New Mary Alinder book on Group f/64

[Darin Boville]

http://www.amazon.com/Group-f-64-Cunningham-Revolutionized-Photography/dp/1620405555/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414048642&sr=1-1&keywords=stieglitz+alfred

Stumbled across it while pre-ordering the new Paul Strand book (anyone see this one yet--it's available in Philly at the museum, apparently).

Alinder's bio of Ansel was excellent and is one of the only people from the Ansel inner circle who is not putting out crap just to make a buck.

Should be interesting.

--Darin

[Jon Shiu]

Great, have been waiting for the book for a few years. I wonder if they will have it at the Alinder Gallery, which is not too far from me.

Jon

[Doug Howk]

I just now pre-ordered the Allinder book.
But what is the new Paul Strand book?

[Darin Boville]

I just now pre-ordered the Allinder book.
But what is the new Paul Strand book?

It's the catalog for a new show in Philly (hopefully traveling): http://www.amazon.com/dp/0300207921/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=GDB6SU5MUQ5X&coliid=I1MD37FFRKUCY3

Also a new book on Aaron Siskand: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0292762917/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=GDB6SU5MUQ5X&coliid=I2R2FNFZWHBY02

Quite a straight photography bonanza this year (with the Watkins exhibit and the Bullock show, Minor White...I forget who else!)

--Darin

[Jon Shiu]

There is a talk today, Sat. Nov. 8th at 1pm in Oakland:
http://oaklandlibrary.org/events/temescal-branch/mary-street-alinder-group-f64-note-time-change

Also, Book Passage, Corte Madera, Nov. 8, 4pm.

Jan. 14, 2015 7.30pm @ Keplers in Menlo Park.

Jon

[Bill_1856]

I found the new Paul Strand book disappointing. Hope for better from Alinder -- her AA bio was good.

[Doug Howk]

Received the Alinder book yesterday, and am about 1/3 thru it. A very good read.
Also received the Strand book and was not disappointed. Two of the essays were excellent, and the reproductions were very good. But to each his own.

[Darin Boville]

I found the new Paul Strand book disappointing.

My Amazon box was snatched away as a Christmas gift....what did you not like about the Strand book?

-Darin

(Also lost the Alinder book in the same fashion...)

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'll have to check it out. Thank you. I did quite enjoy her bio on AA.

[Bill Burk]

Thanks guys - timing was perfect. If you hadn't posted this just when you did I would have missed it.

I went and had a great time!

Mary gave a wonderful presentation! She talked about Stieglitz' pictorialism in New York as backdrop for the isolated West Coast photographers who struggled for recognition and who socialized in Oakland, the birthplace of Group f.64

Because they were all writers, the men in Group f.64 are best understood. Mary explained that with this book she is giving a voice to the women, who were as much a part of the movement, but because they were more visual, we haven't read as much of their views... I'm looking forward to this.

She gave illustrations from pictorialism and joked about Ansel Adam's striking her down with lightning for appreciating Mortensen's "Human Relations". She followed her talk with a pair of photographs from each member, accompanied by Ansel Adams music.

I knew she had to make a quick exit, because I heard she had "booked passage." I imagined she was about to head to sea (because among her illustrations was Stieglitz's " The Steerage"), and we only got a brief chance to talk. (Now I see that means she had to be in Corte Madera by 4).

I talked with another photographer for as long as we both could stand, before we both had to head home...

[Merg Ross]

Thanks guys - timing was perfect. If you hadn't posted this just when you did I would have missed it.

I went and had a great time!

Mary gave a wonderful presentation! She talked about Stieglitz' pictorialism in New York as backdrop for the isolated West Coast photographers who struggled for recognition and who socialized in Oakland, the birthplace of Group f.64

Because they were all writers, the men in Group f.64 are best understood. Mary explained that with this book she is giving a voice to the women, who were as much a part of the movement, but because they were more visual, we haven't read as much of their views... I'm looking forward to this.

She gave illustrations from pictorialism and joked about Ansel Adam's striking her down with lightning for appreciating Mortensen's "Human Relations". She followed her talk with a pair of photographs from each member, accompanied by Ansel Adams music.

I knew she had to make a quick exit, because I heard she had "booked passage." I imagined she was about to head to sea (because among her illustrations was Stieglitz's " The Steerage"), and we only got a brief chance to talk. (Now I see that means she had to be in Corte Madera by 4).

I talked with another photographer for as long as we both could stand, before we both had to head home...

Thanks for the report. Wish I had heard earlier! I arrived at 2:30 to an empty house. Was there a good turnout?

[Bill Burk]

Thanks for the report. Wish I had heard earlier! I arrived at 2:30 to an empty house. Was there a good turnout?

Just a few people... I would have enjoyed running into more people, but enjoyed the intimate gathering.

[Bill_1856]

My Amazon box was snatched away as a Christmas gift....what did you not like about the Strand book?

Dark, muddy reproductions of the images compared to other books I have (most specifically the comprehansive Duotone printing by Aperture in 1968). And I found the essays too much about the editors who were making the book and not much about Strand.
I returned it to Amazon, which is something that I seldom do.
My favorite of all photography books is Strand/Newhouse "Time in New England."

[richardman]

Has to pick up daughter from hospital and saw the notice too late anyway :-/

BTW, for people who are interested in the "small format" stuff, Stanford is currently having a show on Robert Frank. A lot of photos from "The American" periods, although not too many images from the book per se.

[Darin Boville]

BTW, for people who are interested in the "small format" stuff, Stanford is currently having a show on Robert Frank. A lot of photos from "The American" periods, although not too many images from the book per se.

Saw the show and bought the catalogue. The Cantor is having an amazing run of excellent shows--all from their own collection!


--Darin

[Merg Ross]

There is an excellent publication on Group f/64 published in 1992 to accompany an exhibition organized by the Oakland Museum. It is titled "Seeing Straight". All 80 photographs from the 1932 M.H. deYoung Museum exhibition are beautifully reproduced. The text is informative and also includes an essay by Mary. If you can find a used copy I highly recommend purchase. Don't be put-off by the fact that it is only available in paperback.

[Jon Shiu]

Nov. 16th, 4pm, San Francisco Art Institute:
http://www.sfai.edu/events-calendar/detail/concentrate-annual-artist-sale

Jon

[William Whitaker]

There is an excellent publication on Group f/64 published in 1992 to accompany an exhibition organized by the Oakland Museum. It is titled "Seeing Straight". All 80 photographs from the 1932 M.H. deYoung Museum exhibition are beautifully reproduced. The text is informative and also includes an essay by Mary. If you can find a used copy I highly recommend purchase. Don't be put-off by the fact that it is only available in paperback.

+1. Excellent book.

Darin - thanks for the thread. I have too many books and yet never enough.

[Andrew O'Neill]

It would be fantastic if Mary could come up here for a talk… at least to Seattle. I'd make the trip down.

[Darin Boville]

There is an excellent publication on Group f/64 published in 1992 to accompany an exhibition organized by the Oakland Museum. It is titled "Seeing Straight". All 80 photographs from the 1932 M.H. deYoung Museum exhibition are beautifully reproduced. The text is informative and also includes an essay by Mary. If you can find a used copy I highly recommend purchase. Don't be put-off by the fact that it is only available in paperback.

I'm always amazed at how lucky I've been with photography shows, having never lived in NYC or LA. This show traveled to my hometown of Akron, Ohio just a few years before I moved away. Thought it sounded familiar.

Ordered the book--$25 used in good condition.

--Darin

[Merg Ross]

I'm always amazed at how lucky I've been with photography shows, having never lived in NYC or LA. This show traveled to my hometown of Akron, Ohio just a few years before I moved away. Thought it sounded familiar.

Ordered the book--$25 used in good condition.

--Darin

Great, I think you will like the book! I believe The Akron Art Museum was first stop for the exhibition after it left Oakland (early '93).

[Bill_1856]

Merg, do you ever have anything bad to say about ANYBODY? Your posts are always so gentle, and so helpful.
Thank you.

[Merg Ross]

Further to this discussion, since there appears to be an on-going interest in the Group f/64, this link to the University of California Press might be of interest. Most all of this material exists in other sources.

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5p30070c&chunk.id=d0e7124&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e6989&brand=ucpress

[Merg Ross]

Merg, do you ever have anything bad to say about ANYBODY? Your posts are always so gentle, and so helpful.
Thank you.

Bill, thanks for the kind words. When the topic is photography, I do attempt to keep my opinions to myself and perhaps help in a positive way. However, make no mistake, I have strong concerns about where photography appears to be heading and of those directing. I have less and less respect for the present crop of museum directors and curators when I consider those I knew in the 1950's and 60's. But that is a another story.

This thread I find of interest because I knew a few of the participants in the Group f/64, Edward, Imogen, Brett, Ansel and Peter. Henry Swift was a close family friend and somewhat forgotten in discussions of the Group f/64, perhaps because he took a different road in life, but was an important member early in their formation.

By the way, I agree with you about Strand's book, Time in New England, one of my favorites.

[Sal Santamaura]

My Amazon box was snatched away as a Christmas gift....what did you not like about the Strand book?...


Dark, muddy reproductions of the images...They must have been trying match those images to the way they look under current, dungeon-like museum lighting. :)

Bill, it seems you posted the single Amazon review of that book:


"The images are printed somewhat darkly..."

:D:D

[Bill_1856]

They must have been trying match those images to the way they look under current, dungeon-like museum lighting. :)

Sal, not surprisingly, that's the exact idea which ran through my mind.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ordered it!

[Bill Burk]

Ordered it!

I'm still reading... saw your post on APUG, safe travels Andrew!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks, Bill!

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Only problem I see with it is that she wasn't there while it was happening. So its going to be all interpretation of what other people who were there say.

[Tin Can]

There is an excellent publication on Group f/64 published in 1992 to accompany an exhibition organized by the Oakland Museum. It is titled "Seeing Straight". All 80 photographs from the 1932 M.H. deYoung Museum exhibition are beautifully reproduced. The text is informative and also includes an essay by Mary. If you can find a used copy I highly recommend purchase. Don't be put-off by the fact that it is only available in paperback.

I also ordered a $25 delivered paperback.

Thanks for the tip, Merg!

[Bill Burk]

Only problem I see with it is that she wasn't there while it was happening. So its going to be all interpretation of what other people who were there say.

Lots and lots of footnotes. Her interpretations are reasoned and supported by researched facts. For example, Ansel Adams' disparaging reviews of Moholy-Nagy and Willard Van Dyke were never published. She wrote "Had Ansel published the review, it might have destroyed all possibility of friendship with Willard..."

[Merg Ross]

I also ordered a $25 delivered paperback.

Thanks for the tip, Merg!

Randy, my pleasure.

It is an excellent chronicle of events and persons. I am interested to read what new information Mary has provided. Her book arrives today.

[h2oman]

I also purchased "Seeing Straight," and have been enjoying it.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Mr. Ross

Still waiting for your book of all of your knowledge!

[h2oman]

Mr. Ross

Still waiting for your book of all of your knowledge!

And photos!

[Merg Ross]

I finished reading Mary's book today. With poetic license and negligible errors and omissions, she gives a good account of the goals and influence of Group f.64. Utilizing the plethora of available related material, she cleverly weaves a story to support her conclusions. I enjoyed the book, a pleasure perhaps enhanced by personal association and experiences with more than a dozen of the characters (and characters they were)! A thumbs up to Mary! And a salute to Ansel, Stieglitz and Mortensen, without whom Group f.64 would not have achieved such importance.

[Merg Ross]

Mr. Ross

Still waiting for your book of all of your knowledge!

Kevin, I appreciate the thought. Last month I completed a 40,000 word autobiography of my life in photography. I made copies for our children, but have no plans for publication.

Regards,
Merg

[Darin Boville]

Kevin, I appreciate the thought. Last month I completed a 40,000 word autobiography of my life in photography. I made copies for our children, but have no plans for publication.

Regards,
Merg

That's why they invented the Internet! Not to mention Blurb. Cut out the really private stuff and post it! :)

Darin

[Doug Howk]

Just need a catchy title, something like West Coast Photography: an Insider's View.
From a historian's viewpoint, it would be an invaluable primary source for the period when photography was becoming respected as another art form.

[Larry Kellogg]

Thanks for the tip, I ordered a copy. Her work on Ansel's Autobiography convinced me to give this a try.

[Keith Fleming]

I sure would like to read Merg's autobiography, and I am speaking as a large format photographer who happens to have a PhD in history. It would be a major contribution to the history of West Coast photography. And, yes, lots of photos please!

Keith

[Andrew O'Neill]

My copy arrived a few weeks ago. I haven't looked at it yet. Saving it for the flight to Japan.

[adelorenzo]

I read it recently and really enjoyed it. All of the photographers were interesting but for me I felt like Edward Weston definitely stole the show. I didn't know much about him other than his photographs and reading the book was worth it just for that. After reading the book I watched Willard Van Dyke's Edward Weston, Photographer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sF8K1NfHnM) which I really enjoyed and Beaumont Newhall's Ansel Adams, Photographer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-BhJQqHXfQ) which I found boring and hard to watch. But both films had big connections to the Group F/64.

[Tin Can]

I read it recently and really enjoyed it. All of the photographers were interesting but for me I felt like Edward Weston definitely stole the show. I didn't know much about him other than his photographs and reading the book was worth it just for that. After reading the book I watched Willard Van Dyke's Edward Weston, Photographer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sF8K1NfHnM) which I really enjoyed and Beaumont Newhall's Ansel Adams, Photographer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-BhJQqHXfQ) which I found boring and hard to watch. But both films had big connections to the Group F/64.

Thanks for those links.

I am also saving my copy for a quiet time.

I am buying too many books! Which I never say.

[Darin Boville]

Well! I didn't even know I had my post deleted--my first delete, I think!

Summary: Finished the book. Thought it was great. You should buy it: http://www.amazon.com/Group-f-64-Cunningham-Revolutionized-Photography/dp/1620405555

You should buy it especially if you are frustrated with the Ansel Adams Publishing Trust and the self-serving crap they put out, actively discouraging any real scholarship on Ansel. A breath of fresh air.

--Darin

[Bruce Barlow]

I'm most of the way through it, and enjoying it thoroughly. Best photography book I've read in a long time.

I'm waiting for my own version of Charis Wilson to come knock on my door. Breath held, face purple.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I loved it!

[Larry Kellogg]

It's terrific, I'm eighty pages in. Long live straight photography. It's interesting how Pictorialism is rearing its ugly head once again.

[Merg Ross]

Scott Nichols reminded me that the exhibition at his gallery honoring Group f/64 ends on Saturday, February 28, 2015. Also,check out his recent acquisitions and upcoming exhibitions.

Everyone finished reading Mary's book?


http://www.scottnicholsgallery.com/exhibitions/current-exhibitions/

[tgtaylor]

I've been through it with a fine tooth comb and am in the process of re-reading it. It was a real eye opener for me and one of the best photography books that I have read. I'm glad that it was mostly words on paper and not pictures.

Thomas

[Andrew O'Neill]

Everyone finished reading Mary's book?

Yes. I read it twice. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Tin Can]

Not done, but that's how I read. Many books at once.

[Peter Lewin]

I'm also only about 80 pages in, but enjoying the book. What I've enjoyed the most so far is reading about the group when they were young, the images I had in my mind were always of Adams, Weston, Cunningham, etc., at the height of their fame late in their lives, I never had mental images of them as 20-year-olds (although Cunningham seems to have started out as 40-year-old :) in the book...). What is still hard for me to really grasp is how revolutionary their photography was at the time, because now many of their classics seem almost old. I'm thinking particularly of Weston's pepper and nautilus shell, since not only have many of us tried our own versions of those very photographs, I think we even have a current nautilus shell in one of the "show your images" threads.

[tgtaylor]

One question, thought, that the book didn't answer for me: Whywas it that EW never drove a car? Was he afraid of automobiles (highly unlikely since she was a willing passenger and "bummed" rides when he wanted to go somewhere). I didn't think to ask Kim Weston that question when I was at his studio last summer. But he probably doesn't know because he was quite young when EW was still alive.

Thomas

[Andrew O'Neill]

I figured it was because he was skint all the time.

[tgtaylor]

I don't think so Andrew. Recall that he purchased a car but never drove it himself.

Thomas

[David Lindquist]

One question, thought, that the book didn't answer for me: Whywas it that EW never drove a car? Was he afraid of automobiles (highly unlikely since she was a willing passenger and "bummed" rides when he wanted to go somewhere). I didn't think to ask Kim Weston that question when I was at his studio last summer. But he probably doesn't know because he was quite young when EW was still alive.

Thomas

In _California and the West_ (page 64 of the 1978 Aperture edition), Charis Wilson Weston wrote "Edward has never learned to drive what with four boys to do it for him..." As I recall elsewhere in this book Charis also has a pretty funny account of Edward's one attempt at driving. I can't immediately find that though.
David

[Mark Sampson]

Of course EW realized that, as a passenger, he could watch for subject matter full-time. And that the driver would always stop for pictures upon request.

[Tin Can]

Of course EW realized that, as a passenger, he could watch for subject matter full-time. And that the driver would always stop for pictures upon request.

+1

[Gary Nylander]

It's terrific, I'm eighty pages in. Long live straight photography. It's interesting how Pictorialism is rearing its ugly head once again.

Yes, +1......I have been thinking about this along the same lines, as it seems that straight photography has gone out of fashion. From my point of view I think a lot of people are doing Pictorialism and are not aware of that style, as they hardly study the history of photography. I tried writing about this on my blog, not sure if it makes much sense:http://garynylander.blogspot.ca/2015/02/a-conversation-about-landscape_27.html

[Peter Lewin]

Yes, +1......I have been thinking about this along the same lines, as it seems that straight photography has gone out of fashion. From my point of view I think a lot of people are doing Pictorialism and are not aware of that style, as they hardly study the history of photography. I tried writing about this on my blog, not sure if it makes much sense:http://garynylander.blogspot.ca/2015/02/a-conversation-about-landscape_27.html
Gary, I read both parts of your blog, a couple of quick thoughts.

First, I think part of the appeal of some current work that f.64 would have classified as pictorial photography is the current interest in alternative processes. On this forum you find people making bromoil prints, printing on hand-coated platinum papers, making paper negatives (essentially callotypes), and so on. I think this is in part a reaction to machine-made silver gelatin papers and digital printing. Group f.64 would have recommended against platinum papers, for example, because the paper itself, by being matte, shows less detail than glossy or glossy-dried-matte papers. But now the "archaic" processes have an attraction specifically because they are no longer common.

Secondly, I think some of today's "pictorialism" is really a hybrid form, using the sharp detail of photography (which was the goal of f.64) but combining it with the compositing abilities of Photoshop, or multiple enlargers. To avoid a debate about digital processes, I simply ask where you would place Jerry Uelsmann. His images are all sharply focused, but at the same time the "idea" is at least as important as the multiple images which are combined in the print. I think an argument can be made that his photos still meet the original f.64 credo of being uniquely photographic, as opposed to mimicking painting, lithography, etc. Photoshop merely carries this to a higher level. (I am intentionally leaving out the "painterly" abilities of Photoshop, because that does fall clearly into the Pictorialist school).

Recognize that anything I write is a compliment to both Alinder's book and your blog, since they both make me think about things which I otherwise wouldn't think about.

[Gary Nylander]

Gary, I read both parts of your blog, a couple of quick thoughts.

First, I think part of the appeal of some current work that f.64 would have classified as pictorial photography is the current interest in alternative processes. On this forum you find people making bromoil prints, printing on hand-coated platinum papers, making paper negatives (essentially callotypes), and so on. I think this is in part a reaction to machine-made silver gelatin papers and digital printing. Group f.64 would have recommended against platinum papers, for example, because the paper itself, by being matte, shows less detail than glossy or glossy-dried-matte papers. But now the "archaic" processes have an attraction specifically because they are no longer common.

Secondly, I think some of today's "pictorialism" is really a hybrid form, using the sharp detail of photography (which was the goal of f.64) but combining it with the compositing abilities of Photoshop, or multiple enlargers. To avoid a debate about digital processes, I simply ask where you would place Jerry Uelsmann. His images are all sharply focused, but at the same time the "idea" is at least as important as the multiple images which are combined in the print. I think an argument can be made that his photos still meet the original f.64 credo of being uniquely photographic, as opposed to mimicking painting, lithography, etc. Photoshop merely carries this to a higher level. (I am intentionally leaving out the "painterly" abilities of Photoshop, because that does fall clearly into the Pictorialist school).

Recognize that anything I write is a compliment to both Alinder's book and your blog, since they both make me think about things which I otherwise wouldn't think about.

Peter, First off let me thank-you for taking the time to read both parts of my blog. Your last sentence makes me glad because the whole premise of writing my blog ( and I am no writer by any stretch of the imagination ) is when you say that it makes you "think about things which I otherwise wouldn't think about." I tried not to make my blog pieces a 'rant' nor were they put out there for trolling purposes. I struggled with the title as I had named it something different, then deleted that blog post and re-posted as "A Conversation About Landscape Photography" although its really all encompassing and is not just about landscape photography. Also I figured on this forum that some folks would be familiar with pictorialism and straight photography. I also figured that many people would have different interpretations of what is pictorialism and what is straight photography, but hey thats great! it gets people thinking.

Your are right that the f64 group would have likely recommended against using platinum papers, Edward Weston makes it pretty clear in his Daybooks where he stood on that issue. I myself like using a 'hybrid system' I shoot with film and scan my negatives and print with a inkjet printer on matte papers which I like using as much as anything I ever printed in the darkroom with glossy fibre darkroom papers, some of the matte papers are beautiful and show good sharpness and blacks. I agree when you say that some of "archaic" process have an attraction specifically because they are no longer common, and I fully applaud anyone working with those traditional art forms,its good to keep those wonderful and beautiful processes alive.

I also agree with you on today's "pictorialism" is a hybrid form of sharp detail, I call this "technicism" where the image is driven by technology available to photographers today, cameras, photoshop etc.. Recently I sensed from a few photo related sites around the internet that photographers were starting to notice that there was a sort of "sameness" starting to appear from different photographer's work, as if it were all done by one photographer. To your last question, I know the work of Mr. Uelesmann and I truly appreciate his "vision" which I think is the key thing here, he really says something with his work that comes from his mind's eye, and yes I would agree with you that his work should meet the original f64 credo and I suppose much of Mr.Uelesmann's kind of work could be done with photoshop. This all very interesting, the conversation continues!

BTW I just ordered Mary Alinder's f64 book, I am eagerly awaiting what others have said is a good read.

[Robert Brummitt]

I always enjoy reading these books about people that I admire. There are always little nuggets of “Ah-ah and Aaaa” In Mary Street Alinder’s book “Group F.64” fits right in. Little things that make these photograpgers more approachable then before, Except for Stieglitz and Imogen. Those two I love but won’t want to be in their crosshairs.

I love the fact that Ansel suffered depression and almost had an affair. I love how Mary shares Edward Weston’s last day with us. Made feel closer to him in some way. I loved, just loved Brett Weston’s mantra, “I make them for love, not for sale.” I have met some folks who work for the very opposite of this wonderful sentence.

The best parts of this book I feel is in the Epilogue. Mary tells the readers what the members of the Group did after the movement. Many just went on to other venues and many stayed the course of their photography. Some passed away while still using their cameras. That’s how I plan to go!

The only issue I have with this book is its stance against Pictorialism. Early in the book, it is described as the “Wrong” path for photography. I would say that it wasn’t wrong but just another path of expression. It’s funny now many fine photographers, many we enjoy today explore the techniques that Ansel and others in the group hated then. The swing of the pendulum of what is liked and disliked I guess.

Anyways, I would say buy the book if you haven’t already.

[Bill Burk]

I just realized something.

I'm reading Ansel Adams - Making a Photograph.

He's talking about Plate 11: Marine

"The exposure meter indicates exposure for average intensities of 1/10 second at f.32 without filter."

The thought suddenly occurred to me: Group f.64 should be pronounced "Group f stop 64"

The period was often spoken as "stop" in telegraph parlance, right?

Can anyone find a recording that might confirm or disprove this thought?

[Gary Nylander]

I just finished reading the Group f.64 book by Mary Street Alinder, I enjoyed it, very informative.

I wrote a short review of the book which I have posted on my blog: http://garynylander.blogspot.ca/2015/04/book-review-group-f64-by-mary-street.html

If I had not seen this thread a few weeks ago, I would never have known about the book, thanks to Darin Boville for starting this thread.

[Tin Can]

I just realized something.

I'm reading Ansel Adams - Making a Photograph.

He's talking about Plate 11: Marine

"The exposure meter indicates exposure for average intensities of 1/10 second at f.32 without filter."

The thought suddenly occurred to me: Group f.64 should be pronounced "Group f stop 64"

The period was often spoken as "stop" in telegraph parlance, right?

Can anyone find a recording that might confirm or disprove this thought?

I bet you are correct.

I will start saying Group f stop 64 to help start the meme.

stop

[appletree]

Interesting thread. Three books I need to add after reading the pile of other books I am going through. Strand's "Time in New England", "Seeing Straight" group f stop 64, 1992, and Alinder's book. "Group f.64".

But this begs the question for this newbie...what was Group f stop 64? Just a collection of LF shooters back in the 50s and 60s? A self-proclaimed group of individuals? I guess I could wikipedia it, though...

[Peter Lewin]

But this begs the question for this newbie...what was Group f stop 64? Just a collection of LF shooters back in the 50s and 60s? A self-proclaimed group of individuals? I guess I could wikipedia it, though...
It was a group of self-selected individuals from California who changed the direction photography was taking in the 1920-1930 period. At that time, there was an ongoing argument whether photography was an art, or since it relied on a technical apparatus (the camera) it was more of a science or a craft. Because of that, the dominant school of photography was "pictorialism" in which photography imitated "more respected" art forms, i.e. photographers tried to make their images look more like paintings or charcoal drawings. The primary spokesman was William Mortensen. Group f.64 was, at least at first, a small group of about 7 individuals, who felt that photography should take advantage of the optics and abilities of the camera, and stand on its own, rather than imitating other art forms. Their first works tended to be close-ups which emphasized detail and texture. Over time the group expanded, and the subject matter grew much more diverse, and ultimately the "center of gravity" of photography moved away from pictorialism to favor "f.64 realism." But of course nothing is quite this simplified. The first daguerrotypes in the mid-to-late 1800s stressed optical detail and realism, the detailed, realist ULF photographs of Watkins, etc. pre-dated those of Ansel Adams (the two most prominent founders of f.64 were Adams and Weston), and Atget's pictures of Paris would have qualified as following the f.64 credo, had Atget ever heard of group f.64. And today, the power of photoshop has allowed a rebirth of pictorialism.

[appletree]

It was a group of self-selected individuals from California who changed the direction photography was taking in the 1920-1930 period. At that time, there was an ongoing argument whether photography was an art, or since it relied on a technical apparatus (the camera) it was more of a science or a craft. Because of that, the dominant school of photography was "pictorialism" in which photography imitated "more respected" art forms, i.e. photographers tried to make their images look more like paintings or charcoal drawings. The primary spokesman was William Mortensen. Group f.64 was, at least at first, a small group of about 7 individuals, who felt that photography should take advantage of the optics and abilities of the camera, and stand on its own, rather than imitating other art forms. Their first works tended to be close-ups which emphasized detail and texture. Over time the group expanded, and the subject matter grew much more diverse, and ultimately the "center of gravity" of photography moved away from pictorialism to favor "f.64 realism." But of course nothing is quite this simplified. The first daguerrotypes in the mid-to-late 1800s stressed optical detail and realism, the detailed, realist ULF photographs of Watkins, etc. pre-dated those of Ansel Adams (the two most prominent founders of f.64 were Adams and Weston), and Atget's pictures of Paris would have qualified as following the f.64 credo, had Atget ever heard of group f.64. And today, the power of photoshop has allowed a rebirth of pictorialism.

Thanks Peter for the information. Very fascinating. Seems like f.64 had a huge undertaking in pointing the art of photography toward the direction of it's own. Much thanks to these guys back then. And yes with the dawn of photoshop and the internet itself, it seems like many ideas and directions were all thrown in a mixing pot, where any and everything goes. Both pros and cons, of course.