Talk:Group f/64

message: I think it would be useful to point out that f/64 isn't that small of an aperture as it looks like. Assuming an 4x5 camera, f/64 translates to ~f/16 on a 35mm camera and ~f/11 on a common APS-C camera. ClassA42 (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Setting the context

message: There appears to be disagreement over the number of original members. I'm not going to change anything until I get my hands on a decent hard-copy book on the topic.
--Stuartyeates 18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of members

message: f/64 should really redirect here. I was astonished to find it didn't, and had to go hunting to find the real article, which is hardly desirable. I don't have the wherewithal to do it myself right now, but someone who cares a bit more about this article ought to do so at some point. 69.140.12.199 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect?

message: Half the article is about who can be considered a member or sex, which is fairly irrelevant. More interesting would be the history of the club, its purpose, the style that combined the photographers, etc. Rm999 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of members is not exactly irrelevant. There is very little written record from them as a group about what they were trying to do, so mostly it's been up to critics and historians to interpret themes and intentions by looking at the writings of the individual photographers. Still, your point that the article is lacking in important information about their common history and style is well taken. I'm working on an expanded revision and will post something in a couple of days.Lexaxis7 (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I've made some improvements to the article and will continue to expand it as time allows.Lexaxis7 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no problem with a list of members, but half the article was a philosophical discussion of who could be considered a member, not a discussion of the actual club. And thanks for taking the time to work on the article, the new layout is much clearer! Rm999 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: irrelevant

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Group f/64. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061103212459/http://www.kcbx.net/~mhd/1intro/f64.htm to http://www.kcbx.net/~mhd/1intro/f64.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If I may make a suggestion—instead of sort of reproducing the poster for the 1932 exhibition, I'd list the members of the group and the photographers invited to join the exhibition. But if people like having the poster here, it's available at , and I think showing the image would be better than recreating it in text. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 19:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion