Mixing
What was the Group f.64, and why were they important?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I've heard of the "Group f.64", and know that famous photographers Ansel Adams and Edward Weston were members. What was this group and why was it significant? What about members of the group other than those commonly-recognized names?
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, what is their impact today? Are there tenets of or lessons from this group that are important or useful for photography today even in the modern digital world?
history
asked 6 hours ago
mattdm
115k37335627
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I've heard of the "Group f.64", and know that famous photographers Ansel Adams and Edward Weston were members. What was this group and why was it significant? What about members of the group other than those commonly-recognized names?
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, what is their impact today? Are there tenets of or lessons from this group that are important or useful for photography today even in the modern digital world?
history
asked 6 hours ago
mattdm
115k37335627
Think about what f/64 means: a really tiny aperture, hence, huge depth of field.
– Pete Becker
5 hours ago
2
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, I had no idea Adams and Weston made bikini, Che Guevara, Bob Marley, or black light velveteen pot leaf posters. I really need to brush up on my photo history... =D
– scottbb
5 hours ago
1
Hmm... I'm trying to think... does this question show any research effort...? :)
– inkista
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I've heard of the "Group f.64", and know that famous photographers Ansel Adams and Edward Weston were members. What was this group and why was it significant? What about members of the group other than those commonly-recognized names?
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, what is their impact today? Are there tenets of or lessons from this group that are important or useful for photography today even in the modern digital world?
history
asked 6 hours ago
mattdm
115k37335627
I've heard of the "Group f.64", and know that famous photographers Ansel Adams and Edward Weston were members. What was this group and why was it significant? What about members of the group other than those commonly-recognized names?
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, what is their impact today? Are there tenets of or lessons from this group that are important or useful for photography today even in the modern digital world?
history
history
asked 6 hours ago
mattdm
115k37335627
asked 6 hours ago
mattdm
115k37335627
asked 6 hours ago
mattdm
115k37335627
asked 6 hours ago
mattdm
115k37335627
asked 6 hours ago
mattdm
115k37335627
115k37335627
Think about what f/64 means: a really tiny aperture, hence, huge depth of field.
– Pete Becker
5 hours ago
2
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, I had no idea Adams and Weston made bikini, Che Guevara, Bob Marley, or black light velveteen pot leaf posters. I really need to brush up on my photo history... =D
– scottbb
5 hours ago
1
Hmm... I'm trying to think... does this question show any research effort...? :)
– inkista
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Think about what f/64 means: a really tiny aperture, hence, huge depth of field.
– Pete Becker
5 hours ago
2
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, I had no idea Adams and Weston made bikini, Che Guevara, Bob Marley, or black light velveteen pot leaf posters. I really need to brush up on my photo history... =D
– scottbb
5 hours ago
1
Hmm... I'm trying to think... does this question show any research effort...? :)
– inkista
4 hours ago
Think about what f/64 means: a really tiny aperture, hence, huge depth of field.
– Pete Becker
5 hours ago
Think about what f/64 means: a really tiny aperture, hence, huge depth of field.
– Pete Becker
5 hours ago
2
2
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, I had no idea Adams and Weston made bikini, Che Guevara, Bob Marley, or black light velveteen pot leaf posters. I really need to brush up on my photo history... =D
– scottbb
5 hours ago
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, I had no idea Adams and Weston made bikini, Che Guevara, Bob Marley, or black light velveteen pot leaf posters. I really need to brush up on my photo history... =D
– scottbb
5 hours ago
1
1
Hmm... I'm trying to think... does this question show any research effort...? :)
– inkista
4 hours ago
Hmm... I'm trying to think... does this question show any research effort...? :)
– inkista
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The f.64 group was founded by Ansel Adams and his peers in the early 1930s. The group promoted the art of the "clearness and definition of the photographic image", with photos of sharply-focused on and carefully framed images showing actual fine detail (portraying reality) as opposed to the then popular pictorialist style, as for example, imitating artist brush paintings.
Stopping down to f/64 for better depth of field was one of their approaches, however, realize that to maximize detail, they were generally using large view cameras, perhaps like Ansel Adams using 8x10 inch sheet film, requiring corresponding longer lenses like perhaps 300 mm (or longer) as a normal lens.
Because of diffraction, one side effect was an old rule of thumb to NOT exceed a f/stop greater than focal length / 4. Those old limits compute as:
600 mm f/150
300 mm f/75
200 mm f/50
100 mm f/25
50 mm f/12.5
24 mm f/6
12 mm f/3
Still not a bad plan for routine work (although it does not take sensor size or print enlargement into account, but both are fundamentally important to depth of field), however today, we do realize that in some cases, the greater depth of field can often benefit much more than losses of diffraction can hurt, so this old rule disappeared. We no longer hear it said that way.
So things are bit different today with the tiny digital sensors requiring a very short focal length (like 3 mm on a phone camera). F/64 would not often be a proper idea with todays small cameras.
answered 4 hours ago
WayneF
8,7851923
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The f.64 group was founded by Ansel Adams and his peers in the early 1930s. The group promoted the art of the "clearness and definition of the photographic image", with photos of sharply-focused on and carefully framed images showing actual fine detail (portraying reality) as opposed to the then popular pictorialist style, as for example, imitating artist brush paintings.
Stopping down to f/64 for better depth of field was one of their approaches, however, realize that to maximize detail, they were generally using large view cameras, perhaps like Ansel Adams using 8x10 inch sheet film, requiring corresponding longer lenses like perhaps 300 mm (or longer) as a normal lens.
Because of diffraction, one side effect was an old rule of thumb to NOT exceed a f/stop greater than focal length / 4. Those old limits compute as:
600 mm f/150
300 mm f/75
200 mm f/50
100 mm f/25
50 mm f/12.5
24 mm f/6
12 mm f/3
Still not a bad plan for routine work (although it does not take sensor size or print enlargement into account, but both are fundamentally important to depth of field), however today, we do realize that in some cases, the greater depth of field can often benefit much more than losses of diffraction can hurt, so this old rule disappeared. We no longer hear it said that way.
So things are bit different today with the tiny digital sensors requiring a very short focal length (like 3 mm on a phone camera). F/64 would not often be a proper idea with todays small cameras.
answered 4 hours ago
WayneF
8,7851923
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The f.64 group was founded by Ansel Adams and his peers in the early 1930s. The group promoted the art of the "clearness and definition of the photographic image", with photos of sharply-focused on and carefully framed images showing actual fine detail (portraying reality) as opposed to the then popular pictorialist style, as for example, imitating artist brush paintings.
Stopping down to f/64 for better depth of field was one of their approaches, however, realize that to maximize detail, they were generally using large view cameras, perhaps like Ansel Adams using 8x10 inch sheet film, requiring corresponding longer lenses like perhaps 300 mm (or longer) as a normal lens.
Because of diffraction, one side effect was an old rule of thumb to NOT exceed a f/stop greater than focal length / 4. Those old limits compute as:
600 mm f/150
300 mm f/75
200 mm f/50
100 mm f/25
50 mm f/12.5
24 mm f/6
12 mm f/3
Still not a bad plan for routine work (although it does not take sensor size or print enlargement into account, but both are fundamentally important to depth of field), however today, we do realize that in some cases, the greater depth of field can often benefit much more than losses of diffraction can hurt, so this old rule disappeared. We no longer hear it said that way.
So things are bit different today with the tiny digital sensors requiring a very short focal length (like 3 mm on a phone camera). F/64 would not often be a proper idea with todays small cameras.
answered 4 hours ago
WayneF
8,7851923
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The f.64 group was founded by Ansel Adams and his peers in the early 1930s. The group promoted the art of the "clearness and definition of the photographic image", with photos of sharply-focused on and carefully framed images showing actual fine detail (portraying reality) as opposed to the then popular pictorialist style, as for example, imitating artist brush paintings.
Stopping down to f/64 for better depth of field was one of their approaches, however, realize that to maximize detail, they were generally using large view cameras, perhaps like Ansel Adams using 8x10 inch sheet film, requiring corresponding longer lenses like perhaps 300 mm (or longer) as a normal lens.
Because of diffraction, one side effect was an old rule of thumb to NOT exceed a f/stop greater than focal length / 4. Those old limits compute as:
600 mm f/150
300 mm f/75
200 mm f/50
100 mm f/25
50 mm f/12.5
24 mm f/6
12 mm f/3
Still not a bad plan for routine work (although it does not take sensor size or print enlargement into account, but both are fundamentally important to depth of field), however today, we do realize that in some cases, the greater depth of field can often benefit much more than losses of diffraction can hurt, so this old rule disappeared. We no longer hear it said that way.
So things are bit different today with the tiny digital sensors requiring a very short focal length (like 3 mm on a phone camera). F/64 would not often be a proper idea with todays small cameras.
answered 4 hours ago
WayneF
8,7851923
The f.64 group was founded by Ansel Adams and his peers in the early 1930s. The group promoted the art of the "clearness and definition of the photographic image", with photos of sharply-focused on and carefully framed images showing actual fine detail (portraying reality) as opposed to the then popular pictorialist style, as for example, imitating artist brush paintings.
Stopping down to f/64 for better depth of field was one of their approaches, however, realize that to maximize detail, they were generally using large view cameras, perhaps like Ansel Adams using 8x10 inch sheet film, requiring corresponding longer lenses like perhaps 300 mm (or longer) as a normal lens.
Because of diffraction, one side effect was an old rule of thumb to NOT exceed a f/stop greater than focal length / 4. Those old limits compute as:
600 mm f/150
300 mm f/75
200 mm f/50
100 mm f/25
50 mm f/12.5
24 mm f/6
12 mm f/3
Still not a bad plan for routine work (although it does not take sensor size or print enlargement into account, but both are fundamentally important to depth of field), however today, we do realize that in some cases, the greater depth of field can often benefit much more than losses of diffraction can hurt, so this old rule disappeared. We no longer hear it said that way.
So things are bit different today with the tiny digital sensors requiring a very short focal length (like 3 mm on a phone camera). F/64 would not often be a proper idea with todays small cameras.
answered 4 hours ago
WayneF
8,7851923
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
WayneF
8,7851923
answered 4 hours ago
WayneF
8,7851923
answered 4 hours ago
WayneF
8,7851923
8,7851923
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f101476%2fwhat-was-the-group-f-64-and-why-were-they-important%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Think about what f/64 means: a really tiny aperture, hence, huge depth of field.
– Pete Becker
5 hours ago
2
Beyond print sales for college dorm rooms, I had no idea Adams and Weston made bikini, Che Guevara, Bob Marley, or black light velveteen pot leaf posters. I really need to brush up on my photo history... =D
– scottbb
5 hours ago
1
Hmm... I'm trying to think... does this question show any research effort...? :)
– inkista
4 hours ago