HARMAN TiTAN 10 x 8

[Bob Carnie]

When are the 8x10 Titans ready to ship??

 

[Bertil]

About 8x10 and 4x5 in view of 5x7
Things could have been different!

The main virtues of LF compared to 35 and middle format are cameras with movements and high picture quality. 8x10 quite expensive and clumsy to work with compared to alternatives like 5x7 and 4x5; thus few cared to work with 8x10. Now, 4x5 ok to work with, but middle format cameras (normally without movements) much easier to work with, and cheaper, and picture quality not very much worse than 4x5; thus few cared about 4x5 compared to middle format and in view of a better LF alternative: 5x7 have movements and potential for extremely high picture quality, not as expensive and clumsy as 8x10 and roughly as easy to work with as 4x5. Thus, most LF fans choose to work with 5x7, lots of equipment and film available and 5x7 enlargers not very expensive and not very hard to get!
So, why aren’t things different?

Summicron1 and Roger Cole may be right in their analysis: (in free interpretation) things aren’t different due to historical coincidence, and given that things are as they are, not enough incentives to change.

For some reason 5x7 seems to be, or has been, more popular in Europe than in US; and AFAIK only European companies make 5x7 film today (Ilford, Foma, Adox/Efke). The popularity of 8x10 in US is perhaps due to American photographic icons like Adams, Weston, Evens et al (?))

/Bertil

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Kodak makes 5x7 Tri-X, Bertil. But at 2X the price of HP5+, which supports your notion that 5x7 is less popular than 4x5 and 8x10 here in the United States.
I was not aware that 5x7 was a more popular format in Europe. That's interesting.

About 8x10 and 4x5 in view of 5x7
Things could have been different!

The main virtues of LF compared to 35 and middle format are cameras with movements and high picture quality. 8x10 quite expensive and clumsy to work with compared to alternatives like 5x7 and 4x5; thus few cared to work with 8x10. Now, 4x5 ok to work with, but middle format cameras (normally without movements) much easier to work with, and cheaper, and picture quality not very much worse than 4x5; thus few cared about 4x5 compared to middle format and in view of a better LF alternative: 5x7 have movements and potential for extremely high picture quality, not as expensive and clumsy as 8x10 and roughly as easy to work with as 4x5. Thus, most LF fans choose to work with 5x7, lots of equipment and film available and 5x7 enlargers not very expensive and not very hard to get!
So, why aren’t things different?

Summicron1 and Roger Cole may be right in their analysis: (in free interpretation) things aren’t different due to historical coincidence, and given that things are as they are, not enough incentives to change.

For some reason 5x7 seems to be, or has been, more popular in Europe than in US; and AFAIK only European companies make 5x7 film today (Ilford, Foma, Adox/Efke). The popularity of 8x10 in US is perhaps due to American photographic icons like Adams, Weston, Evens et al (?))

/Bertil

 

[Roger Cole]

The thing that held me back from getting or making a pinhole camera is the lack of sharpness. Most of the pinhole pics I've seen are just soft. I know that's part of the appeal but it's a level of softness that I think detracts from most images rather than enhances them. I'm not a Leica-type stickler for sharpness -I use a 1924 lens from a folding camera on my Rollei SL66 - but there surely has to be a minimum level of sharpness. Is a 10x8 pinhole camera likely to provide greater sharpness than smaller formats and, if so, what is it equivalent to? How would it compare to, say, a 400 ISO 35mm negative enlarged to 10x8?

The size of the pinhole has some effect on that but you'll never get it truly sharp. If that bothers you but you want to work in large format, just get a regular large format camera and cheap lens. It needn't cost much at all these days. Of course you CAN spend money on a brand new Ebony, or even a new Linhof (if you're insane - Linhofs are built like tanks, get a 20-30 year old one for less than half the price and never know the difference. My 1957 one is definitely a "user" and has things to work around, but is still quite usable.) A lens can cost a hundred bucks or less. You can probably get a usable 4x5 outfit used for less than these Titan 8x10s new.

 

[summicron1]

Some sharpness is nice, some is not -- I have a ZeroImage 2000 that gives me really nice images that are actually pretty sharp, but soft in a pleasing sort of way. This is in a 10 by 10 inch enlargement.

A lot depends on whether the pinhole is really round and also whether the pinhole is the right size for the lens/film distance you are using. Too small a pinhole gives you distortion, too large and you get too fuzzy. It can get quite complex if you let it. The image itself can also sometimes look sharper just because of what sort of image it is.

 

[Bertil]

Kodak makes 5x7 Tri-X, Bertil. But at 2X the price of HP5+, which supports your notion that 5x7 is less popular than 4x5 and 8x10 here in the United States.
I was not aware that 5x7 was a more popular format in Europe. That's interesting.

Thanks Thomas, didn't know that Tri-x was available in 5x7, nice!.
About 5x7 more popular in Europe; it may perhaps be somewhat exaggerated, perhaps not based on very good evidence, but it's an impression I have at least.
/Bertil

 

[Film Guerilla]

Hi Simon,

Would this be available in middleast?

How much would this cost? Just wondering since i just discovered ilford distributor in Iran. I wonder if they could bring this here and those direct positive papers.

I tried contacting them but to no avail. Maybe i should try sending email again.

Thanks

Dear All,

A bit of an update. The 10 x 8 is born.....

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/pressroom/

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Tenderobject :

Our Iranian distributor cannot import goods from the UK at this time, widely available elsewhere though.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[arealitystudios]

Wow...very cool!

I admit this is going to be very tempting for me once it becomes available. Contact prints off an 8x10 negative are quite lovely!

I was just using my 4x5 TiTAN this past weekend. I've been really into pinhole photography for many years and I'm not going deny I had some reservations about "buying" a pinhole camera. It kind of seemed a little wrong somehow as designing your own camera is part of the appeal of pinhole photography.

That being said, I love my TiTAN and I got over my initial reservations pretty darn quickly. It is light weight and yet very durable, which means I can save a lot of room and weight for more 4x5 backs loaded with film!

 

[Bob Carnie]

When are these units available to order, and is there a price??

 

[Film Guerilla]

Oh really? That was too bad! How come i could still find Ilford Films here expiration date is 2015 although it's limited?

Dear Tenderobject :

Our Iranian distributor cannot import goods from the UK at this time, widely available elsewhere though.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[NB23]

I want one!!

When will it be available?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

5x7 is my format. I'm kind of sad to see it moving to extinction.

Also: Harman Direct Positive + Titan 8x10 = OMG WANT. That is all.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The thing that held me back from getting or making a pinhole camera is the lack of sharpness. Most of the pinhole pics I've seen are just soft. I know that's part of the appeal but it's a level of softness that I think detracts from most images rather than enhances them. I'm not a Leica-type stickler for sharpness -I use a 1924 lens from a folding camera on my Rollei SL66 - but there surely has to be a minimum level of sharpness. Is a 10x8 pinhole camera likely to provide greater sharpness than smaller formats and, if so, what is it equivalent to? How would it compare to, say, a 400 ISO 35mm negative enlarged to 10x8?

You need to clue up on pinhole photography. Pinhole cameras do not and never will need sharpness. Of course they are soft and out of focus, but you'll see the majority of pinhole cameras have excellent definition, and that's what's important — the forming of a lucid image devoid of technical refinement.

If you want to see sharpness, have a look at a 5x4, 6x6, 6x7, 6x17 or 8x10 image from a traditional camera; any one of which could be enlarged to 81cm+++, or to the limit of the enlarger/printer — and 35mm really doesn't count when you are serious about being s h a r p. But when talking about pinhole cameras — and these cameras in all their simplicity and lack of refinement, have a beauty that is all their own, don't compare the results with those from modern cameras; the ancient scripture of pinhole photography doesn't need the negativity: it's been proven since Da Vinci's time.

 

[munz6869]

Yesterday I was feeling kind of crappy, but still felt like a walk outdoors in the sunshine for some vitamin D and fresh air, etc. So I took my Harman Titan 5x4" a 22 minute walk from home to (coordinates) -37.831283,145.012088, to photograph the new artificial wetlands that Parks Victoria/Melbourne Water have established in this little strip of land.

I have to say, with the Titan, a PocketSpot meter, tripod and a couple of film holders - it made for one (comparatively) lightweight Large Format kit - which meant I could still get out an about and be self-satisfyingly creative, even though I was feeling horrid. That camera weighs nothing!!

Marc!

 

[sly]

Waiting with bated breath for them to be available in Canada. I hope to have one tested and ready for lots of use by my first camping trip of the spring.

 

[TheToadMen]

UPDATE:
The new 8x10" Titan has arrived!!
See:
http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl/2013/03/finally-new-harman-titan-8x10-inch.html
and
http://www.apug.org/forums/groups/pinhole-photography-cameras-d1713-new-harman-titan-8x10-inch-pinhole-camera-out-march-4th-2013.html#gmessage12493
and
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(= original post of bringer of good news & maker of test film: Leon Taylor)