PDA

View Full Version : the f 64 club



Roger Rouch
12-Sep-1999, 09:57
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.

Brian Yarvin
12-Sep-1999, 10:16
Have you ever taken a close look at the prints these people made? A couple of hours in a top notch art museum will cure you of this instantly.

Prints by Ansel Adams, The Westons, Imogene Cunningham, Wynn Bullock,and their friends look very sharp indeed. These people were obsessed with not having any out of focus areas in their images though. (the opposite of many people today I think)

Serious time spent with these master prints can change the way you think about shooting in a very powerful way.

Brian

David Grandy
12-Sep-1999, 12:04
At a time when most pictorial photographers were trying to imitate paintings these people committed themselves to showing the photograph as stand alone art. And that, to them was realism expressed by foreground to horizon sharpness.

Although you would get better sharpness from middle apertures because of diffraction at f64, the "idea" of f64 is metaphorical. The problem of diffraction was not addressed since "f64" is the name for their group, after all, not their taking aperture. Perhaps "f32 and a bit of tilt" would have been a more appropriate name, but not nearly as wonderful.

Michael S. Briggs
12-Sep-1999, 14:13
The Group f/64 photographers mostly printed by contact. The diffraction effects in an 8x10 print from at 8x10 negative taken at f64 will be very similiar to the diffraction effects in an 8x10 print from a 35 mm negative taken at f8. This is based on the relevant equations. And from past viewing of some of their prints at museums.

Ellis Vener
12-Sep-1999, 17:07
The f/64 Group was not fictiticious at all. A good, brief account of the groups founding and aesthetic/philosophical ethos, even why they chose that name, can be found in the excellent and very readable Mary Street Alinder biography of Ansel Adamsthat came out a couple of years ago. It is a wonderful book and will bust up a lot of myths & misunderstandings.

jim Ryder
13-Sep-1999, 11:49
My misunderstanding of this group and its philosophy had a negative consequence in my own photography. For this group sharpness was a chief objective and they claimed to find it in the smallest apertures available. What they were also working against were diffused focus lenses which were very popular in the early years of this century. What I have subsequently discovered however is that many of the staight lenses available available to me are actually sharper at f16 or f22. My 127mm ektar is noticeably sharper slightly open. But, not understanding this and following the dictates of this "f64 philosophy", and the misteaching of "beginning" photography teachers I shot closed down. In this case a little knowledge was truly ignorance. If sharpness is important test lenses, don't just go with received wisdom. So now when I seek the aridity of sharpness I seek it at f22. Otherwise I use an old dallmyer lens that at wide apertures allows a fuzzy life inside.

Ron Shaw
13-Sep-1999, 11:58
Im sure these pioneers knew that lenses were sharper when not closed down that much, but when working with an 8x10 or larger, you do need to stop down that much for the DOF they wanted. 8x10 needs smaller apertures than 4x5 for equivalent DOF and angle of view. And, as Michael mentioned, contact printing was common in earlier years.

mark lindsey
13-Sep-1999, 23:12
for those of you who don't seem to get it----f64 is a mid range stop for many large format lenses!!!!!

Ellis Vener
14-Sep-1999, 12:52
For those of us who certainly DO get it: f/64 is not a mid range stop for many LF. Most modern lenses go down to only f/64. Another, possible, reason for the choice of "f/64 group" as a moniker for their approach to photography is that possibly many view cameras of the era did not have swings or tilts or depth of field calculators built-in. certainly none of the lenses made then were not multi-coated or possibly even single coated.

If you are going to look backward for inspiration try to get the historical context. It explains why many of the technical and aesthetic decisions made by those who went before us were often the only or the best solution availible at the time.

Ellis Vener
14-Sep-1999, 13:29
From Mary Alinder's biography of Adams: "Historically, most avant garde movements in modern art...have proclaimed themselves with manifestos. So, too, did Group f/64, whose creed was actually nailed to the de Young gallery walls:

The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of the members of this Group...The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form."

"...The Group f/64 manifesto was a declaration of war on the photographic infidel: the pictorialists.

...Group f/64 was formed not merely in reaction to the pictorialists, but as a response to the challenge everywhere posed by modern art....Group f/64 was an expression of modern art in photography, its aim to marry everyday subject matter to a clear, sharp camera vision rather than the precise edges of line in paint.

Group f/64 had two commandments: The first...held that there was one God, and its manifestation was detail...If God dwells in the details, are photographs our best window on God? Ansel would say yes."

The second commandment admonished, thou shalt not covet any other art by imposing its presence upon photography.

...Ansel evidently considered f/64 to be a state of mind, not an unbreakable doctrine."

The members were Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunninhgham, Edward Weston, Sonya Noskowiak (EW's student and lover at the time), John Paul Edwards, Willard Van Dyke, Mary Jeannette Edwards, Henry Swift, Consuela Kanaga, Alma Lavenson, EW's son Brett Weston, & Preston Holder.According to Alinder, "...Holder recalled that the group only met three or four times, on occaisions that were probably more social than official."

mark lindsey
14-Sep-1999, 17:04
Ellis this is old news to many of us, and unlike you, I have seen many lenses with f64 as a mid range f stop, you should get out more often

Erik Ryberg
14-Sep-1999, 18:15
Sorry to swing back in the general direction of the topic, but some time ago I did a test of my lens and my weary eyes couldn't tell a difference at all from f11 to f64 on my 12 inch ektar. I only contact print (8x10) so that is probably a source of the lack of difference, but boy was there ever a difference in DOF.

Except in conditions of low light or when I am deliberately limiting dof (something I am doing more of lately) I just about always shoot at f64 now and while it may be lack of experience with truly sharp prints made from modern glass, I am very happy with the technical quality of the images I make at f64. I have found I am sure to botch a tilt. The aesthetic qualities, well, that's another matter!

jim Ryder
14-Sep-1999, 18:28
There are many older lenses which have an aperture marked with a number greater than 64. I have an old rapid rectilinear, the type Weston used extensively which goes to f128. However most of those are lenses with markings using the now out of date "uniform system." According to Picture Taking and Picture Making (1898) p. 19 the equivalencies are: U.S. 4=f8 U.S. 8=f11.3 U.S. 16=f16 U.S. 32=f22.6 U.S. 64=f32 U.S. 128=f45.2 According to the text the Uniform System had "been adopted by almost all manufactures." Presumably f64 would be about U.S. 256. So in the U.S. system 64 is a mid range aperture. Note the table uses the prefix f only for the modern system. The text explains the f stands for the relationship between the diameter of the stop and the length of the lens. My guess is that the name f64 was also an endorsement of the f system of marking, with its inherent and explicit photographic meaning, over the U.S. system. In the f system of marking f64 is about the inherent limit of the aperture.

Ellis Vener
14-Sep-1999, 20:38
Once again, from Mary Street Alinder's bio of Adams (page 86): "...Willard remembered that he proposed "U.S. 256," the old system name for f/64 in the new aperture-marking system. he said that Ansel responded, "U.S. 256 is not good, it sounds like a highway." Willard continued, "He then took a pencil and made a curving 'f' followed by a dot and 64. The graphics were beautiful and that was that." At first, itwas written "Group f.64" in the style of the old aperture notation, but that was soon updated to the new notation with its slash, "Group f/ 64."

Mark, just quickly looking over Nikon's 1999 listing of large format lenses (from 65mm to 1200mm, 26 lenses all told, in Copal 0 to Copal 3 shutters) only two -- the 300mm f/9 & 450mm f/9 M-Nikkors to be precise, had minimum f-stops below f/64 and those two only went down to f/128.

But you are right in one aspect: I do need to get out more.

mark lindsey
14-Sep-1999, 21:29
Ellis, I never restricted myself to only new lenses and thus missing out on all the wonderful high quality lenses of old, why should you? (I shoot almost all black and white and know that color would be a different situation)

Ellis Vener
15-Sep-1999, 03:21
Mark, I use modern lenses for two reasons.

No. 1) I shoot mainly color: 95>98% of what my large format work is color transparency. This is by choice: I like the challenge of color.

no.2) Because photography is how I make my living, I prefer to use modern equipment for most of my work on the basis that it is easier to degrade a sharp, contrasty image (either through exposure, filtration & development techniques) or in post production (Photoshop) than it is to do the vice versa.

mark lindsey
15-Sep-1999, 20:43
color a challenge, eh okay.

Yeah I make my living at photography too and there are still many lenses that are up to the test of advertising ( what lens couldn't stand up to magazine reproduction?)

oh well, to each his own

M.
23-Sep-1999, 00:06
A 160 page book titled "Seeing Straight" (subtitled "The f.64 Revolution in Photography") is (was?)available from the Oakland Museum, 1992. Mine cost $29.95. (paperback) It has all the pictures in the Group's initial show, lots of wordage about their aims and ideals, etc. All the pictures are not technically sharp.

Jonathan Lee
24-Sep-1999, 13:41
If you are thinking about resolution a lot, I think you are missing the point. For all practical artisitc purposes, lens resolution in lf is a moot point. The fact that Adams, Weston, Cunningham et al produced such stunning images with low resoultion lenses lacking multi-coatings, special glass, and computer aided design emphasizes this point. Resolution does not make phototgraphs: photographs are about form, texture, contrast and luminosity, not about lines/mm.

james mickelson
25-Sep-1999, 02:29
I will disagree with that statement. They went through lenses like people go through underwear. They would know of a lens that was for sale and try it out. If they liked it they would buy it if the money was available. Good lenses were around and the quest was for the good ones. But the whole point of f64 was the ideas behind the images. Yes the images should be sharp technically but the ideas of the artist should be sharp also. No longer were they complacent being figuratively bound to other arts such as the painters. They would forever after change the way things were portrayed and how they were portrayed. Social issues came into sharp focus and could be shown with the new 35mm and 2x2 cameras coming onto the scene. james

Steyr
1-Dec-2005, 12:22
I haven't read all replys, but... Lenses went to f90 commonly for 8x10 format, so f64 would not necessarily cause major degradation of quality.

Also Adams was a protege of Westons - a junior member of the club

Ben Maddox
7-Mar-2006, 11:38
From what I know of the story When Ansel suggested the name f/64 he was slightly drunk. In fact they did not choose the name for practical reasons but simply because it sounded cool to them. Sorry, but it's really not much deeper then that. Ansel as we all know keep excellent records of his exposure settings. But one aperture setting that is rarely seen in his work is f/64. It was just a name...

Kirk Gittings
7-Mar-2006, 12:19
Believe it or not one of the original members of this group participates on this forum and is still an active photographer. Maybe he will chime in.

Merg Ross, one of the greats.

Ernest Purdum
7-Mar-2006, 17:04
Interstingly, amongst the various lnses that Edward Weston is known to have used is at least one selectable soft focus type, the Graf Variable.

Kirk Gittings
13-Mar-2006, 09:21
A few weeks ago I said:

"Believe it or not one of the original members of this group participates on this forum and is still an active photographer. Maybe he will chime in. Merg Ross, one of the greats."

Just to set the record straight. Merg Ross is one of the greats and has genuine ties to many of the great West Coast photographers who's whose work defines LF and inspire us all. Those ties include Edward and Brett Weston, Imogen Cunningham, Ansel and Henry Swift. I personally have followed Merg's work for literally decades and if you are not familiar with it you are really missing something. However, living legend that he is, Merg was NOT a memeber of F64. Merg recently emailed me to point out my error. I have no idea where I got that idea. I guess in my mind his accomplishments put him in that league even if it is not historically true.

Ralph Barker
13-Mar-2006, 09:47
Thanks for setting the archives straight, Kirk. When you made the remark originally, I thought, "Gee, Merg doesn't look old enough."

Merg Ross
13-Mar-2006, 22:09
Well, Kirk got me to thinking, could I possibly have been a member of the illustrious group given my age. Sure enough, Brett Weston was 21 years old at the time and would presently be the age of Julius Shulman. As recently as a few weeks ago I heard that the latter was doing well. So, although born later, I could have been a member and still be around. Consider me a vicariuos member.

Ralph, I remember our day at Mare Island, how did it go with the 8x10?

Ralph Barker
14-Mar-2006, 07:10
Merg - the day at Mare Island was very nice. Thanks to Will Whitaker, again, for setting it up. That was the Tachi's first real outing, and things went well, I thought. I got several images with which I was pleased, some with the little Toyo.

John Z.
14-Mar-2006, 11:09
I like Edward Stieglitz reply when asked to join the group; "I am already a member of club f 256" I guess he figured he was part of a sharper 'club' than the others could ever be.

Merg Ross
14-Mar-2006, 11:58
Hi John,

I believe Stieglitz may have been referring to the U.S. (Universal System) where 256 was the equivalent of f.64. Reportedly, Willard Van Dyke wanted to use U.S. 256 but Ansel thought the system obsolete and opted for f.64.

Sal Santamaura
15-Mar-2006, 09:39
John, was Edward Alfred's brother?

Kirk Gittings
15-Mar-2006, 10:10
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.
15-Mar-2006, 10:32
My silly error! I was so concerned with spelling the last name correctly....

Finchmyster16@hotmail.com
19-Jul-2009, 08:03
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
19-Jul-2009, 08:05
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
19-Jul-2009, 08:12
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
19-Jul-2009, 08:37
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
19-Jul-2009, 08:46
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
19-Jul-2009, 08:51
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
19-Jul-2009, 09:08
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?:)

Dan Fromm
19-Jul-2009, 11:06
Steve, you have the lens, ask it what it can do for you.

If you contact print, you'll be fine to at least f/64. As I wrote, resolution needed in the negative depends on how much the negative is to be enlarged, i.e., on how big you want to print, and on the distance at which the print will be viewed. There's no hard and fast rule that fits all situations.

FWIW, I have a Wray process lens, viz., a 14"/10 Process Lustrar Series II that stops to f/90. I got it to use, if I used it at all, on 2x3, so tested it hung way out in front of a Nikon. Remember, for me all that matters with a lens that long is image quality at the center. It was best at f/22, not really usable at larger apertures. I don't use it. When the situation wants a 360, I use a 360/10 Apo Saphir.

Drew Wiley
19-Jul-2009, 14:35
The f/64 title was their way of officialy differentiating their credo from the "fuzzies".
"pictorialists", and Photo-sessesionists which had dominated "art" photography up to
that time. It is also interesting how people like AA tended to photograph flat plane subjects for awhile, so that everything would be in precise focus. Contact printers
could take greater liberties. But those of us who shoot 8x10 or larger often use f/64
or analogous tiny apertures, because the degree of magnification is less important
in many instances than depth of field. In a few minutes I'm going to go print some
8x10's from 35mm negatives - that's about a 7X enlargement. With 8x10 film a 7x
enlargement would be six feet across! The tiny bit of performance you lose to
diffraction isn't a big deal when you have a big piece of film; and the fact that film
doesn't lie perfectly flat in a conventional holder is one more factor favoring smaller
apertures, along with greater lens coverage angles.

Don7x17
19-Jul-2009, 15:38
Pictorialism was the rage at the time Group f.64 was formed. The lenses used by the pictorialists delivered the softer effects while wide open -- often f3, f3.8, f5. By the time these lenses were stopped down to f64 (or even a few stops), the diffuse effects were no longer present in the negative. Group f.64 was started by Willard Van Dyke. If you'd like more on Group f.64, acquire a copy of "Seeing Straight. The f.64 Revolution in Photography" which was published by The Oakland Museum to accompany an exhibition (1993 -- the exhibit traveled across the country. It was excellent)

If you want to see the effects of the Pictorialist lens art, you can see current use of the lenses -- do a search in this forum for Jim Galli. Look at his work as well as other posters. Look especially for instances of use of certain Pinkhan and Smith Lenses - highly valued back in 1920-1940 by Pictorialists, and valued still today. there are many other lenses that produce similar effects....again the soft diffuse look is mostly wide open and you lose it by stopping down.

Steichen and Weston were 8x10 users. Contact printers -- so effects of diffration did not affect their images.

Early Weston and even Ansel prints were in the Pictorialist style -- Weston made images of people, usually heads; Ansel had a large body of landscape Pictorial work. You can see Ansel's early fuzzy focus work in "Ansel Adams, the Early Years". Again this published as part of of an exhibit, this time by The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1991

And more of Adam's early work is reproduced in "Pictorialism in California, Photographs 1900-1940" (Getty and Huntington Library collaborated on this exhibit).

And today most 4x5 users that enlarge try not to go beyond f16/f22 and 8x10 users try to stay around f32, to avoid the effects of diffraction. Enlarging 8x10 to get a 16x20 is just 2x, whereas 35mm is an extreme enlargement to get to 16x20. Meanwhile those of us using larger formats don't worry about using f64 or f128 or even f256...we're all contact printing.

A good thread, even though dredged up from the past....

Drew Wiley
19-Jul-2009, 19:09
One of the people who eventually rebelled from their f/64 mentors was the late
Pirkle Jones. He was making his own platinum prints almost to the end, and they
were definitely "retro" (warm, soft, fuzzy). Quite an amazing career. And I think I
like EW's early work even more than his more doctrinaire later prints, though they
are rarely exhibited due to their very high value.

prado333
20-Jul-2009, 04:33
Weston used 8x10 not 4x5