sinwp rss feed for PI Articles

articles/Landscape/standuporgotobed

Stand Up Or Go To Bed?

by Paul Gallagher

As a landscape photographer and also as a fine art photographer it would seem logical for me to pursue the most detail from the negatives that I have painstakingly hand processed. I currently use, and am suitably impressed with, the flatbed Epson Perfection V750 PRO and frequently hear of many of my fellow fine art photographer friends swearing by their upstanding Imacon scanners and the wonders they behold.

I have always used flatbed scanners and in recent years they have clearly improved compared to the scanning results in my old files; but is the price tag of the Imacon worth it for what I would use it for, and furthermore, what are the benefits to me working predominantly in monochrome?

As a way of establishing this, one of my most recent negatives processed in the extra fine developer Prescysol EF, was subjected to testing with the good will of Calumet, Paul McMullin and our editor. For this test this 5x4 negative was scanned in McMullin's older Imacon P II, the new Imacon X5 (courtesy of Calumet - not connected with the BMW car!) and finally my own and McNamee's Epson V750 PROs. I was presented with three sets of results: namely a comparison of luminance, the results (complete with histograms) and finally the sharpness. Firstly,

I compared the results of the luminance and levels noting the flat-line scan from the Epson was, as the name suggests, an extremely flat rendering with low contrast and some way from what I would deem as an acceptable result. Secondly, I studied the results of the Imacon scanners with the PII scan being hand-adjusted using curves and the X5 on auto settings. When comparing these it was clear that they were both very similar in tonal rendition and contrast and certainly offered a good starting point from which to work dodging and burning in Photoshop. The results from the Epson, when set to auto exposure, gave similar tonal ranges to the Imacon scanners but with a slight increase in contrast which I found equally satisfying and, if I am to be honest, closer to the staring point I would be seeking as a raw scan prior to subjecting the file to manipulation.

All of these scanners can of course be adjusted using curves before committing to the final scan and all proved that they could obtain enough information and tonal range as the basis for a starting point

Given that contrast is adjustable prior to scanning, my main interest in the results from the scans was the way in which the scanners reproduced the sharpness and detail and this was, for me, one of the challenges. On first comparison of all three it was patently obvious that, without employing any sharpening at all at the scanning stage, the Imacon machines won hands down with regards to definition in small detail and acutance.

There was little discernable difference between the PII and the X5 Imacons in terms of sharpness and both showed beautiful detail in the fine strands of the marram grasses and sand details in the image, whereas the Epson was notably different and much softer, requiring a great deal more sharpening in Photoshop to recover the detail back into the file. There was, however, one crunch for me in comparing the scanners and how they performed and a crunch it was!

As a landscape photographer I love smooth transitions of greys in the skies and like the smoothness of the clouds to be faithfully reproduced in the image just as I had seen them. As I mentioned, I am currently using the Epson scanner which clearly renders detail softer than the Imacons. My workflow is to scan, adjust the image to the desired tonal range and then finish with a two-stage selective sharpening of parts of the image. When I mentioned 'crunch' I was specifically talking of the grain in the skies and clouds that was recorded by the Imacon scanners. This for me would be a major distraction and constant source of annoyance. What I have come to like about the Epson machine is the fact that I can obtain the desired tonal range and retain the smoothness or lack of grain in the skies and clouds, and then I finally finish off my image processing with sharpening ONLY the foreground. For me this is exactly what we see in nature; sharp detail at our feet, middle ground and distance and above

The top left scan is the finished image complete with dodging and burning. The 8-bit luminance values for all the scans are as follows

120 90
162 146
134

Overall therefore my judgment (made completely independently) was to darken the image. If the variation in tone is looked at (via the statistical standard deviation of the tone values) you can see that my dodged, final image has more contrast and variation as well - almost three times that of the flat scan and a little up on the other scans. This reflects what the eye can see in the final image, the sand is slightly darker, with more contrast and the whites of the clouds are set towards pure white.

the soft swaths of sky and cloud. I have never seen grain in a cloud before and this was something that for me made the Imacon fall to its knees! Maybe with careful alteration and adjustment at the scanning stage this issue could be remedied to some degree or maybe adding blur to the final image would work but from what I have experienced in both the PII and X5 it would certainly be a step backward. This considered, the sharpness of the foreground produced by the Imacon machines would be an added bonus and remove the need for excessive amounts of sharpening in Photoshop and certainly needed with a negative deriving from low acutance, finegrain developers.

It is worth considering that the very reason that many of my landscape photographer friends with Imacon scanners do not experience theses problems with their scans is probably attributed to the films they are using. Many landscape workers use extremely fine, slow transparency emulsions and often the superb, and very slow, Fuji Velvia 50 (soon to be reintroduced). The physical properties of this film are very much different from my 100 ISO Ilford Delta and, when scanned, do not pose the same problems at all. Another fact worth mentioning here is the speed at which the scanner can produce the scans.

In this test all the file sizes were the same with the Imacon x5 churning them out in 30 seconds, compared with the Epson, which took three and a half minutes. Being a traditionalist to a certain degree, this is of little importance to me - I can clearly recall spending an hour in the darkroom producing a good starting print with full tonal range, prior to adding the punch. I also feel we all need time to put the kettle on in this speedy world of today!

In conclusion then, all the machines performed very well and produced tonal renditions that I would not be disappointed with at all. The sharpness of the Imacon P II and X5 are the result of a more refined optical train than the Epson but for me I will be staying in the Epson camp for now with my fluffy skies as smooth as silk!

My Scanning Regime

All my 5x4 negatives are scanned after a clean with an air duster. I scan in 16-bit greyscale at a resolution of 2,000 ppi with the target size set to 'Original' and do not apply any sharpening at the scanning stage as I have found this to be slightly rudimentary. I preview the image at the largest size available and always make adjustments using curves to obtain full detail in the shadows and highlights. On average this gives me a final image size of about 128 megabytes, which can sometimes appear flat and uninteresting but with detail in both the shadows and highlight rendered in this original scan I have a full tonal range from which to work.

Berneray Image Adjustments

After in the initial scan, which delivered an even gradation of tones, the work on Photoshop was relatively simple. The top right sky area was selected using the lasso tool with a 250 pixel feather and then darkened, using curves. The curve was pushed slightly to darken the mid to dark greys and then the whites of the curve pulled back onto the original position (128 in 128 out) to return the whites of the clouds set against the dark sky. Contrast was increased in the foreground using curves (S-shaped) and the Lasso tool, with close consideration given to retaining the high values of the white sand without a 'bleached white' effect.

Finally the shadows were darkened in the marram grass to the right in the foreground, which served to strengthen the lead-in line of the image, drawing the eye along the beach.

While there is little to choose between the V750 and the Imacons for 5x4 monochrome work, the Imacon really shines for high-end colour transparency scanning, which is why it is so favoured by the top colour landscape photographers. This scan from a 6x6cm negative shows tremendous depth and sharpness in the original file.

Thanks are due to contributor, Paul McMullin and Leon Brittain at Calumet. Since they refurbished their store in Downing Street, Manchester, Calumet have been operating their new digital suite, which is available for hire. It offers a less expensive alternative to sending films away for scanning, with the speed of the Imacon X5 you can get through quite a number in an hour! Certainly if you are in the market for an Imacon it would pay to try-before-you-buy. Organise yourself correctly, and you should be able to earn enough for the down-payment from hiring the studio for an hour or two!



Updated 27/04/2026 16:44:22 Last Modified: Monday, 27 April 2026