Bill T. is right.
the wrong paper can make it look terrible. Get one that works for you. After that it is presentation, presentation, presentation... the average buyer does not care about the technocrats' concerns about gamut, OBA etc etc.
The right paper in the wrong light can make it look terrible and also very nice in the right light. There are papers that show less change between the two and can be the right papers too. I would not make much noise about an image with saturated colors with different hues but I know those blue greys.
Download the image sample in the first message. Load it in Photoshop, sRGB assigned. Convert to Lab. Add an L 96 extra canvas border. Select curves and b axis and shift the highlight control point so the border shifts b +1 and -5, that is more or less what the EEF paper does to the image when UV light is available or not. Based on the UV Delta-b influence shift of several EEF samples in Aardenburg PDFs. Hardly any L or a shift happens, 1 DeltaE at most. Check what Info says about the b shift and look at the blues of the image. The light blue shifts about 5 DeltaE on the b value between the two extremes, it is a huge difference visually.
I have added samples here. The two samples at the top were made like above. At the bottom I also added the EEF paper white shift at 160 Megalux hours from the AaI_20090510_SN009Lf.pdf fade test result. Sure I have my reservations too on soft proofing but then print the image on EEF that it suits your taste in the 5000 K viewing light and look at it in 3200 K tungsten light and in shaded daylight, not to mention some fluorescent lamps. The eye will adapt to the paper white but that image will not be as nice. You can simulate that more or less with the samples here by filling the display with one sample, shut off the light in the studio.
An interesting other excercise, go to the Aardenburg Imaging test results and filter the tests on say an UV Delta-b influence shift more than 4 DeltaE. Then look at the actual "cool" numbers of the papers, the b number and add the b shift number then. Sure many are papers that are very cool and stay more or less cool after the shift but there others that are not that cool but pivot around neutral, the paper base is actually a warmer than neutral paper and OBA is added to shift them to cool, often only in the top layer. Now filter them on less than 4 DeltaE shift, there are still cool papers among the results but of course most neutral and warm papers in the filtered list. But they all will show more color constancy in practice. Then select the papers with the best fade resistance results. I have added a screenshot of a cool paper selection like that. (I did not check whether the lower CDR numbers were caused by ink patches or only the paper white but the last can not be that bad to create those numbers, check however in the PDFs themselves, the list can only become shorter). All RC papers, if you want durable cool quality and acceptable color constancy in changing light, it looks like some RC papers are the best choice then and not one of the Baryta, Fiber or matte art papers. Probable reason; both OBA and "bleached" paper are encapsulated between polyethylene layers that block oxygen etc that would degrade the paper components. It is a loss that the Canon Heavyweight Satin is no longer in the Canon catalog. Remains the question how good the mechanical properties of RC paper are, the bond of the PE barriers with paper and the inkjet coating, the stability of the PE itself. No independent institute has tested that aspect properly on modern RC papers. My gut feeling is that RC paper can be equal or even better on that aspect than what many consider the most stable papers.
