thebestcpu
Getting Fingers Dirty
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2024
- Messages
- 37
- Reaction score
- 20
- Points
- 23
- Printer Model
- Epson SC P900
This is not a new topic for these forums and many great posts exist.
While having done photo restoration work for some time, I have not done much printing. I obtained several paper sample packs and test prints to see what I preferred for my needs.
The sample packs came with two sheets each, and I used the other sheets to do some simple OBA testing with a UV flashlight.
I am posting my results here. It is certainly not as accurate as photo spectrometer scans, yet I just wanted to compare several sheets next to each other.
I have five grouping of sheets that I tested, and I used Epson Hot Press Bright and Epson Hot Press Natural in all five groupings to make comparison among the five groups a bit easier.
I am posting the five shots below with some comments of what stood out for me.
Hahnemühle Fine Art Smooth papers
There is nothing too surprising in this set. The Bright labeled papers had the highest response, and the Natural had the least response.
Hahnemuhle fine art textured papers
Of note to me was that some of these papers were less responsive than the Epson Hot Press Natural.
Epson Signature Worthy Fine Art Papers Sample Pack
Unsurprisingly, the Bright labeled papers had similar responses, and the Natural-labeled papers had low responses.
I was unsure what to expect from the Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster, and it was a low response.
Epson Photo Paper (a variety)
This biggest surprise is that the Epson Ultra Premium Glossy had a pretty strong response, while all the other Epson photo papers had a pretty low response.
I also recall that in the prior Epson Signature Paper samples the Ultra Premium Luster had a low response.
So I put those papers side by side, and sure enough, the Glossy on the left below really lit up, and the Luster on the right did not. These are both recently bought papers and included an image of the boxes in which they came. So even with similar names you can't make assumptions about OBA content from the same brand name:
So that was a surprise.
The last group I did was a variety of HP papers of different ages (all stored in the dark). Age and how stored (if not in plastic in a box) is on the image label:
A couple of things were interesting.
1) The semi-gloss Everyday paper, which was old, had more brighteners than today's HP Everyday Glossy. So, there is definitely no consistency in OBAs based on the marketing label "Every day."
2) As reported in this forum, the HP Premium Plus Glossy had a low response to UV.
3) So of their other papers had a higher UV response
Again, this is a rough test, and other factors may influence the magnitude of the response, such as texture and coated vs non-coated.
The paper structure and OBA content may change for some brands, even though the marketing name is the same. So, assumptions should not be made that the way the paper is built today is the same as a decade ago. I am unsurprised as some companies buy and rebrand their papers.
It also reinforced that even similar photo papers in a similar "class" bay have different OBA content and are poorly documented for some brands. e.g., HP Glossy vs Luster Epson Ultra Premium.
Just FYI. I am not sure if this will be used for others or not, so I posted it instead of just putting it in my archives.
John Wheeler
While having done photo restoration work for some time, I have not done much printing. I obtained several paper sample packs and test prints to see what I preferred for my needs.
The sample packs came with two sheets each, and I used the other sheets to do some simple OBA testing with a UV flashlight.
I am posting my results here. It is certainly not as accurate as photo spectrometer scans, yet I just wanted to compare several sheets next to each other.
I have five grouping of sheets that I tested, and I used Epson Hot Press Bright and Epson Hot Press Natural in all five groupings to make comparison among the five groups a bit easier.
I am posting the five shots below with some comments of what stood out for me.
Hahnemühle Fine Art Smooth papers
There is nothing too surprising in this set. The Bright labeled papers had the highest response, and the Natural had the least response.
Hahnemuhle fine art textured papers
Of note to me was that some of these papers were less responsive than the Epson Hot Press Natural.
Epson Signature Worthy Fine Art Papers Sample Pack
Unsurprisingly, the Bright labeled papers had similar responses, and the Natural-labeled papers had low responses.
I was unsure what to expect from the Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster, and it was a low response.
Epson Photo Paper (a variety)
This biggest surprise is that the Epson Ultra Premium Glossy had a pretty strong response, while all the other Epson photo papers had a pretty low response.
I also recall that in the prior Epson Signature Paper samples the Ultra Premium Luster had a low response.
So I put those papers side by side, and sure enough, the Glossy on the left below really lit up, and the Luster on the right did not. These are both recently bought papers and included an image of the boxes in which they came. So even with similar names you can't make assumptions about OBA content from the same brand name:
So that was a surprise.
The last group I did was a variety of HP papers of different ages (all stored in the dark). Age and how stored (if not in plastic in a box) is on the image label:
A couple of things were interesting.
1) The semi-gloss Everyday paper, which was old, had more brighteners than today's HP Everyday Glossy. So, there is definitely no consistency in OBAs based on the marketing label "Every day."
2) As reported in this forum, the HP Premium Plus Glossy had a low response to UV.
3) So of their other papers had a higher UV response
Again, this is a rough test, and other factors may influence the magnitude of the response, such as texture and coated vs non-coated.
The paper structure and OBA content may change for some brands, even though the marketing name is the same. So, assumptions should not be made that the way the paper is built today is the same as a decade ago. I am unsurprised as some companies buy and rebrand their papers.
It also reinforced that even similar photo papers in a similar "class" bay have different OBA content and are poorly documented for some brands. e.g., HP Glossy vs Luster Epson Ultra Premium.
Just FYI. I am not sure if this will be used for others or not, so I posted it instead of just putting it in my archives.
John Wheeler
