Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: popnfresh on March 13, 2006, 04:20:37 pm
-
I think Luminous Landscape is an indispensible resource for serious fine art photographers. But I'm a little taken aback with Michael Reichmann's insistence that his site is "completely non-commercial". It seems to me that any site that sells DVDs, workshops and books is highly commercial. I think a better description is that LL doesn't accept advertising and therefore is not unduly pressured to lavish preferential treatment on sponsors. Whatever prejudices Mr Reichmann may have, and I think he has his as indeed I have mine, are personal and probably not the result of commercial relationships. That's not really the same as being non-commercial.
-
nm
-
You are semantically correct. But what does it matter? To quote Mr Spock: "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-
It's not a big deal, just somewhat disingenuous.
You are semantically correct. But what does it matter? To quote Mr Spock: "A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think I agree with popnfresh, although it doesn't particuarlly bug me.
-
So help me here as I can get confused easily. You've been registered a year and a half and this topic is your 2nd post or is it your 1st? What useful purpose does this type of post serve other than to try and judge the site and Michael as if you are somehow holier or are a nit picker.
Try getting some more things to do that would be a bigger deal and try not to fret about the "somewhat disingenuous". Better yet, go to most of the other sites that plaster their pages with ads, pop-ups, and just about every other annoying "commercial" junk and see what the meaning of commercial is.
-
So help me here as I can get confused easily. You've been registered a year and a half and this topic is your 2nd post or is it your 1st? What useful purpose does this type of post serve other than to try and judge the site and Michael as if you are somehow holier or are a nit picker.
Try getting some more things to do that would be a bigger deal and try not to fret about the "somewhat disingenuous". Better yet, go to most of the other sites that plaster their pages with ads, pop-ups, and just about every other annoying "commercial" junk and see what the meaning of commercial is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60237\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I seem to have touched a nerve. To some people apparently, Michael Reichmann is beyond any criticism whatsoever. Let me know when he starts walking on water. I want to be there to photograph it.
-
Michael is in business... to make $$. I never read his comments as "I'm here to run this as a non-profit gesture".
I for one find it very refreshing that Michael has resisted the temptation to allow commercial advertising or paid endorsements on his site which given the success of this site I'm sure he has been approached numerous times. This site is so clean and a useful source of good information because there is not the annoyance of such commercial advertising.
Michael is not beyond criticision (I don't always agree with him)... but when one "reaches" to such lengths to find fault I can only assume one is perplexed where else to look.
Keep up the good work Michael. (and no I'm not waiting for him to walk on water)
Kelly
-
Michael is in business... to make $$. I never read his comments as "I'm here to run this as a non-profit gesture".
I for one find it very refreshing that Michael has resisted the temptation to allow commercial advertising or paid endorsements on his site which given the success of this site I'm sure he has been approached numerous times. This site is so clean and a useful source of good information because there is not the annoyance of such commercial advertising.
Michael is not beyond criticision (I don't always agree with him)... but when one "reaches" to such lengths to find fault I can only assume one is perplexed where else to look.
Keep up the good work Michael. (and no I'm not waiting for him to walk on water)
Kelly
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with you. Michael is in business to make money. I applaud him and I love Luminous Landscape. And I appreciate the absence of advertising on his commercial, money-making site. I hope he's making a good living from it. He deserves it.
-
Well, that depends on what you mean by "commercial." The National Geographic Society is not commercial, but they make a ton of money. The contents of magazines are "editiorial", but the author, publisher, printer, and a host of others also profit from it. I would say this site is "non-commercial" in the sense that it is not pushing products through advertising - obviously the reviews can promote products and companies seem to send review samples in hopes of a free review. But likewise, they can also be roasted (although I don't rarely see that here).
Naturally, there are costs. Why do you expect to get something for nothing? I find the idea that people should give away their efforts for simply the satisfaction of doing it disgusting. Photographers get paid very little as it is. The internet is not making the situation any easier. I am waiting for the day when people place enough value in the work of others that they don't mind paying for it. However, in the world of Walmarts and free internet access, I am not going to hold my breath.
-
Well, that depends on what you mean by "commercial." The National Geographic Society is not commercial, but they make a ton of money. The contents of magazines are "editiorial", but the author, publisher, printer, and a host of others also profit from it. I would say this site is "non-commercial" in the sense that it is not pushing products through advertising - obviously the reviews can promote products and companies seem to send review samples in hopes of a free review. But likewise, they can also be roasted (although I don't rarely see that here).
Naturally, there are costs. Why do you expect to get something for nothing? I find the idea that people should give away their efforts for simply the satisfaction of doing it disgusting. Photographers get paid very little as it is. The internet is not making the situation any easier. I am waiting for the day when people place enough value in the work of others that they don't mind paying for it. However, in the world of Walmarts and free internet access, I am not going to hold my breath.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. Running Luminous Landscape can't be cheap. I say, let Michael make money any way he can from LL. I have no qualms at all about Michael making money. Being commercial is not a bad thing. Not at all.
The NGS is non-commercial in the sense that it's a tax exempt, not-for-profit organization. In that regard it's less "commercial" than Luminous Landscape despite the fact that National Geographic magazine runs tons of advertising and LL runs zero advertising. But I have to say I'd much rather cut a check for one of Michael's photo expeditions than donate to the NGS.
-
I seem to have touched a nerve. To some people apparently, Michael Reichmann is beyond any criticism whatsoever. Let me know when he starts walking on water. I want to be there to photograph it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, just seems to be an odd choice of a first post. First impressions and all that.
Any particular reason it bothers you enough to post about it?
-
No, just seems to be an odd choice of a first post. First impressions and all that.
Any particular reason it bothers you enough to post about it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not really first impressions, since I've visited the site several times a week for years. I just never posted before.
It doesn't bother me, particularly. It merely seemed strange to me that a site that's engaged in commerce would refer to itself as non-commercial, and I was curious to see how people would react if I brought it up.
-
Like all things, it is important to clearly define the context. Reichman does not simply state that the site is non-commercial and then leave it at that.
He says:
All of this content is provided to you without charge and without any form of advertising. The Luminous Landscape is 100% non-commercial. Always has been, always will be! There are no pop-up ads and no hidden commercials. We have no business relationships with any manufacturers or suppliers. We personally buy almost everything that we test. Occasionally items are taken on loan for testing, but always without favour or obligation.
His definition is that there is no paid advertising, no direct paid for (in cash or goods) link with any company or product. His definition is made considering other photography sites.
By this definition, he is correct. He has clearly defined what he means. Any of us may disagree with his definition, but tough, it's his site.
As far as I can see, he sticks to his 'promise' in this regard. I like it. The cash generated by the sale of the LLVJ, prints, books and workshops offsets the cost of running the site - and all of these things are 100% photography.
For me, it's a pleasant formula and a non-issue.
Now back to photography.
-
Keep up the good work Michael. (and no I'm not waiting for him to walk on water)
Kelly
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60243\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know that Michael can walk on water. It is just frozen at the time.
-
Michael's hardly out the door and the trolling starts. Now, where did he put that Big Yawn smiley?.
-
This site has been a valuable resource for years, and the information is provided for free, and without annoying CMs poping around all the time. I don't really see how you can complain as a visitor. How does the money Michael makes on this affect you?
Those who could consider complaining are the writers who provide content for this site for free (I have been one in the past), and contribute to Michael's ability to purchase his new P45.
However, I don't remember complaining about it, and I haven't seen other authors complaining about it either. Nobody has forced us to provide content for LL, and we got a certain visibility in return that we considered valuable enough.
The day we start to feel that Michael's over-doing it, we'll find other outlets for our contents (a few credible ones already exist), but LL is still today an easy way to reach a large audience of photographers in the English language.
As a final remark, if you're not happy about the place, why not stopping coming over, or even better, why not creating your own website? I am writting this with no agressivity in mind. There are many sites I don't bother visiting anymore.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I dont read what the fellow said as anti-LL, it was simply an observation on the man's wording. You people need to stop reacting so hottly to everything.
-
I dont read what the fellow said as anti-LL, it was simply an observation on the man's wording. You people need to stop reacting so hottly to everything.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, hot replies can only leade to further antagonism. On the other hand, the original post could be perceived as somewhat antagonistic in it's opening approach.
I have no problem with the viewpoint, but I am touchy about things being in their full context.
-
The site disclaimer states:
This site is completely non-commercial. It currently has more than 2,500 pages containing articles, tutorials, product reviews and photographs — all with no commercial advertisements. The site is not affiliated with or beholden to any company or organization.
I guess a lawyer would phrase it slightly more carefully (and use 100 times more words, most of which were last seen in the Magna Carta), but it is clear to me at least that the second sentence qualifies the first.
Basically, it is an independent, self-funding website. You can choose to support it by buying services such as DVD subscriptions, books, or joining LL or associated workshops.
I think to split hairs (and co-incidenatlly I've beem doing this sort of stuff all day, yawn, yawn), I'd replace the disclaimer with something like:
"This site receives no commercial advertising. It currently has more than 2,500 freely accessible pages containing articles, tutorials, product reviews and photographs. The site is not affiliated with or beholden to any company or organization. You can choose to support it by buying LL Video Journal subscriptions and back issues, LL books, or joining workshops."
Compare and contrast with http://www.outbackphoto.com/ (http://www.outbackphoto.com/) --- close to illiterate content riddled with adverts, many of which are for products the site endorses...
-
I have no problem with the wording.
My problem starts with the act of posting the comments while Michael is offline for an extended period. The timing of this is in very poor taste. Such a stunt ranges somewhere between rude and underhanded in my book. Michael has made his thinking quite clear in the past and would do so again if he was available. A little scrolling, a little site searching, and his reasoning and explanations can be reviewed. That's enough for now, and the questions should be saved till he's back.
-
I don't think Michael will be the least bit offended or nearly as up in temperature as some of you folk. I am sure he would just respond and try to clear up the original poster's query.
Secondly, Popnfresh raised a point that is valid, even if he has, perhaps, misunderstood the definition of non-commercial.
This industry is so dynamic at this point in it's history and people are spending lots of money on trying to get totally "photographic". Lots of people are getting winded, exhausted and frustrated by this...If we found out that Michael is quietly being funded or encouraged via the freebee to plug certain products etc., then, it would raise a large question as to the integrity of his revues. Wondering about the meaning of "non commercial" is a perfectly ok thing to do and a perfectly ok thing to post about. To default to calling the original poster a "troller" is, IMO, a short sighted statement.
If Epson or Colorbyte were tossing goodies this way and Michael was sitting back and accepting them with a mutual wink, it would cast serious credibility shadows over this whole thing. I am sure that he, Michael, has felt this type of pressure more than a few times. I am sure that he has to be VERY careful. It does make one wonder how strong the temptation can be, doesn't it? Stuff like this does happen and who's to say that Michael, being human and all, could not fall victim to this scenario? We are all frail and if you don't recognize it then you are kidding yourself.
And so what if Michael is unavailable? Do we all know this? I don't think it has anything to do with anything...the site is here, if you have a question..post it. Michael is a grown man and can probably handle this.
-
Yes, hot replies can only leade to further antagonism. On the other hand, the original post could be perceived as somewhat antagonistic in it's opening approach.
I have no problem with the viewpoint, but I am touchy about things being in their full context.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My opening statement was intended more as observation. To the extent it was a criticism, it was only so far as the description of the site is concerned and not a critique of Michael's integrity or the value of Luminous Landscape. Nor was it to suggest that commercialism is in any way a bad thing. There are many ways in which an enterprise can be commercial. Michael has found a happy medium where he can generate an income and not be beholden to advertisers. My hat's off to him. Not many sites can follow his model and survive.
The most interesting aspect of this thread has been the tendency of some people to shoot first and ask questions later. Internet forums often quickly degenerate into flamewars where thoughtful discussion is replaced by righteous indignation. This forum is no exception.
-
I think Luminous Landscape is an indispensible resource for serious fine art photographers. But I'm a little taken aback with Michael Reichmann's insistence that his site is "completely non-commercial". It seems to me that any site that sells DVDs, workshops and books is highly commercial. I think a better description is that LL doesn't accept advertising and therefore is not unduly pressured to lavish preferential treatment on sponsors. Whatever prejudices Mr Reichmann may have, and I think he has his as indeed I have mine, are personal and probably not the result of commercial relationships. That's not really the same as being non-commercial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I got quite a good chuckle out of this thread. But this first post is the one that makes me laugh the most. You want to pay like a socialist and recieve like a capatilist. Well? Which way do you want it?
-
I'm back, and have now read the thread.
I might agree that the wording I've used is not as precise as it could be, but then I'm a photographer and not a lawyer (shudder). Mea culpa.
Yes, I support this site (and my dinner table) by various commercial activities, selling the products that I produce, many of them with my business partner, Chris Sanderson. These are all products of "art", if you will, DVDs, prints, books, portfolios, workshops. They are the items of commerce associated with this otherwise non-commercial web site.
And once again, for the record – I accept no money, products or other considerations – EVER – from any company in or associated with the photographic industry. I either buy, or receive on loan products that I review here. I will accept a discount from a manufacturer or dealer that has loaned me a product for testing, if I decide to buy a product that I have reviewed, but only after my review has been published.
I will keep software that is sent to me for review, because returning it is sort of meaningless, especially when the program is in the form of a download.
There are exceptions. From time to time I work as a consultant, and in this capacity receive payment for my services. This is usually associated with product design consultation. I also do alpha and beta testing of some products, but this is always gratis. Sometimes these products turn out poorly, and I say so. Long time readers will easily recognize which ones these are.
I also will let companies buy me a beer, or a meal when I'm at trade shows or meetings. I also accept T shirts and pens as gifts. I'm a cheap date.
Michael
-
I only just joined a couple of days ago but I am almost wondering what I have got into !
"Storm in a teacup" comes to mind.
I have already spent some hours on what I would have to say is one of the most seriously informative sites I have come across.
Let us not spoil it by bickering please and, Michael, for goodness sake keep up the good work - we need a serious site like this too much to not emphasise its value and importance.
When i was bringing up my teenagers I had a catchphrase " Please operate brain before mouth" it is not a bad maxim and saves a lot of hurt feelings and subsequent regrets.
-
I'm back, and have now read the thread.
I might agree that the wording I've used is not as precise as it could be, but then I'm a photographer and not a lawyer (shudder). Mea culpa.
Yes, I support this site (and my dinner table) by various commercial activities, selling the products that I produce, many of them with my business partner, Chris Sanderson. These are all products of "art", if you will, DVDs, prints, books, portfolios, workshops. They are the items of commerce associated with this otherwise non-commercial web site.
And once again, for the record – I accept no money, products or other considerations – EVER – from any company in or associated with the photographic industry. I either buy, or receive on loan products that I review here. I will accept a discount from a manufacturer or dealer that has loaned me a product for testing, if I decide to buy a product that I have reviewed, but only after my review has been published.
I will keep software that is sent to me for review, because returning it is sort of meaningless, especially when the program is in the form of a download.
There are exceptions. From time to time I work as a consultant, and in this capacity receive payment for my services. This is usually associated with product design consultation. I also do alpha and beta testing of some products, but this is always gratis. Sometimes these products turn out poorly, and I say so. Long time readers will easily recognize which ones these are.
I also will let companies buy me a beer, or a meal when I'm at trade shows or meetings. I also accept T shirts and pens as gifts. I'm a cheap date.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=61039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I realized that I never read the last few posts of this thread I started a year ago, so I thought I'd look it up and see where it went. I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on the debate, and I want you to know that the only reason I took the time to engage in this discussion is because I think LL is a wonderful resource which I want to succeed.
I appreciate that you're not a lawyer. Neither am I, for that matter. I'm a high school English teacher. I suppose that's why language and words are important to me and why, when I encounter words being misused, it kind of gets under my skin. If you were a student of mine and submitted your website for a critique I would feel compelled to point out a few things.
1. according to the dictionary, "commercial", when used as an adjective, means "concerned with or engaged in business". LL is clearly a business. It engages in commerce. Therefore, LL is commercial (this statement is not pejorative).
2. I would argue that LL is not free of advertising. I counted 6 banner ads on the home page alone, albeit for your own products. Advertising, whether it's for your products or paid for by someone else to sell their products, is still advertising. Rather than calling LL ad-free, it would be more accurate to say that LL is free of third party advertising.
3. Finally, I would question the need to bring up the whole "non-commercial" and "no commercial advertisements" thing in the first place. Anyone encountering your website for the first time can see inside of a minute or two that the only selling going on is for your stuff. Whether the language you're using to make your point about advertising is accurate or not, it is belaboring the obvious. It would be like hanging a sign on Steven Hawking that says "I'm smarter than you are." Yeah, we get that.
-
<deleted by poster>
-
Oh dear, another thread where the last word is all!
It matters not a jot how people interpret Michael's original written words on the commercial or otherwise nature of this site because a few minutes in the company of Lu-La says all that needs saying; the site is his and he is free to plug his wares as much as he likes and, in that context, it is amazing that he shows such restraint.
Neither do I think that the original poster should have refrained from posting his comment/question; I don't think Michael would much care either way, he's a big boy.
On the other hand, perhaps Michael might find the time both to write a little more and also to take a more active part in discussions/threads. That he doesn't jump in and end threads more often is surprising, but then, that's part of having a broader sense of reality and knowing that all people are far from the same. So, in all, a damn good site (which is why I bother to post despite a computer that sometimes dies before I have finished and forces me to rewrite) and one where I have picked up a lot of good advice and new information.
Ciao - Rob C
-
"This site receives no commercial advertising. It currently has more than 2,500 freely accessible pages containing articles, tutorials, product reviews and photographs. The site is not affiliated with or beholden to any company or organization. You can choose to support it by buying LL Video Journal subscriptions and back issues, LL books, or joining workshops."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Michael - hire that man!
-
"This site receives no commercial advertising. It currently has more than 2,500 freely accessible pages containing articles, tutorials, product reviews and photographs. The site is not affiliated with or beholden to any company or organization. You can choose to support it by buying LL Video Journal subscriptions and back issues, LL books, or joining workshops."
Michael - hire that man!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not bad. I would re-write the first sentence to read "This site sells no advertising space to others." That would do it. But I still think it isn't necessary to bring up commerciality anyway. For example, dpreview.com does sell ad space and yet I don't think anyone seriously questions the editorial integrity of Phil Askey. Rather than trying to hammer on a point that's evident to anyone who checks out this site, I think it's better to drop it altogether. But if Micheal insists on hammering, at least he can be concise.
-
*chomp*
For example, dpreview.com does sell ad space and yet I don't think anyone seriously questions the editorial integrity of Phil Askey.
*chomp*
Read Askey's posts in the dpreview forum. People sure do question his integrity. And he takes it very seriously.
-
And with that, I bid you all goodnight.
Michael
-
Read Askey's posts in the dpreview forum. People sure do question his integrity. And he takes it very seriously.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112076\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A few may question it, but they're a tiny minority. There's always a few in any crowd. 99.9% would agree that Phil's an honest guy, as is Michael.
-
Why are we even bothering with this post? The more we add to it the larger in life it gets. I don't care what it's called - I like this site and everything it has brought me.
-
I am (inter alia) a lawyer. I'm highly commercial Spare a thought for us poor lawyers.
Quentin
-
<deleted by poster>
-
My opening statement was intended more as observation. To the extent it was a criticism, it was only so far as the description of the site is concerned and not a critique of Michael's integrity or the value of Luminous Landscape. Nor was it to suggest that commercialism is in any way a bad thing. There are many ways in which an enterprise can be commercial. Michael has found a happy medium where he can generate an income and not be beholden to advertisers. My hat's off to him. Not many sites can follow his model and survive.
The most interesting aspect of this thread has been the tendency of some people to shoot first and ask questions later. Internet forums often quickly degenerate into flamewars where thoughtful discussion is replaced by righteous indignation. This forum is no exception.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=60452\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This topic has been hashed over in the past. Do you enjoy/benefit from the LL site. If not then go elsewhere If so enjoy. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy anything.
I personally could care less if it was commercial/non-commercial done by aliens (the out in space kind) or whatever.
There certainly must be more important issues related to photography to discuss
-
I am (inter alia) a lawyer. I'm highly commercial Spare a thought for us poor lawyers.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Quentin
I'm sparing one, I'm sparing one, but how will you pay me?
Ciao - Rob C
-
There certainly must be more important issues related to photography to discuss
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Except this happens to be the forum intended specifically for discussing site issues, not photography.
-
Here's the thing. I don't care whether or not LL is engaged in commerce. Commercial means you're conducting commerce, which is what businesses do. I have no problem with that at all. I hope Michael makes enough money from his LL business to buy a small island in the Caribbean!
I think what he really meant when he used the phrase "completely non-commercial" was that LL doesn't sell advertising space to other companies, which is very true. But saying that LL is "completely non-commercial" is the same as saying that LL isn't a business, which is not true.
I don't think Micheal chose that phrase because he's lying, I just think he committed an honest linguistic error that, unfortunately, completely changed the meaning of what he intended to say. And I simply think he should change the wording to convey the meaning he originally intended. That's all.
-
I'm about to leave on my Brazil trip.
But please, please – give it a %&$#%@ rest. This has become so tedious. Don't any of you have anything better to discuss?
Michael
Ps: To hopefully bring this to a close, and to satisfy the nit pickers, I have now changed the wording on the home page. You can now all rest comfortably in your beds tonight knowing that no one is being mislead any longer, and that all is right with the world. Groan.
-
Michael - have fun and be safe. Other than that I'm tunning this entire post out.
-
Michael is verying giving of his experiences and time. For me, his site is a continual source of information and inspiration.
I'm a charter subscriber to the the Luminous-Landscape Video Journal and if he makes money on it, GREAT! He deserves to. After all, it's not cheap supporting a web site and providing timely and relevant content for the world to enjoy.
With all of the good stuff he produces, everyone who visits his forums should subscribe to the VJ to support his efforts and keep the good stuff coming.
Michael, keep up the good work.
Cheers.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
-
Without a doubt, there is no more valuable resource on the web for the serious landscape photographer than Luminous Landscape.
What makes it all the more wonderful is that Michael himself is such an amazing artist, never mind his vast technical knowledge and years of practical experience. This makes Michael uniquely adept at demonstrating how a thorough grasp of the nuts and bolts of the craft serves the final result. Technique is great and so is artistry, but Michael proves that the combination of the two is unbeatable.
There's simply nothing else like Luminous Landscape.
-
"This site has been a valuable resource for years, and the information is provided for free, and without annoying CMs poping around all the time. I don't really see how you can complain as a visitor. How does the money Michael makes on this affect you?"
I agree 100%!
-
"This site has been a valuable resource for years, and the information is provided for free, and without annoying CMs poping around all the time. I don't really see how you can complain as a visitor. How does the money Michael makes on this affect you?"
I agree 100%!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Madre de Dios! Even Michael is fed up to the back teeth with this thread; yes, we all love him and we get a great freebie out of the Lu-La. Can we relax now?
Rob C
-
Would someone please close this thread?
-
Just write "This site is entirely self-supporting" and thereby avoid the use of the word "commercial" and be done with it. I appreciate that the site is self-supporting and I say "More power to Michael".
-
Would someone please close this thread?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay - always willing to help: Click, lights out.
Rob C
-
I think Luminous Landscape is an indispensible (sic) resource for serious fine art photographers.
Regards, Art.