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.

Interesting, so they are optically different.

 

I hadn't thought to look on 7artisans own website...

 

I might actually be tempted to get the mk2 now, closer focus and an aperture ring with stops had me interested, different formula means it's a different lens, also interesting...

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

How hard are these lenses to focus on a mirrorless camera especially when stopped down?

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 there any more? It seems like there should be more Classic 35mm film camera forums. Thanks for your help. I've Googled my question, but I only seem to find dead forums that have not had posts in years. I am seeking active forums like this one.

Thanks

 

By the way, I own a small repair shop, that's why I'm trying to add forum sources to my Source page for people who use classic film cameras.

Are you also referring to blogs when you write "forum"?

https://blog.feedspot.com/film_photography_blogs/

Don’t believe everything you read in a profile. When various redesigns of the site took place and for unknown technical reasons, many members’ previous accounts became unavailable to them, so they’ve had to start new accounts. This explains why a membership may go back many more years than the info in a profile might state.

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

I understand that. I already said you've stated it clearly and I have no reason to question you on it. Do you think I'm trying to convince you otherwise? Why would I do that? As I said, I'm sharing.

 

For me to share that I benefit from explanations, both from others and myself on occasion, doesn't mean that's all I care about and doesn't mean I want you to feel the same. I said, generically, that I do think there are people on PN who would prefer others didn't explain and discuss photos in a certain way. That doesn't mean I think they should. I'm just put off by and suspicious of why they don't want others to do so.

 

I like the Baudrillard quote even though I think it's limited. It's a way to look at photography and I can learn from it. But, for me, it's not the be-all and end-all. I've studied enough philosophy to know I can get plenty from each philosopher I read, even those who would fight each other to the deaths over their differing beliefs. I'm not much of an ideologue when it comes to philosophy or photography. All these ideas, even when presented dogmatically as Baudrillard and so many others do, just get put into a pot of my own soup. I appreciate and get inspiration from all kinds of ideas, even ones I think are limited or don't express quite the way I look at things.

 

As I said, I do think that no photograph exists in a vacuum and both the taking context and viewing context play a role in what we see as the object in the photo, which I believe not to be the same thing as the object the camera was pointed at, even though they're intimately related. For Baudrillard to think that the object does all the work is fascinating, idealistic, worth considering, worth working with at times, and seems somewhat out of touch to me if not seen as a matter of degree rather than an all or nothing scenario. Again, this is me sharing, not trying to convince you of anything.

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

No, thanks.

 

I’m too old for exercises in futility. You’ve made it clear that you think something is to blame for this part of my approach to photography, so I have reason to suspect you would resist the “learning” you’re purportedly asking for.

 

Besides, I’m not here to teach but to share.

"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

... which are among the reasons I wouldn't expect or ask you to explain your work. Ironically, because you've explained yourself, I know not to ask you to explain yourself. I'm not familiar enough with your work to have drawn that conclusion just from the work itself. Though I recognize that some photographers don't, many photographers do try convey, express, and work with purpose. Do you recognize such photographers? If so, would an explanation from one of them provide something of substance worth your time and energy? For me, the answer is "yes," which prompted my initial comment on the matter.

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 thinking of things like possible symbolic expressions a photographer was after, particular or more general emotions she might have been trying to convey, motivations for taking the shot, how the shot might (or might not) fit into the themes of their overall body of work, anything that might have made the photographer curious relating to the photo or the original scene being shot, a mystery that might have shown up for them, a purpose the photo might have or not have, photographic or other influences that seem to emanate from it. As Avedon said, clues ... often more than answers.

 

Well, I consider photos more than just dead meat. They're alive in a significant sense. That's me. Every photographer might tackle this question differently and on their own terms. It's what you would mean by it that I'd be interested to hear when talking to you about your work, especially as a fellow photographer.

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

***

***