Author Topic: HARMAN TiTAN results (Read 10019 times)

LT · « **on:** November 18, 2011, 09:20:51 AM »

Further to the podcast review, I thought I'd post up my Harman TiTAN pinhole results and a few thoughts:

The first few are on Ilford Delta 100 (rated at ei 50)

And this last one is on the Harman Direct Positive paper (pre-flashed to zone 1). By the contrast, I over exposed it (i thought I was still using the delta 100 and added on reciprocity adjustments), and maybe it needed a longer pre-flash - zones 2 or 3 ...

Main Points .....

The camera is well constructed and fits together with no issues
Exposing the film is carried by removing the lens cap - maybe a shutter mechanism would have been nice. but it's not a big problem
the focal length is V-E-R-Y wide
the image in incredibly sharp - I had a 5x7 pinhole for a while that had a supplementary meniscus lens, and that was not as sharp as the HARMAN TiTAN
it is light, yet sturdy, and allows a LF kit (camera and 8 DDS) to fit easily in a shoulder bag/ satchel
I was disappointed in having to construct the 'exposure calculator' myself when other companies supply a metal equivalent with their pinhole cameras
the price is high, but it includes a fair amount of film and paper to get you started

Overall, I loved it and will be using it a lot. I've already got quite a few ideas for projects to use it with.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #1 on:** November 18, 2011, 09:43:06 AM »

Wow. Those images are quite sharp! I really enjoy the meditative aspect of pinhole photography but the lack of sharpness has been a problem for me ... Oh, I really should develop my rolls from the Holga WPC to see if I can get along with that one.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2011, 11:22:32 AM »

4x5 pinhole will likely appear sharp when reduced to screen size, and that is assuredly a plus point in my view. The first three seem to show this best, especially that blobby of foam in the foreground. V. nice.

That width doesn't come out as a disadvantage either. There's no sense of unnatural distortion around the edges of the frame, and all in all the perspective looks just right. Might be different with an intense close up, but I suspect it would carry that off equally well.

LT · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2011, 11:25:22 AM »

Sandeha - it looks as sharp when printed also.

Late Developer · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2011, 01:14:10 PM »

Warning........potentially stupid question below........

Is sharp a good thing or a bad thing with pinhole? Sharp enough to recognise what it is and render some detail seems to be the norm but if it's too sharp, does that detract from the desired effect?

PS - lovely photos BTW. 2nd from bottom is my fave.

f6point3 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2011, 01:35:01 PM »

Really nice, Leon! I did a google image search to see pics of this camera, and it's mighty classy-looking.

As for your images, my favorite is the 4th one down, that curvy shadow of the ladder adds a bit of whimsy to an otherwise straight-forward shot.

I've got very little pinhole experience but it's on my list to construct one that shoots 120 film.

LT · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2011, 02:05:49 PM »

Quote from: Late Developer on November 18, 2011, 01:14:10 PM

Warning........potentially stupid question below........

Is sharp a good thing or a bad thing with pinhole? Sharp enough to recognise what it is and render some detail seems to be the norm but if it's too sharp, does that detract from the desired effect?

PS - lovely photos BTW. 2nd from bottom is my fave.

I guess that all depends on what you want?

gary m · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2011, 03:02:17 PM »

Looks like a great camera. The ladder shot is top notch.

Miles · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2011, 03:32:22 PM »

Great results.

I'm conviced.

Locally produced.

Uses Film.

Thanks Leon.

mickld · « **Reply #9 on:** November 18, 2011, 03:38:08 PM »

Those samples look lovely & sharp, which was what I was hoping for.

Do you think it's possible to fit a 6x7 roll film holder to the back of one of these? I know polaroid backs can't be fitted.

6x7 is the largest size I can enlarge with in the darkroom, plus it will make the wide angle less extreme.

LT · « **Reply #10 on:** November 18, 2011, 03:52:20 PM »

good point Mick ... I'm not sure. Provided the holders are the same thickness as a fidelity type DDS film holder at the edges, then it is likely to fit. I've only got RFH's for 6x9 view cams so don't have a 4x5 size one to try.

You can always do contact prints?

mickld · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2011, 04:00:27 PM »

Contacts prints (and scans) would definitely be an option. I'm keen to dabble with 4x5, but having the flexibility to use 6x7 on the same camera would be a nice extra.

mickld · « **Reply #12 on:** November 18, 2011, 04:10:50 PM »

I also noticed that for those of us in the UK, ag-photographic sell packs of 50 4x5 fomapan 100 for £27, compared to Ilfords £36 for 25 4x5 sheets. Don't know how the quality compares, but for pinhole work, the fomapan at around 50p per shot makes it reasonably affordable to experiment with.

I think I'm talking myself into a purchase here.

moominsean · « **Reply #13 on:** November 18, 2011, 04:18:11 PM »

always thought that pinhole cameras are kind of funny. seems like basically you are mostly paying for style, as anything that will hold film can have a pinhole on it and the results should be about the same as long as the pinhole is drilled correctly.

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #14 on:** November 18, 2011, 07:04:09 PM »

Lovely results, Leon.

Tempting!

edthened · « **Reply #15 on:** November 19, 2011, 02:38:45 AM »

Och Leon, a think rat oll rem fotis look awfie grand tae mee, so ther

artobest · « **Reply #16 on:** November 20, 2011, 02:36:26 PM »

Great review and lovely images, thanks! I wonder about a couple of things: do you think the camera is a little, well, overpriced? Around £30 would seem fairer to me, without the paper and film.

Also, those shots look sharp! I've seen a lot of Zero pics on Flickr, but none look as beautifully sharp and free of distortion and vignetting as this, even accounting for screen shrinkage. This throws me into a quandry, as I was thinking seriously of coughing up for a Zero. Is there any chance that you might perhaps post something a bit larger?

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #17 on:** November 20, 2011, 02:52:53 PM »

Leon

With the exposure calculator do you have to correct for reciprocity failure of the film?

Thanks

Mike

LT · « **Reply #18 on:** November 20, 2011, 04:14:40 PM »

@artobest - I've uploaded a high res version here :

@Mike - yes - you still need to apply reciprocity after using the exposure calculator.

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2011, 04:57:52 PM »

Thanks Leon

Mike

artobest · « **Reply #20 on:** November 20, 2011, 05:13:03 PM »

Thanks very much. It holds up well at the larger size - objectively speaking, resolution is not too far off 35mm. Very impressive for a box with a hole.

Nice photo too, by the way. One thing that might be nice to help justify the price tag is framing dots on the body for the different focal lengths.

Francois · « **Reply #21 on:** November 20, 2011, 08:49:45 PM »

Or just make or get a viewfinder for a 19mm lens (for 35mm)... it's about the same viewing angle.

artobest · « **Reply #22 on:** November 20, 2011, 08:58:14 PM »

Maybe, but this thing costs £150, without a film back. Some framing dots could be added for little or no extra cost to the manufacturer.

damiand · « **Reply #23 on:** November 21, 2011, 11:24:49 AM »

Leon great pictures and camera as well. I like this on harman paper a little bit contrasty but have great mood

.

Roger Thoms · « **Reply #24 on:** November 24, 2011, 03:10:48 AM »

Nice images, just committed to buy a Titan from Rob at Big Camera Workshops in Canada. Hopefully they will arrive in a week or two. Thanks for posting, just the push I needed.

Roger