Where has Lex gone?

[dave_s]

<p>I have a feeling this is a dumb question and everyone knows except me. </p>

<p>Is Mr Jenkins OK? It is unusual for a prolific photo.net contributor like him to disappear abruptly, although I guess it happens. I hope he isn't sick or anything. </p>

[EricM]

<p>He seems fine on Fb as he's posting lots of pictures of his adventures while bicycle riding.</p>

[ShunCheung]

I am somewhat in touch with Lex. As far as I know he is ok, but there are other priorities in his life. In fact, we just

exchanged email today.

[sjmurray]

<p>Actually, I was wondering that myself. Glad you asked.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I'm relieved that Lex is okay, but somewhat bummed that yet another photo.net "hero" seems to have left us.</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg's departure was bad enough, but if Lex is gone, that's really sad...</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Lex, is alive and well, or at least alive, and posting regularly.... elsewhere.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>I see Lex everyday on Facebook.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>He and JDM are part of the old guard, experts on film and film cameras. It's odd that so many have left. I myself won't be renewing my subscription, but don't plan to abandon photo.net</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I can follow both Jenkins on FB. Lex and Simon.

[pmind]

<p>I'm glad to hear Lex is ok, but now I'm wondering...what happened to JDM?</p>

[GerrySiegel]

A migration perhaps?

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>He and JDM are part of the old guard, experts on film and film cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As they say: "If you don't use it you lose it."</p>

<p>Apart from Lex and JDM and a few others, there seems to be a minimum interest by Photo.Net in maintaining one of the pillars of photography (that includes also the pillar of digital technology and practice), namely that of silver base film photography and printing. Most photo periodicals presently ignore the former methodology (no doubt advertisers play a role in that), but a photo group like ours should perhaps better maintain all options. The analogue photographers site, APUG, does that for silver emulsion imaging, but there are some advantages to the type of format presented by Photo.Net and I for one would like to see more pro-active promotion by it of the silver option, not for diehard users like me of both pillars of practice, but for the young photographer who might be interested in multiple choice and the particular benefits of the older photographic medium. "Slow photography" benefits and very low cost for high quality results, are two of the reasons why that makes some sense for them.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Paul, JDMvW left in the spring. He left a <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00dGXR">valedictory message</a> which morphed into a long discusson of the state of photo.net.</p>

<p>I'm sorry Lex has left. I don't know him like you guys do, and he seems to be a very different kind of person than I am, but he has a good bank of knowledge and I enjoyed his posts.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Dave: Set up a Facebook account and send Lex a friend request. He's the most gregarious curmudgeon you'll ever "friend." That environment (FB) may not normally be your cup of tea, but you can dial it down to 0 in terms of noise in your life, and just dip your toe in when you want to say hi or ask an old online acquaintance an obscure question about, say, how to use the scrapings from a rye whiskey barrel as paper toner. FB is what you make of it, and also not what you choose not to make of it. But you never know. A lot of people who have simply washed their hands of this institution here are of course still very present elsewhere.</p>

[constance_cook]

<p>Lex tracked me down when I disappeared here and has kept in touch on FB and email. He has given me a lot of support while I've been sick. </p>

<p>My life would not be as good without him. I never fail to appreciate his assistance and friendship.<br>

Conni</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I still haven't warmed to FB's user interface.</p>

<p>I can't imagine anyone being able to read within FB's Timeline long, thought out and meaningful responses as it is in Photo.net forums. I've tried it and just as soon as I hit enter and come back later for a response my 2¢ has been moved to the far left column collapsed to a one line entry and buried among a long list of other entries. I only read what's in FB's Timeline because it's where I find the most recent responses. Clicking "Most Recent" doesn't take me to the left column entries.</p>

<p>FB UI design is too cluttered and convoluted to navigate for me.</p>

[G-P]

Last forum contribution was in September.

[gordonjb]

<p>I hadn't realised that JDM had left. I'm sorry to hear it, most unfortunate. Back when I participated in the NW forum JDM could always be counted on to make a contribution.</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>Lex, Larry, Simon, Matt, I, and many others, are on facebook and frequently "challenge" each other. Feel free to go on and friend request any of us, we won't bite. Actually, it would be nice to hear from some of you more often. Between APUG, Flickr, Facebook, and a few other hobby sites, I don't have time to check in here as often as I'd like. I still shoot mainly film, and as others have noted above, there just isn't very much here for filmies anymore. The only thing I really follow much here anymore is the m4/3's and mirrorless forums and weeklies.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Michael, do you find the accessibility of APUG, Facebook and Flickr as good and transparent as Photo.Net? The interface here is very conducive to following discussion and making comments, without having to open each of the less or former visible posts. It is also very open to any who take the time to follow the discussion and post, without limiting entry. Do the other sites better that?</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Howard,<br /> <br /> I agree with your assessment regarding film users. Of course, many of us old timers started shortly after the talented Mr. Greenspun created Photonet. Most all photography was film. Photonet has since been sold and the membership base has changed. Not only has digital, and then cell phone-type photography replaced us in numbers, but also in acceptance. <br /> <br /> I’m old enough to remember small business window signs “Help Wanted, No Irish Need Apply.” Now Photonet does not go that far with its film buffs, but its membership and management seem to have set a tone to imply that our dinosaur-like participation, outside of specific forums like Film and Classic Cameras, is unwelcome and irrelevant. <br /> <br /> There is a new sheriff in town, <br /> <br /> A. T. Burke</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>Mr. Burke, I think the transition Photo.net has taken was more a natural course kind of thing, and I don't place any blame on the new management. There are still, after all, filmy forums here to peruse, but not a lot of participation. Seems there was a small uptick with a few youngsters trying to get some answers, but it got lost in the noise. I remember the Greenspun to Josh Root days very fondly, and was a frequent participant in the often very noisome forum discussions, having had my hands slapped once or twice. The dreaded Off-Topic forum was perhaps my favorite on this site, it was a great place for photographers to talk about other stuff for a long time, then it seemed to devolve into a giant black hole of rude behavior.</p>

<p>Lex and others tried to get things settled down, in very different ways, but it wasn't to be. I do still peruse the weekly photo displays, especially those involving m4/3s, which I have and love, and a few others. Rick Drawbridge is absolutely fantastic with his old camera finds, and Sanford Edelstein has brought a great way to display weekly photos for us little camera users. So, there are still some Greats here. I always try to read anything from Gerry Siegel, he has a fun mind. Matt Laur is on the cutting edge of dronery (see what I did there, Matt?).</p>

<p>Arthur, as far as usability, I find Flickr to be the best, while others despise it. APUG is an old school forum with old school people, but great for technical help with old world photography. Rowland Mowrey is still a very frequent participant there. Facebook is, well, Facebook, love it or hate it. But it's the best way I know to keep up with old friends. Lex is currently working on a fantastic series (intentional or not) of street art where he lives. He has a shiny red bike that he is working on wearing the tires out on. It's funny, being the type of person I am, I have grown very fond of Lex and his words and pictures of wisdom, and consider him a good friend, though I've never met him. </p>

[chuck -]

<p>Another frequent contributor in the past that has been missing for a while is Sarah Fox. I always enjoyed her posts, as well as Lex's...</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Burke, I shot film for over twenty-five years before switching to digital in February, 2002. I still have my film gear. I just don't use it anymore.</p>

<p>I think that many of us are like that, but we evaluate photos in the critique forums irrespective of whether they were made with film or digital cameras.</p>

<p>(I hope that Lex and Sarah at least peek through the door once in a while.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Speaking of <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3728023">Sarah Fox</a>, http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00ddcw</p>