Ilford XP2 vs. Kodak T400

DNG said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've confirmed directly with Nikon that any curves adjustments set up in NikonScan are applied after the scan, not before. The implication, though not confirmed, is that sharpening may also be applied after, not before the scan.

Harry
 
DNG said:
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.
Click to expand...

hlockwood said:
I've confirmed directly with Nikon that any curves adjustments set up in NikonScan are applied after the scan, not before. The implication, though not confirmed, is that sharpening may also be applied after, not before the scan.

Harry
Click to expand...
Do you mean that the scanner scans the negative, then applies the sharpening or other adjustments from the scanner software ?
I don't think my scanner has such an option, or tells me "when" (before or after) the scan the adjustments are applied.
 
I have shot XP1,XP2, and XP2 Super at 200 over the years and have found it to be an ideal ASA. Compared to Kodak, I think the Ilford is much better. I have shot literally hundreds of rolls. At one time
Ilford sold an XP Chemistry kit. That was great for home developing.
 
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.

3119800569_770337de66_o.jpg
 
DNG said:
Do you mean that the scanner scans the negative, then applies the sharpening or other adjustments from the scanner software ?
I don't think my scanner has such an option, or tells me "when" (before or after) the scan the adjustments are applied.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I mean. In NikonScan, you apply a Curves adjustment once the preview image is acquired, then scan. But the adjustment is applied only after acquiring the full scan - according to the Nikon technician. This may be true as well for sharpening. But I didn't ask about sharpening because I regard that as more complex and best done in post.

I should also add that the end product of my workflow is primarily an archival print, not a web image. It may be that a simple sharpening step in the scan software would be adequate for the latter.

Harry
 
baycrest said:
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?
Click to expand...

baycrest said:
I've found that sharpening with the OEM software left some significant artifacts in my scan. So I tried sharpening in post where I could test out various amounts of USM quickly without having to re-scan the negative, which takes up some additional time.

Based on your comments, I'll retry sharpening at the time of the scan, using different sharpening strengths & see what comes out.
Click to expand...

Now that I have a bit more time with my scanner (Plustek 7300), I have learned that I only adj exposure before the scan, if needed. I sharpen and any other tweaks in my standard Editor "ACDsee Pro 3".

@baycrest
I have since sold the Summarit. But, I have taken portraits with my 50mm f/1.1 at f/1.1 and smaller and with my 90mm Summicron from f/2 and smaller...I have found no difference in scanning IQ at any f/stop.
 
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.
 
douwe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, This is "baycrest" concern about f/stop and scanning..
Missed this one :bang:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom