the f 64 club

[Sal Santamaura]

John, was Edward Alfred's brother?

[Kirk Gittings]

I once had a heated arguement with a very sincere student who informed me that O'Keefe was married to a famous New York photographer by the name of Maury Steiglitz.

[John Z.]

My silly error! I was so concerned with spelling the last name correctly....

[Finchmyster16@hotmail.com]

As I recall from some readings a while back, Ansel Adams and other had a fictiti ous club they refered to as the f64 club. It was so named to emphasis the fact that small f stops mean greater DOF and should be used often. I have been curio us whether these fellows considered the loss of lens resolution at these smaller stops? Maybe a silly beginner question, but I keep thinking about it.

Well Roger, as it happens I have only recently understood this principle in photography.
Basically, the symptoms of loss in definition occurs when a too small an aperture is used for whatever format of film/digital sensor you are using. This occurrence is referred to as lens diffraction. The common misconception is that smaller apertures furthermore result in a general loss in sharpness. This is where people go wrong, where I went wrong not long ago.

There is a point for different sizes of films or sensors, when the optimal definition is possible. 35mil or dslr cropped frames/ full frame sensor cameras have an optimal aperture off F22 in this regard.

The advantage that larger film users have is that they can use smaller apertures without loss in definition. You see, when you stop down, there is a larger projected image through the lens, and there comes a point when the projected image is too large for the film format and begins to lose detail. This is why most photographers in the old days produced some of the most spectacular prints. Such people like Ansel Adams, who later I believe used a 10 by 8 inch film camera, could stop down to apertures such as F125/128, achieving amazing depth of field and additional sharpness and definition.

The F64 club likely consisted of people who used 5 by 4 inch cameras, such as Edward Steichen and Edward Weston, as this is the optimal aperture for sharpness and depth of field for this format.

For any beginners entering photography (me myself being one in point of fact compared to many), this is but one of the many crucial elements of photography that can affect your images in through practice. Such things as how well you have focused on you're subject, how sturdy you're camera is i.e. tripod and also if you use a shutter release cable or self timer. This are equally crucial variables that are just as important to a pro-efficient photographer. I still have much to learn, but from listening to and reading from more experienced photographers of the early traditions,
my practice has been informed and still being heavily informed over time. Photography is an art so you're practice is unique to you, so feel free to experiment and try different techniques and observe their results. However, if you try to understand and perhaps even appreciate the technical elements, this knowledge will help you to achieve the desired results and working style.

[Finchmyster16@hotmail.com]

As I recall from some readings a while back, Ansel Adams and other had a fictiti ous club they refered to as the f64 club. It was so named to emphasis the fact that small f stops mean greater DOF and should be used often. I have been curio us whether these fellows considered the loss of lens resolution at these smaller stops? Maybe a silly beginner question, but I keep thinking about it.

Well Roger, as it happens I have only recently understood this principle in photography.

Basically, the symptoms of loss in definition occurs when a too small an aperture is used for whatever format of film/digital sensor you are using. This occurrence is referred to as lens diffraction. The common misconception is that smaller apertures furthermore result in a general loss in sharpness. This is where people go wrong, where I went wrong not long ago.

There is a point for different sizes of films or sensors, when the optimal definition is possible. 35mil or dslr cropped frames/ full frame sensor cameras have an optimal aperture off F22 in this regard.

The advantage that larger film users have is that they can use smaller apertures without loss in definition. You see, when you stop down, there is a larger projected image through the lens, and there comes a point when the projected image is too large for the film format and begins to lose detail. This is why most photographers in the old days produced some of the most spectacular prints. Such people like Ansel Adams, who later I believe used a 10 by 8 inch film camera, could stop down to apertures such as F125/128, achieving amazing depth of field and additional sharpness and definition.

The F64 club likely consisted of people who used 5 by 4 inch cameras, such as Edward Steichen and Edward Weston, as this is the optimal aperture for sharpness and depth of field for this format.

For any beginners entering photography (me myself being one in point of fact compared to many), this is but one of the many crucial elements of photography that can affect your images in through practice. Such things as how well you have focused on you're subject, how sturdy you're camera is i.e. tripod and also if you use a shutter release cable or self timer. This are equally crucial variables that are just as important to a pro-efficient photographer. I still have much to learn, but from listening to and reading from more experienced photographers of the early traditions,
my practice has been informed and still being heavily informed over time. Photography is an art so you're practice is unique to you, so feel free to experiment and try different techniques and observe their results. However, if you try to understand and perhaps even appreciate the technical elements, this knowledge will help you to achieve the desired results and working style.

I hope this was useful to you Roger. Take care and best of luck
Regards,
Chris Finch

P.S. it is likely that Ansel Adams was a member of the F64 group, as he did during his life use a 5 by 4 camera, before he moved on to a larger format, in order to achieve the results he craved. By the way, another way of obtaining depth of field that such photographers as Adams used is how he alters the movement panels on his camera. By manipulating the two panels of the camera, front and back, you can optimise the focus plane for the scene you are shooting. Its something that all modern Digital and indeed the vast majority of film SLR cameras lack, the tools to control depth of field to achieve fully in focus scenes. If you look at Ansel Adam's landscapes, you can see how his focul plane is enormous, both due to his msall apertures and also likely because he has altered the plain of focus.

[Gem Singer]

Chris,

Check the date that this thread was first posted.

I was almost ten years ago.

You double clicked and created two entries.

Interesting stuff in your thread, though.

[Steve M Hostetter]

My understanding has always been that the sharpest aperture is the aperture from wide open to midway...
so for a lens w/ apertures from f16-f128, the sharpest would be from wide open to f45-f64 with "wide open" being the sharpest
I think as far as f64 club goes,, they wrote down their ideas and made a million.. I think they'd want us all to be individuals with our own tastes and styles in the end

steve

[Dan Fromm]

Steve, there's a tradeoff between sharpness in the plane of best focus and sharpness, um, in depth. What's acceptably sharp depends on how much the neg is to be enlarged.

The usual rule of thumb is that 8 lp/mm in the print is the minimum for the print to look good from 10". Another usual rule of thumb is that diffraction limits resolution on film to 1500/(f/number); for example, at f/22, the diffraction limit is around 70 lp/mm, and so on. From there you can calculate to your heart's content.

At larger apertures diffraction is swamped by uncorrected aberrations. With the lenses we use, diffraction dominates from f/16 or f/22 down.

With this in mind, you can do DoF calculations etc. and find the smallest negative that will give the size of print you want and the image quality you want.

[spiky247]

wow, there's so much talk about sharpness here. but let's not forget that it was Ansel Adams how said "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". I believe f64 is about much more than just a simple aperture, and sharpness.

[Steve M Hostetter]

Steve, there's a tradeoff between sharpness in the plane of best focus and sharpness, um, in depth. What's acceptably sharp depends on how much the neg is to be enlarged.

The usual rule of thumb is that 8 lp/mm in the print is the minimum for the print to look good from 10". Another usual rule of thumb is that diffraction limits resolution on film to 1500/(f/number); for example, at f/22, the diffraction limit is around 70 lp/mm, and so on. From there you can calculate to your heart's content.

At larger apertures diffraction is swamped by uncorrected aberrations. With the lenses we use, diffraction dominates from f/16 or f/22 down.

With this in mind, you can do DoF calculations etc. and find the smallest negative that will give the size of print you want and the image quality you want.

Hello Dan,,, so lets say you have a Wray process lens with apertures from f16-f128 ,, your saying the sharpest aperture is f22?