Ilford XP2 vs. Kodak T400
Old 02-26-2010   #1
baycrest
Registered User
 
baycrest's Avatar
 
baycrest is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Territories, Hong Kong
Posts: 198
Ilford XP2 vs. Kodak T400

I've been trying to get "reasonably clear" (notice I didn't say sharp, cos I can't seem to achieve sharp scans at all) scans using a HP G4050 flatbed and been getting sometimes ok results and at other times pretty bad.

I was wondering if it might have something to do with the film, or aperture used. I don't think its my scanning ability, I'm using Vuescan and its fairly straight forward, I think. Yes it could be my scanner, but, I hope not.

To get acceptable clarity scans for viewing say at 1200 X 800 on the monitor, I usually have to sharpen the picture at 200% Radius=0.3 Threshold=1, sometimes twice, but then I'm picking up a lot of "grain" from the sharpening.

They scans from the lab are better than what I can produce from my flatbed. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that.

I'm using Kodak 400Tmax & I'm wondering if I'd get sharper results (and less grain) if I used the Ilford XP2?

As well, I'm accustomed to taking most people pictures wide open or near wide open. Would I do better for scanning if I stopped down to 2.8 or 4 or 5.6? Lets assume I can avoid camera shake.


Thanks!
__________________
Best,
Rob

R3A, M9, M8u, M7, M6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2010   #2
rayfoxlee
Raymondo
 
rayfoxlee is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Sussex, England
Age: 69
Posts: 209
Most flatbeds will struggle a bit with 35mm film, but if you are using full aperture, your zone of sharp focus could be tiny, especially if you are close to your subject. Stop down a couple of stops and you should see an appreciable difference if the scanner is working OK and your lenses are focussing sharply on the film plane. I don't have much experience with T Max, but XP2 is a great film choice. I suggest you shoot a few frames, tripod mounted, on XP2 and have the best frame commercially enlarged and scan the same neg to a similar size and compare. That should tell you all you need to know. Looking at your camera's, you have some great kit, so I doubt the problem lies with your scanner (or with your expectations!). When I changed from an Epson 2450 flatbed to Nikon Coolscan V ED, the difference was huge on 35mm.

Good luck!
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2010   #3
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,907
Hi,

XP-2 produces very fine grain like ISO 100 films.

I use Rodinal to develop XP-2 and TMAX and have found TMAX + Rodinal produces grains too much for my liking.

Here are two examples developed in Rodinal and scanned from film in my Canoscan 8800f:

XP-2
TMAX 400


thanks
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2010   #4
baycrest
Registered User
 
baycrest's Avatar
 
baycrest is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Territories, Hong Kong
Posts: 198
Thank you Ray & Ray for the advice and telling me what works for you.

I'll pick up some XP2, stop down a couple of stops and see the difference in grain and clarity.

If that doesn't work out too well, I'll have to go back and reconsider my scanner.

Thanks again
__________________
Best,
Rob

R3A, M9, M8u, M7, M6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-2010   #5
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,907
PAGE 115, "The Black and White handbook" by the venerable Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz

Chromogenic Development
Ilford's XP2 ...developed in ordinary C41 developer: the image is therefore formed of dye clouds, not metalli silver. Because of this, over-exposure gives finer grain rather than coarser...
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2010   #6
baycrest
Registered User
 
baycrest's Avatar
 
baycrest is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Territories, Hong Kong
Posts: 198
Thank you again Ray for the reference.
Picked a copy up on eBay. It was $5 and I'm sure there'll be some pearls of wisdom in there that can help my photography.
__________________
Best,
Rob

R3A, M9, M8u, M7, M6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2010   #7
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 60
Posts: 2,652
rob, the advice on shooting XP2 at iso 250 or even 320 improves the midtones too in my experience. kodak BW400 and XP2 scan very well compared to silver-based negatives, although you can expose and develop the latter specifically to improve scanning results (another topic itself and covered in detail on other threads).
__________________
--Mike (confirmed midget imagist on stilts)

Bill Pierce's "photographer's proposition": I saw something wonderful, let me show it to you.

Leica and Zeiss M
Fuji X-T1 GX680 F30
Canon EOS
Minolta Autocord


My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2010   #8
Renzsu
Registered User
 
Renzsu's Avatar
 
Renzsu is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 682
I've shot a couple of rolls of XP2 @ iso 200 for my daytime shooting.. if properly metered the noise is almost negligible.
I scan my negatives at 4800dpi on my Epson V700 (more examples @ flickr):



__________________
site | Flickr |
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2010   #9
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,907
Bay,

fyi, the author Roger Hicks is on this board as well, he has a dedicated section.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2010   #10
baycrest
Registered User
 
baycrest's Avatar
 
baycrest is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Territories, Hong Kong
Posts: 198
Thank you Mike & Renzsu for the tips. Those images shot with XP2 at 200 or 250 came out great.

I'll definitely give it a try.
__________________
Best,
Rob

R3A, M9, M8u, M7, M6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2010   #11
DNG
Fuji X-E2 / Nikon FE
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,661
Here is nice example of XP-2 fine detail recorded at ISO 320, Lens: 50mm Summarit f/1.5 @ f/8.. C41 developed, scanned at 5000dpi with my PlusTek 7300 35mm scanner.



Hay, who is that guy in the reflection
__________________

iPernity

Flickr (Street Photography)

Tumblr


My Feed Back


Fuji X-E2: XF 18mm f/2_ XF 35mm f/1.4_J9-85mm f/2
Nikon FE: 24mm f/2.8 Ais_ 50mm f/1.8 Ais_50mm f/1.4 NAi

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2010   #12
baycrest
Registered User
 
baycrest's Avatar
 
baycrest is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Territories, Hong Kong
Posts: 198
Hi DNG,

I little off topic, but you mentioned you're using Plustek?
If you're taking portraits, do you find you need to stop down to say 5.6 or more so the scanner will give you reasonably sharp results?
Or are you able to get pretty good results with the lens wide open at f/1.4 or f/2?
__________________
Best,
Rob

R3A, M9, M8u, M7, M6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-27-2010   #13
baycrest
Registered User
 
baycrest's Avatar
 
baycrest is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Territories, Hong Kong
Posts: 198
Thank you Ray for the comment on Roger Hicks!
__________________
Best,
Rob

R3A, M9, M8u, M7, M6
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2010   #14
DNG
Fuji X-E2 / Nikon FE
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by baycrest View Post
Hi DNG,

I little off topic, but you mentioned you're using Plustek?
If you're taking portraits, do you find you need to stop down to say 5.6 or more so the scanner will give you reasonably sharp results?
Or are you able to get pretty good results with the lens wide open at f/1.4 or f/2?
Haven't used the it at f/1.5 yet... in a few weeks I have a shoot with a gal I've shot before, I will take some then.. in fact, I'm only bringing my DSLR to set up the exposure for the studio stuff

But, I sharpen and do basic post before the scan with the included software. I figure, if the file is sharp. that is my new original. I'll make some test shoots at f/1.5 and smaller for your question.
__________________

iPernity

Flickr (Street Photography)

Tumblr


My Feed Back


Fuji X-E2: XF 18mm f/2_ XF 35mm f/1.4_J9-85mm f/2
Nikon FE: 24mm f/2.8 Ais_ 50mm f/1.8 Ais_50mm f/1.4 NAi

  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2010   #15
David_Manning
Registered User
 
David_Manning's Avatar
 
David_Manning is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Aledo, Texas
Age: 48
Posts: 1,416
Rob,

I don't think you need to stop down to get sharp scans from most lenses you'll probably be using. I've made some bad, blurry scans on a flatbed of my own with my T* Zeiss glass, and I KNOW it's sharp. It's just the scan process.

My experience: a Nikon scanner with real ED glass is the way to go at home (the different models will basically differ in speed and resolution, but all are remarkably sharp). Aside from that, using a C-41 B&W film with a machine scan from a lab is very good. I've made what I consider to be nice scans with my Epson 4990, but that is for on-screen use. To go big, I go with something else.

The other bit of advice is after you scan, don't globally sharpen...just sharpen details and the narrow area in focus if shooting wide open. This way you'll get nice sharp scans but you won't be sharpening the grain in areas like sky, etc. (oversharpening there can result in pepper-like grain).

A couple of examples of Kodak BW400CN, scanned at a minilab, and the shots were wide-open, which is the way I like to shoot too:









__________________
My Tumblr site

Last edited by David_Manning : 02-28-2010 at 14:49.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2010   #16
Renzsu
Registered User
 
Renzsu's Avatar
 
Renzsu is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 682
^ those are pretty much the images that made me want to try C41 b/w film
__________________
site | Flickr |
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-28-2010   #17
David_Manning
Registered User
 
David_Manning's Avatar
 
David_Manning is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Aledo, Texas
Age: 48
Posts: 1,416
Renzse,

Thanks again.

I know you agree with me...C41 b&w is a little-known modern miracle.

And for Rob...you can take a box-speed C41 film and change the ISO on the fly one stop either way and get a great picture. Like Renzsu said, and has the images to back it up, shoot ISO 200 during the day and then shoot 400 in the evening (or even 800).
__________________
My Tumblr site
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2010   #18
David_Manning
Registered User
 
David_Manning's Avatar
 
David_Manning is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Aledo, Texas
Age: 48
Posts: 1,416
Rob, overexposing in bright daylight at ISO 200 is good...it'll reduce overall contrast, and I've found BW400CN to be fairly contrasty at 400 in full daylight.

400 in the evening is just right. I only mention 800 because the Kodak data sheet says you can do it with no problems. It'll probably be contrasty, but in the evening you might be okay with deep blacks.

Nice tones in full daylight at ISO200 (Kodak BW400CN):

__________________
My Tumblr site
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-03-2010   #19
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,281
In my view both films shoot much better at 200 or 100 than at 400 or higher. 200 is a good compromise (reasonable speed- great tone ) so mostly I just stick to that. The tonal qualities at these lower ASA settings (ie with moderate over exposure) are really smooth and pleasant. I think this photo was shot with one or the other in my M3 then scanned.

__________________
Peter M

Flickr me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/[SIGPIC]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston S Churchill
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2010   #20
Registered User
 
raytoei@gmail.com's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,907
peterm1, amazing shot. i like that XP2 is very fine grained. I am currently scanning my XP2 120 format and I love the tones produced.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2010   #21
douwe
Jazz and Silver
 
douwe's Avatar
 
douwe is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 31
Posts: 106
I would like to point out that stopping down at the time of making the picture is no good at all if you want to improve the sharpness of the scan.

Just like in an enlarger, the scanner has to focus on the negative, regardless of what is on the negative!

If your scans aren't sharp then there are some things that could cause this:
- your film isn't in the plane of focus of the scanner.
- your film isn't flat
- the lens in the scanner is of very poor quality and will therefore never show sharp results.

I would check if changing the distance between the glass and the film alters sharpness. Try using post-its.
__________________
Jazz and Silver: http://jazzandsilver.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-09-2010   #22
DNG
Fuji X-E2 / Nikon FE
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Camby, Indiana. USA
Age: 60
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by douwe View Post
I would like to point out that stopping down at the time of making the picture is no good at all if you want to improve the sharpness of the scan.

Just like in an enlarger, the scanner has to focus on the negative, regardless of what is on the negative!

If your scans aren't sharp then there are some things that could cause this:
- your film isn't in the plane of focus of the scanner.
- your film isn't flat
- the lens in the scanner is of very poor quality and will therefore never show sharp results.

I would check if changing the distance between the glass and the film alters sharpness. Try using post-its.
Yes, This is "baycrest" concern about f/stop and scanning..
Missed this one
__________________

iPernity

Flickr (Street Photography)

Tumblr


My Feed Back


Fuji X-E2: XF 18mm f/2_ XF 35mm f/1.4_J9-85mm f/2
Nikon FE: 24mm f/2.8 Ais_ 50mm f/1.8 Ais_50mm f/1.4 NAi

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:59.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.