Ilford XP2 vs. Kodak T400

[baycrest]

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!