We are drifting from qualitative to quantitative, I know.
My cross eyed mix up two times didn’t help matters either! Sorry.
That’s what happens when you get in a hurry and then post from your cell phone while waiting for a client that is LATE! 
Sorry I was beside myself.
I’m loading my horses and heading North for the rest of the week.
I should be better then! 
Kevin, I had no intention for debating this issue. I was asking because I thought you had something I am missing. I am still all ears.
Besides the fact that I could not type what I meant, and the fact that we were talking about qualitative scans (which we all posted about and then moved on to quantitative stuff), I do not understand the need to change any camera settings when your intent is quantitative. As I said, I remove these apparent temps all together most of the time. I go threw all my pic’s and remove the temp spot before using them in my report. I want no incorrect information recorded that I will have to explain or debate in the future.
The issue (which we seem to agree on) is that these settings do not change the image of the scan. They do not help you see anomalies. Changing the span does, but not the other settings.
Lets just say that I went all through the process:
Set camera emissivity to 1 and measure reflected apparent temp (RAT) and adjust camera.
Place a known emissivity treatment on the material.
Uniformly heat the material 60 degrees above RAT.
Set camera to the known emissivity of the control material and measure temp.
Move measurement tool to the untreated material and adjust camera emissivity until it matches the above temp.
This is the e-setting for this material.
E-Charts are not accurate as in this case ,I agree.
Only if you lie to it.
Crap in-Crap out.
It is, now that we are talking about it.
I did, even though I did not post what I did. Would the settings help? I can post them.
My point is that these temp measurements should be as close as possible or removed. If you are scanning a circuit breaker and your spot measurement tool happens to be on the copper wire and your camera is set at .95 or even 1.0 when you are focusing your attention to the wire insulation or breaker body temp, what shows up on the screen is an apparent temp of a .23 emissivity object and you will have a scan with a spot temp way out there.
A lot of people take scans and do not edit them. Just snap and shoot and stick it in a report. I see this all the time. I am just trying to point out that even if you are calling it a qualitative scan, when you leave this information in or adjust the camera to make it worse you are opening yourself up for scrutiny. My vote is to remove anything you are not intentionally trying to point out.
Again, sorry for the confusion of my posts.
I’m out the door to correct that, now!