UV light test for OBA'a on a variety papers

[thebestcpu]

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

 

[Smile]

Great post, thank you for sharing this visual test data.

 

[thebestcpu]

Great post, thank you for sharing this visual test data.

You're welcome @Smile.
You're posting about substitutes for HP paper with low or no OBAs also prompted me to test my papers.
More on that in a reply to your other post
John Wheeler

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

That's a very comprehensive test and overview of a wide range of papers . I just don't get get why the paper manufacturers make it such a big secret whether and how much they use OBA'S or not. (It's not much better why they don't just indicate if a if a paper is of the RC or PP type )

 

[thebestcpu]

That's a very comprehensive test and overview of a wide range of papers . I just don't get get why the paper manufacturers make it such a big secret whether and how much they use OBA'S or not. (It's not much better why they don't just indicate if a if a paper is of the RC or PP type )

Hi, Ink Stained Fingers.
I am sure it is related to marketing and overall revenues and profits. Canon, Epson, HP, and others are all selling ink as their revenue per liter for one set of Epson P900 cartridges is ~$440 (1/2 liter) and $880 per liter or $3331 per gallon. That price is a bargain compared to the cost of ink for entry-level printers, which sell almost for free. Selling printers and paper with heavy marketing and practices to only use OEM ink is primarily at selling more ink. Inside those companies, the ink is referred to as "liquid gold" for its profits.

So if they sell more printers, they get most of their profits from the ink sales. If they sell more paper, they will sell more ink.

There has been so much marketing in this world that "bright" and "white" is coupled with better. They can charge more for paper that has a higher white rating.

That gets spoiled if you give too much information. A couple of examples of this marketing

One does not call sushi - "cold, raw dead fish."

Similarly, some who eat meat want to buy meat, not processed meat (bad connotations).

You do not tell the customers who buy washing machine stain removers with whiteners that we are not cleaning it to be white, just covering up the dingy yellow look with additives that will soon fade.

Or another phrase (not sure how common across countries): "Don't tell them how the sausage is made." If they knew, they would not buy, let alone eat, the sausage.

My background is in engineering, and I prefer the over-communication approach with full disclosure. This is also why they would never want me in marketing or sales.

So, I suspect giving too many details of how the paper is made does not appeal to the buying minds of most buyers and could turn them away. Who wants to know that the actual paper is dingy white and is processed to cover that up temporarily

 

[Smile]

Great post, the Epson P900 with is very expensive, but 95% gamut is same as my 4 ink brother with EPSON 673 inks. Calling this disappointment is an understatement. Printer with 10 inks and Ultrachrome marketing nonsense should be way better to say the least.

I don't care that 673 are dye inks, if pigments are so much worse that 10 of them makes profits only for EPSON - this printing option is dead. Anybody can re-print prints then expect them to last 100 years lies.

No chipless firmware, no multi use chips, no arc chips, no proper resetter makes this printer show stopper for sure.