don_essedi

Documentary "nature" may emerge from a photograph over time no matter the photographer intended it or not, at the point, perhaps, when the object(s) photographed attract viewers' attention more than the photograph itself. I think that occurs over time, seeping in or emerging from, the photograph. Eggleston, for me, could see it at the time and place in which the objects photographed were mundane and commonplace. The kitchen sink linked to above is no longer commonplace and mundane in the world of those who would attend an exhibition of his photos.

Your OP excluded Eggleston's photos of people. Do you have certain photos of his in mind? I don't think 'documentary' is a style. Any photo of a time and a place will have documented that time and place, whether the photographer intended it to be 'documentary' or not.

The clothing worn by the men in the framed photos on the wall appear to be late 40's to early 50's, maybe Korean War era.

Sanford, my comments refer to manual focus lenses. I don't have an af lens for the Fuji. The lens, the subject of this thread, has an manual aperture ring (no 'A' setting). Through the evf, it is similar to an slr ttl view stopped down, and the peak focus assist is sort of a rangefinderish overlay.

I was intending to buy both, but came across a nice J3 and decided to go with that instead.

The focus ring feels good to my hands, neither stiff nor loose. Focus assist on my camera pops in quickly with this lens. I don't have any experience with other mirrorless cameras or lenses, but have used a dozen film lenses on the camera. In comparison, the J8 used here has less damping on the focus ring and the focus assist kinda creeps in to peak focus. I use the evf vf rather than the lcd. Otherwise, ease of focus depends on the cameras focus assist design.

Are you also referring to blogs when you write "forum"? https://blog.feedspot.com/film_photography_blogs/

True, previously posted as don_e begining in 2006. You've had several account changes as well. There may be two issues. For not just pnet: the charismatic phase of digital photography ended and many people lost interest in photography after a few years, the elimination of many photography career-paths, and due to rise of blogs specializing in genres of photography or brands or types of cameras, and some in film sometimes exclusively (which did surprise me) -- so, fragmentation of the market. Blogs seem to convey presence or personality (and information) better than general forums. For Photo.net: I don't know much about what pnet provides besides the forums; they do appear to have less readers and posters than other forums I visit (but pnet is my only membership), many posters here are posting images and not writing much, if anything (which is ok by me). Possibly, pnet didn't know what to do next after the "charismatic phase" and has drifted along til now. Maybe all is fine in those parts of pnet I don't read.

Panasonic FZ30

Trip35 Solaris 100

It is a specfic kind of "sharing" I can't share, because I don't take photos for reasons you want to share. On those terms I have nothing to share. I am not attempting to "say" anything with my photos. The past 25 years I have taken only taken photos in two locales I know extremely well, down to the bedrock (I mean literally down to the bedrock). If I get around to creating some web photo essays or books, the likely concept would be "change over time" of those locales. My photography is not about art, not about self-expression (is it obvious now it is the subject/object?). I have no "passion" to be a photographer or artist. You want to share provenance? Materials and technique? How to photograph far off-trail in the wasteland sites of abandoned uranium or copper mines in the high desert? I'm up for that.

Spotmatic Astia

Solaris 100

"I blame the internet" is a saying intended to be amusing. It appears to be unfamiliar to you. It is also a reference to Baudrillard's Ecstasy of Communication. Here is my explanation of some of my photographs: I was walking down the street, turned the corner, and this scene appeared before me and I took a picture. Call it a gift of the gods, or as the "come hither" of seduction. And that's it, Sam, no intended explanations or conveying anything, or symbolic expression or any purpose, no meaning intended. The photographer pushed the button, and that is all. Any "explanation" I could give would have to be a made up narrative retrospectively. "The magic of photography is that it is the object which does all the work. Photographers will never admit this and will argue that all the originality lies in their inspiration and their photographic interpretation of the world. As a result they take photographs which are either bad or too good, confusing their subjective vision with the reflex miracle of the photographic act." -- Baudrillard

Consider teaching by example. Give an explanation of one of your photos, and take that model and explain one of mine.

I don't know what you think needs explaining in, or what might be an explanation of, a (particular) photograph. It is something I first encountered here on pnet. It has something to do with the photographer, something only the photographer can satisfiy. The photograph itself is not enough "explanation". I blame the internet. Your reply to Gerald (above): "First, I don't think the remaining PN members care about photography or look at it with a "discussion" frame of mind, other than gear and hotly-contested debate topics..." Where did all the others go? I think lots of them had to grow up and get a job. Obviously, I'm not alone in not wanting to discuss the things you prefer.

I'm not after any "symbolic expressions" or "trying to convey..." [anything], nor any "purpose". The difference between us on this, afaict, is you privilege the photographer and I privilege the subject. Some photographs I take are due to an allure or seduction seen, which my response is to take a photo of it, as if it said to me "take my photo" and I obey. My relationship is with what is in the finder rather than myself or other photographers. The other photos I take are genre variations...practice. You may wonder what was alluring to me, but so do I. Often I don't know. I can't figure it out, but there it is. The genre variations are obvious...the pretty flower in the field of bokeh -- landscapes, nature, street, portrait, abstract etc. Considering the discussions I've had here the past 15 years, there haven't been any members interested in what I have to say about it, some could barely endure my demotion of the 'photographer' from being the really important thing about a photograph.

Sam: "That seems to be a not uncommon attitude on PN. No, I haven't made a study nor do I have statistics. Just a general observation that a group of PN photographers feels they ... and especially others ... shouldn't explain their photos. I actually think a lot of quite decent PN photographers would make more meaningful and interesting photos if they did at least try to explain to themselves what their photos were doing." What, besides provenance (who, what, when, where) and materials and technique, explanations are you referring to? What do you mean by "what their photos were doing"?

If I hold the lens close to my ear I can just hear clicks, but my fingers feel a slight bump. Seems to be both click and clickless. ***

Some b&w, Monochrome G, Fuji X-E1, MkII *** ***