Just a guess but the reflectivity of the GE may be causing the spectro to read crazy.
Why would you profile with GE on? The machine/software already compensates for GE and creates GE profiles from non GE printed targets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ron, you raise a very good question. I hope that you, or one of the other forum participants, can respond:
** Using APS you have two choices -- profiling with GE or without GE. The user must choose one or the other.
At the same time, the APS creates two profiles automatically, with or without GE.
So if the APS generates the two profiles anyway, why does the APS give us the choice?
Assume you create two profiles -- (1) reading a target with GE and (2) reading a target without GE. When you compare the printed targets, you can tell that in the case of (1) GE is applied and in the case of (2) it is not.
So which profile for GE is more accurate? The profile created from (1) printed target that had GE applied to it or (2) the profile for GE that is created from the target without GE?
In my own case, I give each profile its own unique name so my profiles are clustered together at the end of the list, and I can easily find them separated from the list of profiles the driver installs. So in my case the APS creates three profiles each time. So I never focused on the fact that each time the APS automatically makes both profiles, with and without GE, until Ron pointed it out.
I've never tried this, but I assume if you run the APS by deliberately selecting GE, it creates two profiles, one with GE and without. Then, if you run APS by deliberately not selecting GE, it overwrites those two profiles that it created in the first case, and recreates the two profiles for the two options. So it is very confusing.
** As for the reflectivity, that would be my guess as well. But why is it happening with Epson Exhibition Fiber? It has much less reflectivity than a luster paper, and I never had that problem in the case of Luster. So why am I having that problem with EEF?
Is the paper having gloss differential even with GE on?
What you should do in that case is don't read the chart right away on Auto, but leave it dry . Later read in the patches, or try without gloss enhancer. I saw too much gloss diff on Harmon, on Hahnemuhle that had reversals which the spectro will have trouble reading. Even with a normal spectro , if the reversal is out of it's range of error redundancy the software will report errors or just build a profile with cranky tables.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Neil, I tried that and I got the same results. With a printed target that had dried for over 48 hours.
Neil, what do you mean by "reversals"?
Does that suggest that we should consistently NOT use GE, and then use the profile for GE that APS creates from a non-GE target, as explained in my response to Ron?
I thought I read in one of the HP Newsletters to NOT use GE on with this paper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which paper? Certainly not EEF, since HP refuses to acknowledge the existence of the of their primary competitor. Anyway, the Tech Newsletter and its table allows for the use of GE on all photo, gloss, semi-gloss, and pearl type papers. GE is not allowed for mat papers but basically all others
