New Mary Alinder book on Group f/64

[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...dscape_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...dscape_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...ry-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.