
Group f/64 - steven741
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64
======
Mankaninen
While 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)

~~~
klodolph
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).

------
monort
Even though pictorialists faded into obscurity, they still won over f/64\.
Modern photography is absolutely not realistic.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
>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.

~~~
andytruett
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)

------
w0mbat
ƒ/64 may give the maximum depth of field (if that's your smallest stop), but
due to diffraction you generally get higher image quality at ƒ/8 or ƒ/11.

~~~
giobox
Virtually no lens that hits peak sharpness at f8/f11 (usually implies a lens
with an imaging circle covering the 35mm/APS-C format size) will even stop
down to f64, with virtually all of them the smallest aperture size will be
f22.

These chaps where dealing with much larger formats and their corresponding
larger lenses typically, the usual rules of thumb you might be familiar with
from the majority of digital interchangeable lens systems or 35mm film don’t
always apply. f64 would be fine on 8x10, as one example, and was often used on
this format.

------
kazinator
Ironically, an ultra high depth-of-field isn't realistic.

In computer graphics, simulating low depth of field (background and foreground
blurred, while subject in focus) is a considered an advancement in realism.

~~~
m463
On the other hand, many games simulate lens flare too.

I kind of wonder if there are not other "actually realistic" avenues that
haven't been pursued. For example, simulating floaters.

I also found it funny playing some first-person shooters in 3d and/or VR.
Although it would make sense to have these effects when using a sniper rifle,
you can use a sniper rifle without closing one eye! ha!

~~~
kazinator
If a subject has floaters, they will be there when viewing a VR scene with
goggles, and will move in the right ways when moving the head and eyes; there
is no need to waste cycles on that.

~~~
m463
Oh I totally agree, but I'm just highlighting what's actually realistic vs
what's really just artistic license.

------
Invictus0
This might be a bit pedantic but can the mods please retitle this to a
lowercase f?

~~~
jpmontez
Better yet would be the actual symbol: ƒ

~~~
eitland
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.

