What is a "ektachrome transfer print"?

[joel_b.1]

<p>See https://maisondesprit.com/series/new_york_times_magazine. I know what Ektachrome is, but what's a "transfer print" in this context? </p>

<p> </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I supect the headline writer or curator conflated the film type with either the dye transfer or possibly tri-color carbro

printing process. Kodak did make (briefly in the early '80s) a direct transfer print making process sort of similar to how the

Polaroid print process works, but only in 8x10 and it either never caught on or Polaroid successfully sued to stop it.

 

The alternative explanation is that these are indeed printed on very large sheets of Ektachrome print material that is made to be installed in large backlit display boxes.

[craig_shearman1]

<p>They could mean a dye transfer print, which was an early but very high quality way of making color prints before simpler one-step color printing became available. It involved making separation negatives and was complex compared with modern color printing methods. But I think Kodak stopped making the materials years ago, so it could also be a reference to something done on a computer printer.<br /><br />If there is significance to the printing process, they should explain it rather than using a meaningless term, especially "silver gelatin" which is simply a standard B&W print.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>Kodak used to make display transparencies called Colorama. They were huge and displayed in NYC Grand Central Station. They were huge back-lit transparencies that were made from Kodachrome or Ektachrome slides. </p>

<p>There also were direct prints from slides called Type R prints and Cibachrome that were available 10 years ago but are no longer available. No internagative was needed for these prints. That coulbe what he was referring to.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Kodak made an Ektachrome <strong>paper</strong> for several years, as a way to compete with Cibachrome/Ifochrome. The paper came in two types, Ektachorme 2203 and Ektachrome 14. Both used the R-100 process. One paper was a reversal paper and one was a direct transfer paper. </p>

<p>The Ektachrome papers were not very good and had very short life spans before they faded, especially in cyan. Cibachrome was more stable and therefor used by most photographers. </p>

[joel_b.1]

<p>Thanks for the responses, everyone.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Prints there are 53x70 inches, and claimed to be from 2014. Only real possibilities are:</p>

<ol>

<li>They made an internegative from Ektachrome slide, and printed it optically on RA-4 paper.</li>

<li>They scanned the Ektachrome slide, and printed it via digital exposure (laser or LED) on RA-4 paper.</li>

<li>They scanned the Ektachrome slide, and printed it via ink-jet on paper.</li>

</ol>

<p>There's no Ektachrome paper that's fresh enough to use anymore. The process name is probably "obfuscation".<br>

It might be a direct Cibachrome print, but it doesn't look contrasty enough, and they would probably call it that if so.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Before 2203 there was 1993, which I did use some of. </p>

<p>Unicolor had PFS, Print From Slides, chemistry for 1993 paper, and it worked with the 1993 paper.</p>

<p>If kept frozen, I suppose it would last. Otherwise, it was supposed to stay refrigerated. I had it for some years, moving to different apartments a few times, before finally giving up and throwing it out. That might have been 10 years old.</p>