourselfers). The museum-standard storage life at room temperature for a dye is 300 years.

  Nice thing about dyes is that we have 50-70 year data to help confirm that. Maybe some 'gotcha' will jump out of the shadows at 150 years, who knows? But unlike newer media (inlcuding RA-4 papers) which only have accelerated projections to go by, in the case of dye transfer we've got real-world data of substantial duration to back up the projections.

  For maximum, proven stability, on or off display, go with traditional (not digital) pigment prints, no question!

  pax / Ctein

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-dye-trans.html
Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2010, 01:50:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Alright I guess the battle goes on.  Recently got some emails from people reading this.  

Artwork is meant to be seen not stored in the dark.  So since the majority of the artwork in the world gets sold to the public or collectors that like to look at the artwork they bought and hang it in there offices or houses.  This is a mute point, I have been in this battle longer than anyone except for Wilhelm, probably.

I have seen many people change the lighting test that were set up, so they could have a longer life expectancy.  Anyone remember what Nash Editions did with the testing of Iris prints by changing the light intensity so they could get a longer life.

This has many factors that change the life expectancy of an image, minerals in the water were one Eliot Porters issues of why some prints faded quicker than others.

I personally have seen Victor Diaz's collection of dye transfers (which may be one of the largest in the country which contains also Eliot Porter, John Warzonek and many others) and let me say these prints have been literally destroyed by light over fairly short time spans.  Is the Dye Transfer process beautiful without a doubt.  I know I have made them also. But selling photographs that fade not only hurts us all, but hurts the industry of fine art photography.  Just ask some of the museums, I know I consulted for the Smithsonian and helped write the definitions and the light study for them.

The pigment industry owes alot to Dye Transfer, we developed it off the same principals.  But made it last nearly forever.

I will say it again, prints are like antiques they will only have a value when the last over time so the next buyers could buy them.  Every print sold that hurts the integrity of OUR lively hood hurts the future of photography.  

Or maybe we should all buy a cold storage unit from Mark McCormick to store our photographs in, and we can peak at them here and there.  Sorry being a little sarcastic there.  But we the photographers of today must protect it.  Tim

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Ctein's response to a near identical Stephen Best comment about the original offer...



http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...-dye-trans.html
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 01:54:27 PM by tim wolcott » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2010, 01:57:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't care.  I just remembered that he had made a counterpoint so I posted it.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2010, 03:16:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tim wolcott
... I have seen many people change the lighting test that were set up, so they could have a longer life expectancy.  Anyone remember what Nash Editions did with the testing of Iris prints by changing the light intensity so they could get a longer life...
Boy, was I initially pissed for paying to see Henri Cartier Bresson exhibition in Barcelona a few years ago... the lighting was so dim I could barely read the notes next to photographs... once my eyes adjusted, I did manage to read a note that basically said the lighting in the room was purposefully set so low to preserve the original work (and that was b&w, of course, with supposedly longer life by default). I guess my angle here is that if something is worth looking at, it might be worth storing and/or lighting it adequately, even if that would mean not being on permanent display. Just a thought.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2010, 12:12:53 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
JamiePeters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2010, 07:58:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess if none of us cared about the longevity, then we should all buy antiques with termites in them.

Could you imagine the world if the world had nothing that lasted.  We would only have the present to inspire us.  All the temples, paintings and rare artifacts would be gone for us not to learn from or ponder about the making of these national treasures.

Lets all just go back to the days of Iris prints, polaroids, cibachromes, r-prints, c-prints, watercolor paintings ect.  Lets just turn back the clock and ruin what has been developed by the ones who came before.

The exhibit of Bresson should have used some good glass by TruVue, then we all could have seen the images better.  As we all are finding out museums and galleries are backing away from the sale or buying of images that fade.  Just some points that I thought I would share as a former curator for the LOC.

We all should care!!!!!!  JP
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2010, 08:21:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Edit:  I'm assuming you're offering a counter to Ctein's comment.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2010, 08:48:29 PM by DarkPenguin » Logged
JamiePeters
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2010, 08:57:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I wasn't talking you about it, but everyone else who needs to understand that we all need to keep the profession clean.  But when we have the biggest galleries in the world selling photographs that are toxic heavy metal and very fadeable process.  This is not good.  We have the greed of a few all of which show in Vegas, LIk, Mangleson, Lough and Fatali.  These are the faces that are in front of the public.  Wether you like the work or not isn't the point.  When they get nailed in court it will hurt us no different than the painting industry getting nailed for lithographs and serigraphs.  

All I'm saying to everyone reading this is we need to educate and inform the new photographers and buyers.  I meant no disrespect to anyone reading this.  

Quote from: DarkPenguin
What are you going on about?
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2010, 09:12:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay.  That's what I wasn't getting.  It looked like you were arguing for longevity when no one had really argued against it.  (Although Ctein certainly did some lovely tap dancing.)  This was confusing.

Quote from: JamiePeters
I wasn't talking you about it, but everyone else who needs to understand that we all need to keep the profession clean.  But when we have the biggest galleries in the world selling photographs that are toxic heavy metal and very fadeable process.  This is not good.  We have the greed of a few all of which show in Vegas, LIk, Mangleson, Lough and Fatali.  These are the faces that are in front of the public.  Wether you like the work or not isn't the point.  When they get nailed in court it will hurt us no different than the painting industry getting nailed for lithographs and serigraphs.  

All I'm saying to everyone reading this is we need to educate and inform the new photographers and buyers.  I meant no disrespect to anyone reading this.
Logged
TXinD76
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2010, 03:58:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, well, well. You can certainly find anything on the internet.

The suggestion that TOP (my site) is perpetrating some sort of fraud on the collector community by offering dye transfer prints for sale is preposterous (and, I might add, offensive). Dye transfer was known for most of the 20th century as one of the BEST color print media for life expectancy (LE). Of the viable processes, dye transfer and Ilfochrome (née Cibachrome) were the two processes most often cited for permanence and keeping properties.

The suggestion that a dye transfer print will fade noticeably in 10-12 years is absurd. I have prints in my own possession that disprove that. I know of specific cases where major museums demanded that archives be printed in dye transfer prior to purchase; I know of major artists who made dyes available as archive versions of their work. Etc. So now it's going to fade as soon as you look at it?

True, all prints will fade eventually. True, of the two 20th-c. leaders, Ciba had the better display properties and dye the better dark storage properties (Kodachrome was good in dark storage too). And, true, there were esoteric processes that outpointed either one (I seem to remember a guy who was involved in printing photographs on metal substrate using automotive paints. Let's all get into that.)

We're very lucky that the best modern digital inkjet prints are believed to be (not yet proved to be, n.b.) able to exceed the LE of dye transfer and Ciba. That doesn't mean dye transfer is suddenly tainted.

In any case, collectors and museums the world around regularly traffic in Type C prints, and no one that I know about has ever suggested that a Type C color print won't fade a hell of a lot faster than a dye transfer.

As to our print sale, if you want your purchase to last a lot longer than you do, just store it in a dark, cool, dry place. If you want to frame it and enjoy it on the wall, do it. Display it properly in a place where it won't get any sunlight, and don't worry about it. It will fade a lot slower than most things. And you're fading too. Carpe diem.

Mike Johnston

P.S. I have other things to do than follow this "argument," so I won't be able to reply, or respond to replies, here. (Sorry....)
Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2010, 08:45:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess all the experts are wrong, I think not, but don't take my word or mike's just look for yourself.  Go to Henry Wilhelm testings.  If you know Henry he tells it like it is.  T
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2010, 08:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tim wolcott
I guess all the experts are wrong, I think not, but don't take my word or mike's just look for yourself.  Go to Henry Wilhelm testings.  If you know Henry he tells it like it is.  T

Can you hunt that down?  I was looking for that today and was not able to locate it.  Or if you know the search terms I should be using that would be great.

This is the nearest one I've found ...

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/additional.../pp_dis_img.pdf
« Last Edit: January 15, 2010, 09:13:42 PM by DarkPenguin » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad