Did you try applying light downward pressure with your finger to the top of the paper as it started to load with the automatic feeder? Also worth trying is to pre-wrap the paper around a cylinder (print-side down) to give it a slight natural bend that causes the bottom edge of the paper make better contact with the feed mechanism. I don't have a P400, but I've occasionally had to do the above for my R2000 and P900. I wouldn't expect 230gsm paper to be a problem as that's typically about 11mil thickness which should be close the the normal thickness expected by these printers.

I second using Darktable. The negadoctor module will subtract out the the base stock orange using a blank frame from the rest of the frames in that roll. It's easy and fast, and produces a very good result.

EXIF data likes to be stored as a fraction of two integers, and sometimes EXIF readers read out that way. Is it possible the '1' was really a '/' or something like that? 429494/760 = 565 ?

I use Darktable more than any other photo-editing software, usually on Linux. It works quite well for me.

This seems like a pretty easy experiment for anyone to discover for themselves. Maybe we are each different.

I notice that if I walk into a room, I have a pretty good idea of what goes on in a circle of roughly 40 degrees (~58mm equiv.), but I'm not seeing small details except at the center. I have a monitor about 4 feet from me and if I don't move my eyes and concentrate on the text, it looks to me like I can see very good detail in a circle of about 1/2 inch or about 1-2 degrees (~2000mm equiv.). If I want to look at a picture where I have a fairly acceptable level of detail over the entire picture (kind of like circles-of-confusion decision for depth of field), that seems subjectively to me to be a circle of about 30 degrees (~85-90mm equiv.). Of course, with peripheral vision where I have extremely poor resolution on the edges -- I can just see that there is something bright or dark, or moves is all -- that probably goes out to more than 180 degrees (fisheye).

So like the depth-of-field analogy mentioned, it probably depends on how exactly you want or need to perceive the details.

I didn't find the article very convincing. Like so many other "technical" articles, it "reeked" of being written by a reporter who didn't really understand what she was writing, but trying to mimic words and phrases she'd heard. She didn't seem to have any understanding of what concerns many of the world's top immunologists, virologists, and front-line responders.

My understanding is, though I've read various people that try to explain their theories of the mechanisms that cause ADE, that in reality, nobody really knows exactly why it happens. It could be that there are multiple mechanisms that can lead to ADE. One theory espoused by notables like Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, is that it happens when the vaccine induced antibody numbers fall off over time to a critical level so that a virus infection is not fully neutralized and thus can then evade further immune response. That would explain the 9 month to 3 year time lines that I've seen referenced from past vaccine experiments. If that is what happens, I suppose booster shots every 6 or 8 months for the rest of one's life so as to keep the antibody count high may be the way out of that predicament.

So you're saying that ADE isn't an issue because we haven't seen it yet? Doesn't ADE typically begin to manifest between 9 months and 3 years after vaccination?

Though I hope people will survive their stupidity over this matter, the question is who was stupid. Time will surely tell.

Since there are so many very bright people here concerning virology and immunology, would one of you please explain why ADE is finally nothing to worry about?

I'm glad so many here haven't had side-effects. Can you tell me if you have concerns about ADE, and if not, why?

I just digitized over a thousand negatives using the Nikon ES2 slide/negative attachment on a 60mm macro lens and a D600 using a tracing panel as a backlight, and using the 'negadoctor' module in Darktable (freeware). With that you take a picture of a blank frame in the roll to find the film stock base color which the negadoctor module uses for a color adjusted black point for the rest of the roll, and then inverts the images. It made quick work compared to inverting the image and then trying to color adjust (which is a lot harder and time consuming than I though it would be).

You already have the 7 images. Leave off the last 3 and use the front 4 to restack. You get the idea. Just because you took 7 images, doesn't mean you have to combine all 7.

If you are artistic, you can burn the shadow areas a bit more, and dodge the lit areas.

--alan

I think you are referring to Custom->f6 "Release Button to Use Dial"?? (Page 114 of D500 Menu Guide)

Is it possibly due to a picture control with either very high contrast or with extra vignetting applied? Why is the heavy vignetting not seen in the output? Perhaps because she works with RAW format?

What picture control and adjustments is she using?

I have both the VR II and the FL lenses. As you already know, the FL is the better of the two, however, in practice, I can hardly tell the difference. They are both fast, accurate, and sharp where it counts. Personally, I think you would get a heck of a deal getting an excellent condition VR II for $900. That's the way I'd go.

Maybe someone already mentioned it and I missed it, but why not put your rotator between the ball head and the clamp? You'd use the ball head to level the rotator.