Worrying about whether Group f/64 would take away my card for some of my fuzzy pictures got me to thinking about how their manifesto fits in with what I do.

Also I started to think that the group might have embraced digital. This is asinine you say? But hear me out - digital isn't the main point.

They wanted photography to stand on its own, as photographs being all they can be. Not trying to be painting or drawing. So they rejected the pictorialists (who wanted to emulate other forms of art).

Great so far, and this is something I can subscribe to.

Now we have digital trying to be like photography. Here is where I would say the digital photographers should craft a manifesto of their own. Their work should stand on its own, taking best advantage of what the technology offers.

The new group should reject the work of photographers who, in an echo of the pictorialists before, try to make digital prints that "look like" Platinum, Toned Silver Gelatin or other analog photographic media.

The new group should strive to be all that digital photography can be, standing on its own, without trying to look like traditional photography. They should be breaking new ground.

Now I turn to my own work. I try to make black and white prints that look as good as I can make them with the tools I have chosen, and what I have at hand. I'm not going to go out and buy a Red Dot Artar believing it will make me better fit the original manifesto. And this had me worried, that by accepting less than perfection, I may be somehow missing the point.

Now I believe by doing my best, I am actually in-tune with Group f/64, except for the fuzzy stuff.

Maybe the new group could call themselves Group 64G, and strive to make the highest quality HDR images that they can. Digital photographers should do the best they can to get the most they can of the new media. And they don't have to reject the analog photographers. We didn't reject the painters. But they could reject the cell-phone gang.