Nick. Thanks for very quick reply. It's possible, I suppose, that the grey negs pack with the analyser have changed over time. I have no way of knowing how old they are.
I have looked at the print strips from the grey neg again in daylight and they are definitely not grey, although as I said they look grey under the intense white light of the enlarger lamp at full aperture.
The paper is a replacement from Fuji and is only a few weeks old. Its the new Fuji Crystal Archive. I previously had Fuji Crystal Arcive MP but was having problems with the yellow filtration. To get the colour balance right I was using little or no Y. On the same negs I switched to Kodak paper which I still had and the problem disappeared. Fuji asked to see copies of my prints. I sent them copies of Fuji paper prints and the Kodak print. They weren't able to give an answer which explained the problem but sent the new paper which seemed to be free of the issue of needing very low values of Y on the dichroic head.
So am I right in concluding that it is unlikely to be a paper fault. The chemicals are Paterson and fairly new. I use a replenishment system so the developer is being replaced quite frequently.
The white part of the test print seems to be completely white - no sign of any grey or other cast.
My plan of action now is to:Try making up completely fresh developer. If that doesn't get me to a grey print then I can switch to Kodak paper.
If none of this produces success then I'll have to get a grey card and do a fresh neg. If the grey neg has faded would this result in a print which is a grey/green colour and also result in the 3000 calibrating to a level which produces an overexposed print?
After my calibration to my grey/green neg but at 0.55 I then printed my coastal scene. I did this by using the fully intergrated system which as the manual suggests involves using the clear spot probe but a diffuser under the lamp. I used the Paterson diffuser and not the one supplied with the 3000. They look the same although the Paterson one may be slightly more diffused. Is not using the 3000's diffuser square under the lens likely to result in the print problem? I wouldn't have thought so.
I used full integration as this is all I know. My Paterson analyser does it all by full intergration.
I could try semi- integrated measuring by replacing the clear spot probe with the diffuser cover and taking one or more measures from the neg. Could it be that because deep blue predominates the scene from sea and sky then under full intergration this has resulted in a predominance of blue in the print and a slight overexposure?
Ah well, back to the drawing board.