(no subject)
Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Sat, 14 Jun 1997 03:36:09 -0700
At 10:43 AM 6/14/97 -0200, joseph wrote:
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>< Three-color carbro was pretty much the standard for advertising art
><before the easier to handle dye transfer process superceded it around the
><late 1940's.
>
>I'm sorry but have to desagree with you about this paragraph. 3-color
carbon is NOT easier than dye transfer process. It IS easier than 4-color
carbon. Dye transfer replaced the carbro process in the advertising field
of that time not because it is easier, which is not, but because the
astonishing amount of manipulation that it is able to offer, from the
development of the matrixes up to the transfer of the colorants itself,
giving to the photographer a great amount of possibilities to chance things
(color, contrast, etc.) in the results. Dye Transfer process is to carbro
what B&W is to Color transparencies nowadays. Of course, once you have your
matrixes, dye transfer is the king, because you dont have to repeat all the
process, but that is another matter and is not too relevant to advertising
people.
>
>Lázaro Issi
>Madrid, Spain
>
>
>
I think there may be a misinterpretation of what I meant. Both three
color carbro and dye transfer require a great deal of skill to get good
results. The dye transfer process made it easier to get the kind of
results wanted for reproduction. The flexibility of the process and the
control it allows is one of the advantages. It also reproduced better in
four-color halftone. From talking to those who lived with both at the time
I also get the impression that the materials were more reliable. I don't
think either process is an easy one. The very flexibility that is dye
transfer's virtue is also its difficulty because all those variables must
be calibrated and controlled.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com