X-ray transmission radiography has been a cornerstone technique in the technical examination and analysis of artworks since its inception in 1895. Over time, the technique has evolved into a standard practice in major museums worldwide, facilitating detailed study and diagnosis of artworks and their conditions. Despite its widespread adoption, and beyond seminal texts, literature is scarce regarding the process of acquiring X-radiographs for art examination and the instruments utilised for this purpose. This paper addresses this gap by presenting a comparative analysis of X-radiographs captured using two distinct instruments: An analogue industrial system, Seifert Eresco MF2 and AGFA film Structurix D7, and a digital system comprising a medical ECONEt PXP-40HF X-ray generator and an LWTC-F VET digital panel detector from Shenzhen Lanmage Medical Technology. The former recorded images on traditional screen film (SF) requiring wet development, while the latter utilises advanced digital imaging techniques, including specialised software pre-sets designed for veterinary applications. X-radiographs captured of paintings and painted wooden objects at Stichting Restauratie Atelier Limburg (SRAL) were utilised to compare results and inform x-radiographers of capabilities and pitfalls during the transition from analogue to digital systems. The comparison permitted improvement of acquisition settings for the newly acquired digital instrument, correlating the pre-sets to the preferred output of the now malfunctioning analogue system. The study revealed significant disparities in the images acquired by the two instruments, attributable to differences in technology, power output, and image processing protocols. Importantly, the study demonstrates the challenges inherent in directly comparing X-radiographs captured using disparate instruments, particularly when digital techniques with diverse purposes, such as veterinary imaging, are employed. By elucidating these differences and establishing correlations between instruments, this research contributes to enhancing the efficacy and standardisation of X-radiography in art conservation. Furthermore, the comparison has revealed that the instrument intended for veterinary use is sufficient for obtaining x-radiographs of diverse painted artworks. The authors wish to provide valuable insights for conservators and researchers seeking to optimise imaging protocols and provide high-quality digital X-radiographs for conservation and study purposes in the Dutch museum field and beyond.