Ron, thank you for the time you spent!
Unfortunately this is not what I thought of: I would have been interested in the Epson version of the garmut warning from an Epson printer on Epson (enhanced) matte paper.
I donīt want to compare the papers on z3100 but the garmut of the printers (on their own papers). Simply see, how much they differ in this real world example. I expect the Epson printers to have a larger garmut of course, after all the hassle with the reds on the z, but how much larger?
We have found that soft proofing with gamut warning on/off in Photoshop is only a rough guide, and does not correspond very accurately with the actual print. It is especially variable if one has not made all the profiles oneself. For some reason when soft proofing using Epson factory stock profiles there appears to be a larger gamut (less clipping) than when using custom profiles made for an Epson or HP z3100 on the same paper (for example, Epson Enhanced Matte), but real printed results are the opposite. We also get visually more saturated and wider gamut prints on EEM from the HP than from the Epson. Incidentally, EEM was once a standard for its price and availability; but it's time has come and gone. It is now an inferior paper compared to matte papers available for less money. We used tons of it for commercial work and rough proofs, and it was a problematic cost compromise- optical brighteners that fade rapidly, muddy blacks and poor deep color saturation, inability to hold much ink without blocking up details, etc. Maybe z3100 had problems with the first software releases and certain papers; but we keep looking for a "red" problem and all I find are clean colors with incredible saturation. Color inks obviously vary from HP to Epson to Cannon; but paper ink loads (limits), paper receptive coatings, especially the paper color/whiteness, and profiling has a variable effect on color matching and smooth crossovers (in the driver), especially with cmyk+rgb inksets. So maybe some had or are having color problems, but we are getting great results. Try the HP Matte Litho-realistic as a much better economical alternative to EEM, even on an Epson with K3 inks.
Subjectively comparing actual prints from the same file on Epson and HP on matte papers, we prefer the HP prints. We've used Epson for years (two are dedicated to matte black ink), and the prints are wonderful. But the HP is just spectacular, with a much longer archival life. Unfortunately for us this is often a bummer, since we make limited edition archival books; the z3100ps is a pain to load sheets quickly, and there is no HP z3100 equivalent to the Epson 4xxx series for handling sheet material. All our Epsons load sheet paper better, faster, and more easily.
BTW, APS has been working fine for me with the new firmware and software. I'm now using fmw 188.8.131.52. APS features work the same as with 184.108.40.206. However, when I compare profiles created from the previous firmware with newest (using Profiler Pro Measure tool), I am getting some variation (delta E of .6 to 2.
. My older calibrations and profiles were out of date according to the HP printer utility, so that may be a reason. However, something different seems to be going on. For one thing, either more ink is being laid down, or the humidity is higher in the loft, since a regularly used heavy cotton matte fine art paper is now "wetter" and there is a slight paper buckling. It subjectively seems to have better saturation in the deep colors but without detail blocking up. I used this paper only for B&W since it was poor with color, but now it looks better. I am going to redo all paper calibrations and profiles.