Group f/64
en.wikipedia.org
Group f/64
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: Group f/64
#2Even though pictorialists faded into obscurity, they still won over f/64. Modern photography is absolutely not realistic.
Re: Group f/64
#3Even though pictorialists faded into obscurity, they still won over f/64. Modern photography is absolutely not realistic.
>but in general it refers to a style in which the photographer has somehow manipulated what would otherwise be a straightforward photograph as a means of "creating" an image rather than simply recording it.
I don’t know that sounds exactly like the Instagram and Snapchat generation to me.
Re: Group f/64
#4This might be a bit pedantic but can the mods please retitle this to a lowercase f?
Re: Group f/64
#5Even though pictorialists faded into obscurity, they still won over f/64. Modern photography is absolutely not realistic.
>but in general it refers to a style in which the photographer has somehow manipulated what would otherwise be a straightforward photograph as a means of "creating" an image rather than simply recording it. I don’t know that sounds exactly like the Instagram and Snapchat generation to me.
That's a description of pictorialism, which the original comment is saying has won over realism.
Group f/64: In part, they formed in opposition to the pictorialist photographic style that had dominated much of the early 20th century, but moreover, they wanted to promote a new modernist aesthetic that was based on precisely exposed images of natural forms and found objects. (wikipedia from OP link)
Re: Group f/64
#6This might be a bit pedantic but can the mods please retitle this to a lowercase f?
Better yet would be the actual symbol: ƒ
Re: Group f/64
#7This might be a bit pedantic but can the mods please retitle this to a lowercase f?
Better yet would be the actual symbol: ƒ
From the article:
> Contemporary photographic convention denotes lens apertures with a slash, such as ƒ/22 or ƒ/64, but in its writings the group always used a dot or period instead (as in "f.64").
Edit: then again at another point the article says:
> A small poster at the exhibition said:
>> Group ƒ/64 — >> >> ...
Either I'm misunderstanding something or the article is a bit confused.
Re: Group f/64
#8Even though pictorialists faded into obscurity, they still won over f/64. Modern photography is absolutely not realistic.
f.64 wasn't exactly about realism, either. Black and white film (though they didn't have much choice). Burning and dodging to add drama. Depth of field way beyond what eyes would perceive.
Re: Group f/64
#9While f/64 sounds like a small aperture, it can be worth remembering that it was on large format cameras. A small sensor like on iPhone 6 is wide open corresponding to depth matching f/113!
(iPhone6 is f/2.2, crop is 7.21, 8"x10" camera is crop 0.14. 7.21/0.14*2.2 = f/113)
Re: Group f/64
#10While f/64 sounds like a small aperture, it can be worth remembering that it was on large format cameras. A small sensor like on iPhone 6 is wide open corresponding to depth matching f/113! (iPhone6 is f/2.2, crop is 7.21, 8"x10" camera is crop 0.14. 7.21/0.14*2.2 = f/113)
Worth noting that angular resolution and DOF/defocus is related to absolute aperture size, not f-number, so you can also just plug in the values for "f" to compare.
The iPhone 6 has f=4.15mm, a lens with similar FOV on an 8x10 has f=200mm.
200mm / 64 = 3.1mm -> the size of an f/64 aperture on a 200mm lens.
4.15mm / 2.2 = 1.9mm -> the size of on f/2.2 aperture on the iPhone 6.
Although the 8x10 will often have less defocus due to movements (photographer control of focal plane).