Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: bellimages on May 10, 2016, 10:49:36 am
-
WHY WHY WHY would a company change the makeup of a particular paper? Well, Epson did just that. I don't print much color, but when I do, I've been using Exhibition Fiber for the past few years. I was told that they changed their manufacturer. If that is the case, why wouldn't THEY control the makeup of the product. occur when Epson came out with their "Signature" line of papers.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a replacement paper? I would like the same surface texture (as the old Exhibition Fiber), the same whiteness, and it needs to be archival. Oh .. and I do not want a paper that makes use of optical brighteners.
-
............ Oh .. and I do not want a paper that makes use of optical brighteners.
This paper always had OBAs.
A good replacement would be Epson Legacy Baryta, Ilford Golde Fibre Silk, Canson Baryta Photographique and several of the Hahnemuhle products of similar ilk (a couple I'll be reviewing anon). Lots of choice out there. I should add: The Ilford has small amounts of OBA, the Epson Legacy has none. Hahn Fine Art Baryta Satin has none. Canson, I'm not sure.
-
This paper always had OBAs.
A good replacement would be Epson Legacy Baryta, Ilford Golde Fibre Silk, Canson Baryta Photographique and several of the Hahnemuhle products of similar ilk (a couple I'll be reviewing anon). Lots of choice out there. I should add: The Ilford has small amounts of OBA, the Epson Legacy has none. Hahn Fine Art Baryta Satin has none. Canson, I'm not sure.
As Ernst says, EEF, while a beautiful paper, was one of the poorest performers in tests because of the OBA’s. As to why the change, I am puzzled as well, because the newest box I’m using certainly is substantially different than the old. Less gloss, more of a semi matte sheen and less/little texture.
As to why it changed, I have some older EEF that for many images cannot be printed on a p9000 ... the gloss differential issue in very dark regions causes severe blotchy patches. The new paper appears similar to the blotchy patterns in the old paper. Strangely the p800 doesn’t show these issues, but something in the new inkset may have triggered the change.
Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if EEF is discontinued in the near future in light of the new Legacy papers.
-
As Ernst says, EEF, while a beautiful paper, was one of the poorest performers in tests because of the OBA’s.
An observation based on the thorough testing done by Mark McCormick at Aardenburg-Imaging.Com. The OBAs fluorescence effect did not just disappear but a color stain in the paper white appeared as well. Worst paper white shift of any paper measured by Aardenburg if I recall it correctly.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Ernst, where is your message?
-
Ernst, where is your message?
I had no message in this thread so far and the one I just wrote appeared too fast.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
An observation based on the thorough testing done by Mark McCormick at Aardenburg-Imaging.Com. The OBAs fluorescence effect did not just disappear but a color stain in the paper white appeared as well. Worst paper white shift of any paper measured by Aardenburg if I recall it correctly.
Ernst pretty well summed it up. Perhaps Aardenburg's independently performed testing which revealed such a poor outcome for the original EEF, coinciding with the unfortunate choice of marketing such a non archival paper as both "Exhibition" and "signature worthy" finally convinced Epson management that a serious reformulation of the product was overdue. I'd certainly like to believe this had something to do with it, but other business transactions could have caused it, too. I have no insider knowledge why Epson actually enacted the change to this product.
That said, it's about time. With any luck Epson has resolved the yellow staining problem that went well beyond mere high OBA content loss of fluorescence, and yet once again Epson stumbles by not renaming the new formulation "Exhibition Fiber II" or something similar so that buyers will know the product is "new and improved" (hopefully) :-[ Precedent for acknowledging reformulations exists in many well known product brand names. Fuji, for example, improved the fade resistance of it's original Fuji Crystal Archive chromogenic color paper, and renamed it Crystal Archive II. The roman numeral II on the box clearly delineated the new and improved paper from the older version.
Without a name change or "new and improved" sticker on the box, I will now have to try to identify some of this new stock for another round of light fade testing, but I will still be guessing somewhat whether I"m actually purchasing new or old stock unless the changes to the product are indeed as obvious to me as they were to the OP.
cheers,
Mark
http://ww.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
What a waste of time. They just hired Felix Schoeller and Canson to make them excellent products. Why do they need that inferior media anymore?
john
Ernst pretty well summed it up. Perhaps Aardenburg's independently performed testing which revealed such a poor outcome for the original EEF, coinciding with the unfortunate choice of marketing such a non archival paper as both "Exhibition" and "signature worthy" finally convinced Epson management that a serious reformulation of the product was overdue. I'd certainly like to believe this had something to do with it, but other business transactions could have caused it, too. I have no insider knowledge why Epson actually enacted the change to this product.
That said, it's about time. With any luck Epson has resolved the yellow staining problem that went well beyond mere high OBA content loss of fluorescence, and yet once again Epson stumbles by not renaming the new formulation "Exhibition Fiber II" or something similar so that buyers will know the product is "new and improved" (hopefully) :-[ Precedent for acknowledging reformulations exists in many well known product brand names. Fuji, for example, improved the fade resistance of it's original Fuji Crystal Archive chromogenic color paper, and renamed it Crystal Archive II. The roman numeral II on the box clearly delineated the new and improved paper from the older version.
Without a name change or "new and improved" sticker on the box, I will now have to try to identify some of this new stock for another round of light fade testing, but I will still be guessing somewhat whether I"m actually purchasing new or old stock unless the changes to the product are indeed as obvious to me as they were to the OP.
cheers,
Mark
http://ww.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
What a waste of time. They just hired Felix Schoeller and Canson to make them excellent products. Why do they need that inferior media anymore?
john
If it is a total chemistry overhaul of the previous product, then Epson may indeed be using new "strategic partners" to produce the reformulated EEF. Once Ernst gets ahold of a sample of the new EEF version, I'll bet his spectrum plots will give us some insight there!
Keeping the original name is most likely just a calculated marketing decision...a pretty lame one, IMHO, but then Epson doesn't ask my advice in these matters ;). Judging from the many positive comments about the original EEF here on LULA and elsewhere, EEF seems to be be a very popular product for Epson. The original EEF's initial bright white appearance combined with high Dmax properties pleased many printmakers who either don't care about print longevity, believe the questionable WIR longevity rating for the original EEF version, or are simply otherwise unaware of its non archival properties.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
If it is a total chemistry overhaul of the previous product, then Epson may indeed be using new "strategic partners" to produce the reformulated EEF. Once Ernst gets ahold of a sample of the new EEF version, I'll bet his spectrum plots will give us some insight there!
Keeping the original name is most likely just a calculated marketing decision...a pretty lame one, IMHO, but then Epson doesn't ask my advice in these matters ;). Judging from the many positive comments about the original EEF here on LULA and elsewhere, EEF seems to be be a very popular product for Epson. The original EEF's initial bright white appearance combined with high Dmax properties pleased many printmakers who either don't care about print longevity, believe the questionable WIR longevity rating for the original EEF version, or are simply otherwise unaware of its non archival properties.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
As written already in this thread it might be hard to find the new formula paper among distributors right now or the OP could send two A5s to me. Then another question is raised; in the EU the paper is called Epson Traditional Photo Paper and will that get a new formula/manufacturer too?
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
If Epson has, indeed, reformulated EEF - without a corresponding tweak to the name - it also begs the question of which profile to use.
It seems unlikely that any such serious reformulation would render optimally with the old profile.
I look forward to any further light Ernst and Mark might be able to shed...
-
I agree with Ernst. If changes were indeed made, then it will take some time to clear old stock and bring in new. If Epson has changed the package design (hopefully the OP can weigh in on the this aspect), then even though the name hasn't changed, it would be another easy way to spot the new stock on the shelves or online once dealers update their photos of the product. It all takes time.
In the meantime, I hesitate to go buy some EEF today, as I have no way of knowing for the time being whether it will be the new or old version. If the OP can tell us where the new batch was purchased, this would help me locate the new version sooner rather than later. I will jump this new EEF paper to the head of the line in my light fastness studies as it will be important to learn about the new media whitepoint properties.
Also, I concur with Ernst that EEF is called "Traditional Fiber" in Europe, and thus there may be different inventory roll outs to this product in Europe versus the US. Would also be good to confirm at some point whether the US and European versions are one and the same. They were with the original EEF-TF stock. Ernst can help with that ;D
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
OK, I just checked BHphoto and see that the packaging is indeed different than the EEF packaging I have seen before. Unfortunately, I only saw the sample pack that was handed out at Photo Plus East trade show when EEF was first introduced. It was all white with blue lettering and no image. The newest packaging is mainly black with gold lettering and an image on the front. I haven't purchased any in recent years, so I have no idea when Epson redesigned the product packaging to the appearance I see now listed on the BHphoto website. Hence, it's not a good indicator for me whether the paper inside is old or new stock. Maybe someone can weigh in on when the EEF packaging went from white to black :)
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
They changed over from that pretty basic blue/red on white packaging something like 3-4 years ago from what I recall. I have some old VFA in that packaging but new(er) HPB in the better, more upscale packaging.
-
The OBAs fluorescence effect did not just disappear but a color stain in the paper white appeared as well.
Not an at all unusual side effect of OBAs. Did Epson change their ICC profiles too? The one's we (Pixel Genius) built haven’t.
-
Not an at all unusual side effect of OBAs. Did Epson change their ICC profiles too? The one's we (Pixel Genius) built haven’t.
We know and there is that other OBA related effect "LILIS" Mark described several times. But in the Aardenburg tests the EEF shows the OBA related staining the most. I expect the same for several ordinary inkjet papers that were never tested + the EEF had the Signature Worthy label so asked for a test. Where is that pen with ink that fades faster :-)
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Where is that pen with ink that fades faster :-)
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
;D ;D ;D
-
One of the problems that the various paper manufacturers have when they release what I would call a defective media, one that will clearly exhibit issues down the road, they are going to have hundreds if not thousands of people out there who have started editions on these papers and don't want it to disappear. Hahnemuhle has faced the situation in the past where they have improved various kinds of media but people don't want them to pull what is already in use all over the world for various bodies of work. Then they have to keep producing all the variations that may or may not be popular. But unlike Hahnemuhle, the Epson products have often really needed to come off the market. All they had to do with the EEF was to look at it under a black light to see that it was a disaster waiting to happen. That one should have never been released in the first place.
I think there is a place in the market for cheap, super bright, large gamut media for certain temporary applications, as long as it isn't expensive cheap media pretending to be something it isn't.
The other thing that puzzled me about that media was that there was nothing innovative about it in the first place. Innova had marketed Fiba Print gloss fiber media that had the same qualities many years before. And they had more than one nice surface for it. Yet like the EEF, it had so much oba that most of us quickly switched to Hahnemuhle and then added Canson. But that was a long time ago, like 10 years ago.
;D ;D ;D
-
the packaging change predates the change in the paper. One of the boxes where I started having problems after installing my p9000 is new black box, and on my 9900 the prints are great, good gloss, nice subtle texture. On the p9000 I get the blotchy gloss differential in the very dark tones. This is a box of 17x22” that could be a couple of years od (I’m not sure) but is in the new black packaging - I don’t print that size very often.
The new Box of EEF is packaged identically. the profiles seem to work fine. But the finished print has less texture and a little duller sheen ... I would describe it more as “satin” than I would gloss. Certainly not as visually appealing (to me anyway, others may prefer it). Reminds me a little of the Gold Fibre Silk I used to use 5 or 6 years ago.
-
Glad to see that my post generated a lot of discussion. There's always a lot to be learned from these posts.
I use Museo Silver Rag for my B&W work. I like it's 'unbleached' tone and the DMAX that it provides, although I've experienced numerous problems with it during 2014-2015. Now that the product is under new ownership, they seem to have things under control. That said, I've seen the surface texture and gloss change ever so slightly over the years.
I found a box of 23x30 EEF in my storage area, so I'm set for awhile. That said, I want to move on to a better paper for my color work. As I said, I'm not keen on OBAs, so that narrows down the possibilities.
One gentleman suggested one of the following papers. Before ordering samples, feel free to weigh in on which you would look at ... pros/cons
• Epson Legacy Baryta (Legacy has no OBA)
• Ilford Golde Fibre Silk
• Canson Baryta Photographique
• Several of the Hahnemuhle products (Fine Art Baryta Satin has no OBA)
-
I have had great color results with Hahnemuhle Photo Silk Baryta.
Sharon
-
Glad to see that my post generated a lot of discussion. There's always a lot to be learned from these posts.
I use Museo Silver Rag for my B&W work. I like it's 'unbleached' tone and the DMAX that it provides, although I've experienced numerous problems with it during 2014-2015. Now that the product is under new ownership, they seem to have things under control. That said, I've seen the surface texture and gloss change ever so slightly over the years.
I found a box of 23x30 EEF in my storage area, so I'm set for awhile. That said, I want to move on to a better paper for my color work. As I said, I'm not keen on OBAs, so that narrows down the possibilities.
One gentleman suggested one of the following papers. Before ordering samples, feel free to weigh in on which you would look at ... pros/cons
• Epson Legacy Baryta (Legacy has no OBA)
• Ilford Golde Fibre Silk
• Canson Baryta Photographique
• Several of the Hahnemuhle products (Fine Art Baryta Satin has no OBA)
Jan, sorry one clarification/correction: Epson Legacy Baryta is the one in the four new Legacy papers that does have what Epson calls a very small amount of brightening agent, but the Platine does not. Both of them are lovely papers, by the way. You can read about them in my review on this website.
-
One gentleman suggested one of the following papers. Before ordering samples, feel free to weigh in on which you would look at ... pros/cons
• Epson Legacy Baryta (Legacy has no OBA)
• Ilford Golde Fibre Silk
• Canson Baryta Photographique
• Several of the Hahnemuhle products (Fine Art Baryta Satin has no OBA)
That list may give you 2 to 4 identical papers with only a brand name difference. I have not measured the Epson Legacy Baryta but it would not surprise me if it resembles the other two mentioned here. Among the Hahnemühle papers the Photo Silk Baryta will give you the same quality. All satin so less glossy as the EEF was.
For EEF resemblance, gloss and whiteness, it will be hard to avoid OBA content. The SpectrumViz map AlphaCellulose>HighGloss,Glazed contains several paper qualities that come close, almost all have OBA content. Some were tested by Aardenburg-Imaging.com, you have to check which were better on longevity than EEF in the tests. Check the paper white patch shifts.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Ernst, as you know quite a bit about the paper business and you live in the EU where most of these papers are manufactured in one or the other of the several plants that exist which can do that, perhaps you could explain on what legal basis either a paper manufacturing facility (perhaps facilities because more than one may be involved with the same paper) or the brand-name company marketing the paper can simply re-brand the same thing and not run afoul of European and international copyright conventions, which are pretty strict or be sued by the offended party; the only exception I could think of would be if they were in cahoots with each other, in which case they could be contravening European competition law, which is by all accounts stricter than ours in North America. I think the more likely story is that there are subtle differences between these papers mandated by the ink and paper technologists the printer manufacturers and the better name-brand paper companies employ in order to determine the formulae they want reflected in their brand, in cooperation with the paper manufacturers. Some of these differences may be quite technical and perhaps not necessarily captured in your Spectrum Viz readings or in some other spectrophotometric readings of these papers.
-
Ernst, as you know quite a bit about the paper business and you live in the EU where most of these papers are manufactured in one or the other of the several plants that exist which can do that, perhaps you could explain on what legal basis either a paper manufacturing facility (perhaps facilities because more than one may be involved with the same paper) or the brand-name company marketing the paper can simply re-brand the same thing and not run afoul of European and international copyright conventions, which are pretty strict or be sued by the offended party; the only exception I could think of would be if they were in cahoots with each other, in which case they could be contravening European competition law, which is by all accounts stricter than ours in North America. I think the more likely story is that there are subtle differences between these papers mandated by the ink and paper technologists the printer manufacturers and the better name-brand paper companies employ in order to determine the formulae they want reflected in their brand, in cooperation with the paper manufacturers. Some of these differences may be quite technical and perhaps not necessarily captured in your Spectrum Viz readings or in some other spectrophotometric readings of these papers.
It always surprises me that EU laws are seen as more strict + consumer friendly than what the US has to offer in laws. The US class actions have a tradition where the EU just recently opened up that legal road for consumers. Lobbyists in Bruxelles (among them representatives of US companies) are probably as active as lobbyists are in Washington so our laws are compromised on consumer interests as well. The whole globe has felt the banking crises, my gut feeling is that the ones responsible for that crises were punished more in the US than in the EU. The Ahold stock affair delivered compensation for US and EU share holders in a US court, not in a EU court so far. More to the point; the Epson orange plague dye ink affair delivered compensation to US ink users, nothing happened in the EU, our class action system simply did not exist then.
I do not think that putting another label on a product is in conflict with any law in the EU if the label describes the product properly. Few standards other than EU metric units are required on inkjet papers. Contravening European competition law is certainly something where EU government has shown its quality, partly thanks to a tough Dutch lady. Hard to say whether that is happening with the papers we use. Some years ago I computed the costs of inkjet ink per ml for different cartridge sizes, all sold by the three big inkjet printer companies. There was a remarkable price correlation between the cartridge sizes. If Neeltje Smit Kroes had been my neighbour I would have told her to take action.
SpectrumViz does not reveal all the properties of inkjet papers so sure there could be differences in printing. Of the IGFS clones I am still in doubt whether there are one or two manufacturers. It could even be a baryta/fibre paper standard more manufacturers aim at, a situation quite common in papers for the offset printing industry.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Interesting insights Ernst; so it does boil down to the fact that we really don't know for sure whether simple rebranding is happening. I guess I remain of the view that it would be difficult to pull this off absent some kind of collaboration agreement between brand owners, otherwise there would probably be legal screaming from some quarter or other and it isn't happening. When you think of it, the core of the inkjet printer technology is the print-head the ink and the paper. So the printer manufacturers need to have expertise in all these areas and it would not be beyond them to collaborate with paper makers on formulas that may have many common elements, but not completely. So we could end up with products that are seemingly very similar but not quite. And this allows them to legitimately claim some originality. This leaves us consumers in a good place, because it opens the possibility for making substitutions based on price without necessarily sacrificing much of the look and feel we want in a paper - a matter of individual preference.
-
I guess I remain of the view that it would be difficult to pull this off absent some kind of collaboration agreement between brand owners, otherwise there would probably be legal screaming from some quarter or other and it isn't happening.
Well, if a company like FS develops a specific beloved, perhaps patented inkjet coating and methodology to apply said coating to numerous substrates, and thus, for example, it can coat its proprietary formulation on more than one paper mill's supplied paper core, and it can sell that coating to any company that wants to private label it because perhaps it doesn't offer a far-reaching retail outlet itself for said product, then it's very easy to see how numerous "nearly identical" media can end up in the market place, with no legal hassles whatsoever. Adding to that plentitude of "look alike" products, some ink manufacturers could approach the coating company and say "based on our own R&D efforts, could you throw in a little extra chemistry into your coating that improves our ink's compatibility with your otherwise proprietary coating" say for example, some chemical additives that improve dye stability on a coating originally developed for pigmented inks. Thus, even more spin-off products could occur that are essentially "look alike" products, but indeed optimizing some specific aspect of an ink manufacturer's ink set. IMHO, this is why we as endusers now have so many me-too look-alike products to choose from. Great from one point of view, rather annoying from another as many of us are now pursuing a "great paper chase".
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.
-
As long as they aren't colluding on price, as a consumer I'm OK with that.
-
If FS is manufacturing for other brands they are subject to non disclosure agreements with the contracting party. There is nothing wrong with this and there are lots of industries around that do the same thing. That in itself does not violate any antitrust collusion regulations. The fact that there are similarities under Ernst's testing protocols is not unusual since these papers are highly popular. Various paper vendors want to have something like this in their line and if they do not possess manufacturing capabilities they contract it out.
-
If FS is manufacturing for other brands they are subject to non disclosure agreements with the contracting party. There is nothing wrong with this and there are lots of industries around that do the same thing. That in itself does not violate any antitrust collusion regulations. The fact that there are similarities under Ernst's testing protocols is not unusual since these papers are highly popular. Various paper vendors want to have something like this in their line and if they do not possess manufacturing capabilities they contract it out.
Quite so Alan.
In fact, I think it would be fair to say that many of the vendors don't actually manufacture a square inch of the paper they brand, and at the manufacturing end more than one plant may be involved in the various stages of paper-making from substrate to coating to conversion. It is also true that certain vendors who do manufacture paper also farm out some of "their" brands to other manufacturers for actual production. This is a complex and secretive industry - what else is new :-). But especially in light of what you say about the NDA's, you are reinforcing my point that simple plagiarism by rebranding from one vendor to another is a bit of a stretch unless they do it by agreement. In particular, when you consider that a printer's key components are the head, the inks and the papers, the majors in the printer industry do have chemical engineers on staff who can at least direct the bespoke formulae their companies want to market, without necessarily manufacturing one iota of it.
-
The other thing we don't know though it could be found out is how much of this is covered by patents versus trade secrets. I've looked at a lot of the Epson printer and ink patents over the past couple of years trying to better understand their technology. I haven't looked at inkjet paper patents.