F64 Club

Where can a person join this club apparently dedicated to the creation of non-

manipulated photography? Perhaps Photo.net might consider creating another

catagory exclusively for this art form.

is burning in or dodging manipulation/

 

What about the use of filters in front of the lens when making a photogrpah?

 

Or use of an optical filter in the printing process to control color or contrast?

 

If you are working in a traditional black & white darkroom should the use of intensifiers, reducers, bleaches, toning agents, or multiple development baths be considered a manipulation or not?

 

Is cropping a disallowed manipulation?

 

What about the use of unsharp masks?

If I mask off areas of the negative with rubylith film so that the print as pure paper white: Is that an allowed or disallowed manipulation?

 

Does the use of extended or shortened film or print development times constitute manipulation?

Ellis, don't forget selective use of telephoto and WA

Ansel Adams was a member of f64. The unmanipulated version of Moonrise had a grey sky. In the final prints the sky had been burned in to black. It made a much better picture. I do not think that f64 prohibited burning and dodging. What they stood for was sharp large format B&W pictures with great depth of field, as opposed to the pictorialist techniques which tried to make photography like painting.

<B><I>Group f/64 Manifesto</B><P>

 

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 members of this Group.<P>

 

The chief object of the Group is to present in frequent shows what it considers the best contemporary photography of the West; in addition to the showing of the work of its members, it will include prints from other photographers who evidence tendencies in their work similar to that of the Group.<P>

 

Group f/64 is not pretending to cover the entire of photography or to indicate through its selection of members any deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows. There are great number of serious workers in photography whose style and technique does not relate to the metier of the Group.<P>

 

Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. 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 production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.<P>

 

The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.<P>

 

The Group will appreciate information regarding any serious work in photography that has escaped its attention, and is favorable towards establishing itself as a Forum of Modern Photography. <P></I>

Dear Dennis,

 

You should start this website yourself! I'd join!

 

Bruce, I think, and this is assuming as in making an ass out of u and me... but I digress,

the "painting" aspect is exactly what Dennis was referring to. Too many people "paint"

their photographs and turn them in to a MIXED MEDIA instead of straight photography.

Although you do have the Jerry Uelsman's out there who manipulated the heck out of

negatives in the way some manipulate the heck out of photoshop. But, then again, I think

F64 would have considered that "painting." Don't you? Although I love love love Uelsman.

 

Zoe

The term manipulated or not is as much a term generated by the digital age as my 60 year old Contax IIIa is now an analog camera.

 

The term manipulated is irrelevant and hopefully will end up in the dustpan of useless tag words.

 

Define the technology, not the process. Call it traditional, wet, chemical, whatever. Who cares if it's dodged burned filtered or pissed on by Mapplethorpe? Who cares if a digital capture is processed in CS3 or Olive Oil?

 

The only problem I have in either form, is the placement of objects that do not exist in the original, then there would be an ethical question to discuss.

 

In the meantime why waste to much time thinking about mind numbing hair splitting esoterica? All my lowly opinion.

 

Ellis, thank you for posting the Manifesto. It seems similar to the art world splitting the difference between art and illustration.

 

I'm not attacking anyone here or on PN, I just wish these useless terms that neither add to constructive or interesting conversation, or advance imaging as an art form, or a form of self expression, would just go away.

"...apparently dedicated to the creation of non- manipulated photography?"

 

No. Dedicated to the creation of photographs as per the Group f/64 manifesto copied to here by Ellis.

 

The whole "nonmanipulatin vs manipulation" thing is an excursion in juvenile ideation. Avoid it along with digital vs film, pc vs mac, nikon vs canon, ford vs chevy, maryann vs ginger.

Don, I was with you until maryann vs ginger. That just isn't the same.

Michael, I assume from your post that you believe the original group F64 was a waste of time, and its Manifesto an example of "mind numbing hair splitting"

F64 was NOt about nonmanipulation of either the negative or the print. The purpose of the group was to make images that were obviously photographic, that looked like they were made by a camera,that made the camera's technical attributes obvious, rather than disguised. It was a break away from pictorialism, not about nonmanipulation. Read Ansel Adam's books The Negative, and The Print.

And then there's swings and tilts.

"Perhaps Photo.net might consider creating another catagory exclusively for this art form."

 

Dennis (and Zoe, too) what do you see as subjects for discussion? I foresee a lot of debate about "post-processing" and the inevitable film vs digital stuff, or getting stuck in format arguments. That would be boring.

 

What about a critique forum? Images would be submitted for critique from the Group f/64 perspective. That might be interesting.

"Don, I was with you until maryann vs ginger. That just isn't the same."

 

Mea culpa. I was just reading Dante Stella's Summilux is Ginger, Maryann is Summicron piece and obviously lost my mind.

John, I agree with what you said in your second post. I know little about F/64, but the manifesto does not seem to discuss manipulation, only the art they want to promote. I'm not sure how you read that into my post about manipulation being an empty debate. I am not an eloquent writer, I just feel that the manipulation thing is being beat to death and it's not relevant. Falsification would be a reasonable debate.

 

I actually like their manifesto and hope to be able to join a club that has a clear cut philosophy such as theirs. No offense intended-michael

F64 was started by Steiglitz, Weston, Adams and others early in the 20th century. They used Large format cameras, contact printing, minimal if any manipulation of the prinf and the smallest aperture possible which in those days was F64. I'm not sure if this group is around anymore, or if they have changed to Digital.

"In the very beginning, when the operator controls and regulates his time of exposure, when in the dark room the developer is mixed for detail, breath, flatness or contrast, faking has been resorted to. In fact every photograph is a fake from start to finish, a purely impersonal, unmanipulated photograph being practically impossible. When all is said, it still remains entirely a matter of degree and ability." - Edward Steichen

 

 

Harry J. said "They used Large format cameras, contact printing, minimal if any manipulation of the print..."

 

Edward Weston was into straight contact prints, but if you've ever read Ansel Adams' "The Camera", "The Print", and "The Negative" you can see that he was involved in a lot of darkroom manipulation, and rarely made "straight" prints.

 

"You don't take a photograph, you make it." - Ansel Adams

 

"We must remember that a photograph can hold just as much as we put into it, and no one has ever approached the full possibilities of the medium." - Ansel Adams

 

"When I'm ready to make a photograph, I think I quite obviously see in my minds eye something that is not literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in something which is built up from within, rather than just extracted from without." - Ansel Adams

"I'm not sure if this group is around anymore, or if they have changed to Digital."

 

They've changed their name to the ">16Mp Group"...

You joined the wrong club. Click here:

 

http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php

 

And wave goodbye as you leave.

APUG sounds like a great place to be. We all know that creating great digital images is much less difficult than doing the same in the Photography/film world.

And the hair splitting spins on and on and on and on and....

FYI Michael, it is Andres Serrano who is famous for his urine pictures, not Mapplethorpe.

Thanks for the correction Roger, you gave me a good idea of some things to look at.

 

It's interesting to find that Serrano was Latino. The Catholic Church has such a strangle hold on guilt and fear Central/South America that I can understand the origins of Serrano's work. I worked and lived in Honduras, Colombia and Brazil. The Church has had I think, a very destructive effect there.