dan_linne1

<p>My take on all this:<br>

From my tests and suggested on multiple on-line forums, the camera is at least part of the problem. Seems to be common knowledge that fast wide angles have more trouble and my tests with 50mm and 85mm 1.8's confirm this. Wish I had the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 to confirm this. I would be happy if the Sigma was f/2 or f/2.8 and half the weight, but this is the best choice right now for me.<br>

I haven't paid attention to the off center focus points. I tested my camera when I first got it and they were fine, although they are not something I would routinely use, so have just done tests using the center point. In my situation AF-C delivers better results. Low light and especially low contrast scenes cause more problems. Yesterdays firmware update seems to have improved things a bit, but being so recent, is inconclusive.<br>

Fine tuning has some value, but not as consistent as one might hope. I'm using +5 due to front focusing, but there are times when it does not help and these are once again in low light/contrast situations.<br>

I've been on the fence as to returning, but am getting probably a 70-90% success rate depending upon conditions. My other lenses are not perfect either, getting about 95% approaching 100% in ideal conditions. I have decided to keep it and be aware of its and my cameras limitations. Image quality is great, a bit more CA than I was hoping for.</p>

<p>I've had my 35mm for one day (have D800E). Focus problems for me also. Typical scenario, not bad at close, worse at distance. Using center point only. Seems a bit better with AF-C. Most often it front focuses. Can't calibrate for distance as it throws off close range. I'm skeptical the USB dock will fix anything. I appreciate this thread to learn from other experiences. Not sure if I will return it. Being so good optically makes it hard to send back. I must say my 85mm 1.8 is not perfect either, but much better. More testing tomorrow.<br>

DL</p>

<p>Another vote for Vuescan. I think it works as good or better than the Nikon software. Running Win7 64 bit.</p>

<p>For those with a D800/e. I have my auto cleaning set at start/shutdown. I see no indication it is cleaning. Should there be an indicator or delay at start/shut that it is in fact cleaning?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>EF yellows badly in a short period of time. The 90 year rating from Wilhelm is absurd. I first noticed the yellowing with prints I have posted on a bulletin board in a room which gets no sun. Significant yellowing in 1-2 years. So, I taped some to a sunny window and in 3 months it was darker than Museo Silver Rag. I also did this with Epson Luster, which showed no yellowing at all. I guess the optical brighteners are causing this. I wish I hadn't bought so much of EF. It is now my junk proof paper. I am trying Canson Baryta.</p>

<p>I like EF better than UP Luster, EF is brighter and has a smoother texture, but I like Moab Colorado Gloss the best. It is just like EF, but not as thick and I find it ever so slightly smoother, and available in rolls. The cost is also better than EF. I use it for BW and Color.</p>

<p>I'd do a nozzle check. You might try using the premium luster profile instead of the Pixel Genius. I've had good luck with this.</p>

 

<p>The warm toned papers have their place, but for maximum brilliance, it's Exhibition Fiber. Another nice attribute is that it stays perfectly flat.</p>

Close up<div></div>

Nothing stupid or crazy about this one Scott. Take a look again at full resolution. A very real problem.

This paper is not the huge leap forward that some claim it to be. A small improvement I would say. The surface is still not quite there compared with traditional paper- not smooth enough. Blacks are good. It seems prone to scratching and I have roller marks on my first prints that I have never had with any paper. Maybe some moisture in the paper? Still some gloss differential with my 7800. Terribly expensive for what it is.

I use InkJetArt's Microceramic luster. I like it for general use and have never

considered it archival. I could find no tests on longevity so I did my own. I

wanted an accelerated test so I taped a print to a south facing window(inside).

I live in a fairly sunny climate. It has been there one year. Obviously no

displayed print would ever receive so much sun and I don't claim this to be

scientific.

 

It is well known that papers with optical brighteners fade. The Microceramic

luster is no exception. Compared to a control from the same print kept in a

box, it shows significant yellowing. Having said that it is still slightly

brighter when compared to a paper with no optical brighteners. But I assume in

time the paper will return to it's natural color. The K3 inks used look

perfect.

 

I will continue to use this paper, but am now more familiar with it's

characteristics. How long before it fades in a normal room lighting situation?

That's another test. One might say it may fade in a couple of years or so, but

this would be conjecture.

I used PremierArt print shield on a luster paper. The frame shop dry mounted it

resulting in a mottled surface. I had to do the print over. Should it have been

sprayed after mounting? I have not heard of this problem before. Too much heat?

Moisture? Wrong cover sheet?

I would like to hear from long time users of this paper from InkJetArt. After

a search, I could not find any definitive info on longevity. Have you

experienced any fading or other changes?

I have the same background as you and reached the same conclusion early on. You must try Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl. For me, it is better than the two other photo black papers you mentioned.

oops, should be about .0081. You can do a search for coversion tables.

.0074 inches

I have printed black and white on the 2400. I sold it for the larger 7800. The prints are the same to me.

Looks like Chromatic Aberration to me. That's why I don't use zooms. CS2 has a fix for it under Filters-Distort-Lens Correction.

My guess is that you are using 'normal' preview mode and are not selecting the scan area. Click and drag your mouse over the area to be scanned.

The Yankee tank has been notorius for uneven development for decades. Try trays or a different tank.

I have had no problems at all from my 2400. If fact I like it so much I am going to replace it with a 7800. You might try printing from USB. The Crane paper is nice, but not quite up to all the months of hype.

He alters the true results by sharpening in Photoshop instead of comparing the actual hardware output. The first scans look virtually identical to the v700. Hopefully he will have a comparison to a drum scan and with the fluid mount.

The 2400 has no cutter. You must cut it yourself. Knife, scissors, etc.

I have the same thing on my 3170. I think it's a problem with the scanner. Mine is headed for the garbage can.