Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Peter_Gulbinat on November 25, 2008, 04:40:24 am
-
Michael
what a boring website this has become ... :-(
After all those years of excellent reviews, in depth analysis and very valuable tips & tricks, and me checking this website if not daily then every other day, I now rarely check back more than once every two weeks. I own most DVDs, but the last ones I kept fast forwarding ...
No more opinions except maybe once every three months, no more timely reviews, no more tips and tricks, just endless plugging of friends' workshops and empty promises.
what happened to the promised D3 review, an in-depth update on your printers, the entertaining views on middle format, digital photography in general and the small but useful gizmos?
A bag and a monopod?? Come on, you can do better!
Looking forward to the return of your old self :-)
Regards
Peter
-
what a boring website this has become ... :-(
Ever considered contributing?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think it's because the newness is off digital photography for most of us. There was a time a few years back where every few months brought some major advancement or new doodad we all had to have. Now the major advancements are few and far between. I'd say D3 last year for it's noise, and 5D2 this year for catching up in noise and offering video. There's very few new lenses that are droolworthy. Lightroom or Aperture is de rigeur now. There's very few places someone can post a picture from that we haven't seen a dozen times before. Practically all new printers produce spectacular prints, so the reviews are all about the bells and whistles. Basically it's all been done, and now we're just doing it incrementally better, and the increments are getting smaller. Toss a recession on to that and I think you'll see things slow even more. Fine with me, and probably most photographers, as it's easier on our wallets.
-
I think it's because the newness is off digital photography for most of us. There was a time a few years back where every few months brought some major advancement or new doodad we all had to have. Now the major advancements are few and far between. I'd say D3 last year for it's noise, and 5D2 this year for catching up in noise and offering video. There's very few new lenses that are droolworthy. Lightroom or Aperture is de rigeur now. There's very few places someone can post a picture from that we haven't seen a dozen times before. Practically all new printers produce spectacular prints, so the reviews are all about the bells and whistles. Basically it's all been done, and now we're just doing it incrementally better, and the increments are getting smaller. Toss a recession on to that and I think you'll see things slow even more. Fine with me, and probably most photographers, as it's easier on our wallets.
Couldn't agree more. The latest Photokina was a perfect illustration of this. I exhibited in 2002, 2004, 2006 and only visited in 2008. 2002 was the year when it was becoming clear that digital was killing analog: there was revolution in the air, and everything was new, fascinating and full of potentialities. 2004 was the year a lot of the expections materialized, in 2006 the Canon 5D was already old news and the focus was on the tools we could use to process and manage all the extremely good stuff cameras were delivering. Still somewhat exciting, but the magic was already fading. 2008 was a disaster, imho. The show was significantly smaller, as if manufacturers were forecasting hard times (they had booked space in 2007, when the crisis wasn't yet the global quagmire we have today), no fancy giveaway, very few cool shows. Booth that had spectacular acrobat shows in 2006 had either nothing or a couple of dancers on the floor, etc..., etc... Where people where queing in 2004-2006, we had empty desks. One of the few exceptions was of course the Nikon booth. Many of the very competent people I talked with when I was trying to decide whether I should exhibit in 2008 told me they wouldn't go this time. I talked with scores of visitors after the show and not a single one of them claimed that 2008 was a good year. Interestingly, the print and web media covering the event mostly ignored the gloom and tried to sound as cheerful as before... well, it is also their business after all.
The early 2000s were an era of somewhat crazy enthusiastic people going forward doing exciting things. It was fun. The second part of the decade, at least in this field, seems to be more an age of somewhat boring users endlessly repeating what was done earlier. Also, technically, we are getting closer to the real physical limits in terms of resolution, signal to noise ratio, etc... Processing power can still increase though, maybe we have some potential here.
In this context, the fact that there's less exciting stuff on this website is understandable. Still, is there a clearly better resource elsewhere? If there is, I couldn't find any. <bait mode>Oh, yes, there is that Ken guy...</bait mode> Are there really many questions for which you can't find an answer or at least very good starting points by simply looking here? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/). I don't know, this isn't obvious - so much has already been covered in a now mature and stable industry. No wonder Michael may have a hard time finding new topics. As far as the LLVJ stuff is concerned, the Maisel interview was excellent, imho.
I think we need significant new stuff to become excited again.
Of course, there is that famous "convergence" thing. At this point, I wouldn't hold my breath for two reasons: skills and bandwidth. We have had the perfect illustration of those limitations with Laforet's 5D Mark II video imho. How many of us can expect to come even close to what he did? (I am sure quite a few people on this board could do very nice things, but we do have exceptional photographers here). For the majority of advanced photographers, early adopters, power users, etc... the supporting resources (artistic, logistics, production, etc...) are beyond reach. How many photographers can jump into video and be at home? Then there is bandwidth: do something spectacular and hit a wall. Heck, even Canon hit the wall on that one. And let's not forget human bandwidth: we can look at and be moved by an almost arbitrary number of images. How many movies can we stand if they aren't build on a solid scenario and perfectly produced? A single B&W wedding picture of two hands touching can be very powerful. I can't imagine - maybe it's only me - being moved by a thirty second video of a ring exchange unless I have been emotionally prepared, there are a few cuts, ligthing is perfect, the appropriate music is properly synchronized and big red fat uncle Bob isn't cluttering the background.
Hmmm, OK, I digress... Let's leave it at this.
(and is I write this, I stumble on this http://vimeo.com/2314305 (http://vimeo.com/2314305) - for better or for worse, get ready for the Laforet style)
-
... the newness is off digital photography for most of us. There was a time a few years back where every few months brought some major advancement or new doodad we all had to have. Now the major advancements are few and far between... There's very few new lenses that are droolworthy... Practically all new printers produce spectacular prints... Basically it's all been done...
Oh, nooooo!?
Does it mean I would have to start actually making pictures with all those gizmos accumulated over the (more exciting) years, instead of armchair-debating tools and techniques!? What has the world come to!?
-
what a boring website this has become ... :-(
Ya know what? I would demand my money back if you're not happy...oh yeah, it doesn't COST you a red cent to visit. Well, you're screwed bud.
Seriously, do you have a brain cell in your tiny head? What possible good do you expect to come of this post? Michael does what Michael wants...it's a nice place to be. (I'm in the same place). Boorish posts like the above have zero chance of bringing about positive change (if that indeed is what you were trying to do). Doode, you need to get a life. Maybe watch daytime soap operas or donate your time to a charity. Do something useful with your life instead of wasting it making really stupid posts on forums.
-
I agree with Jeff. If you don’t like what Michael is or isn’t putting on HIS web sight than I think it might be time to move on and find another sight to visit. And if you can’t find that perfect web sight that gives you everything you want, than make your own so we can all see how you could do better.
-
I agree with Jeff. If you don’t like what Michael is or isn’t putting on HIS web sight than I think it might be time to move on and find another sight to visit. And if you can’t find that perfect web sight that gives you everything you want, than make your own so we can all see how you could do better.
I believe Peter's post wasn't totally baseless or entirely negative. I am not 100% sure he deserves heavy flak...
-
I believe Peter's post wasn't totally baseless or entirely negative. I am not 100% sure he deserves heavy flak...
Sure he does...he took a low road way of saying what he said. If one wanted to give an honest assessment, there's a lot better ways of doing do so than the OP. He was crying for attention and I for one am happy to give him the attention he asks for...
Look, you don't go over to a friend's house and kick the dog, insult the wife and fart in the living room. If you don't like visiting, then don't answer the phone when he calls...pretty easy to deal with this. If you come to the site, constructive criticism is useful and prolly encouraged (some people who posted in this sub-forum did actually bring about change without a lot of farting) but if you have nothing useful to say, save the friggin' bandwidth. (I hope this thread doesn't last long, it really ain't worth the effort).
Move along, there's nothing of interest for you here...
-
wow, so an honest critique is gets a mean response like this? kick the dog, farting? for real? this guy was just thinking out loud it looks like and misses how entertaining it used to be. I think he said so in a very respectful manner, and being mean back to someone asking an honest question is pretty silly. Don't be so reactionary schewe.
-
There are reasons why the world of LL *seems* to have slowed down or become repetitive, but it's not them. They are very busy doing things that you have probably missed, because you're stuck in a rut. In fact, Michael takes heat whenever his explorations venture beyond some people's safe/comfort zones. Poke around a little more in unfamiliar areas and see for yourself.
-
wow, so an honest critique is gets a mean response like this?
Want to point me to the "honest critique" part of the OP? I must have missed it...oh, do you mean where he calls the site boring? And that's useful how? Boring to HIM isn't providing any useful feedback that I can see...maybe I'm just dense (but I don't think so, ya know?)
Don't be so reactionary schewe.
You're kidding, right? Whew, for a second there I thought you really thought I was being reactionary...I'm ANYTHING but a reactionary...I do tend towards being radical...but being opposed to the status quo ain't what I'm about bud. Maybe you used the wrong word?
-
Perhaps if the OP is so bored he could go on dpreview where he could take part in the debates of what the next Canon/Nikon camera will have or when the 1DMKIV will be released.
-
Apologies if some feathers were ruffled ...
To Bernard: Although I wasn't criticizing the quality of the forum, I accept your point, I am not exactly a heavy contributor and if you believe that this fact disqualifies me from criticizing the website, I respect although not share your opinion.
To cmburns and Pierre: Fair point, and that surely accounts for some lost pizazz, but then why announce upcoming articles (see quote below on the D3, I know there is another on printers ..) and then never mention them again?
Start quote
<6 May, 2008 - The Convergence of Still Photography and Video
<
<I have just returned from a long-weekend workshop photographing moose and spring landscape in Algonquin Park. My co-teacher was Pulitzer prize winning landscape <photographer Jack Dykinga. A good time was had by all, though it rained almost the whole time. (Great light though.) I'll have a small portfolio of mine as well as of the <participants on these pages within the next couple of weeks. The first of my images from Algonquin is now on the home page.
<
<This was also the first multi-day shoot in which I used the Nikon D3 exclusively, and I'll have more to say on this remarkable camera in a separate article in the days ahead.
End Quote
Pierre and Condit79, thanks ;-)
To slobodan56: And your point is? So we should all be making pictures and not spending time on the internet, neither reading nor creating websites? Great, thanks mom ...
To Schewe: Yes I know it's free, but it's public, so I take it comments and criticism are allowed. And the DVDs are not, so again, I think I can comment. Surely Michael can do whatever he wants and as he does so publicly, I am again allowed to comment. I thought the forum was the place for that, I am sorry if I misunderstood. I am sure though you're happy with positive comments, so I'm afraid you'll have to deal with the negative ones as well. As to the language used, I apologize if I offended you, but considering the language you used, I am inclined to believe you're not overly sensitive in that domain of life and neither am I. So I forgive you. And mostly, if someone reacts this way, it's because there is some truth in what is being said.
To canlogic: Yes, I know ... We're all not interested in new cameras because it's the photographer and not the tool (Is that you Ken ...?) and still we others (except you canlogic and Ken of course) still like to know what's happening, and that's why we come (came) to sites like these (in addition to all the other topics that were once treated here with stronger focus, like printers, excellent and original views on lenses and gear and more in-depth views on how to make better pictures).
To quote another site: "I'm starting to come to the conclusion that perhaps landscape photographers don't actually know how to talk about landscape photography" - Thom Hogan in reference to this site. I used to disagree with him. I'm starting to think he has a valid point.
Regards
Peter
-
(http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/3d-silly.gif)
He teaches, is a speaker on conferences, arranges trips to Antarctica, Africa etc., writes reviews and essays, produces tutorials and DVD's, tests new printers and gear in general, runs a Gallery/Studio, photographs and prints, interviews interesting people like Henry and makes it available to us, occasionally likes to breath, drink and eat a little something, maintains the LL website, AND has a partner and family.
Jeff's example of visiting a friends house is excellent. <grin>
To title this " What a boring website this has become" is in deed like being a guest at your Neighbours place after you spoke with him 17 times in the last 5 years (pun intended) and rambling on what for a shite decoration he has installed in his house, making suggestions on changing the wallpaper.... You would not insult your neighbour like this?
Now let's have a pint together.
(http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/beer.gif) (http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/beer.gif) (http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/beer.gif) (http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/images/smiles/beer.gif)
-
Well, that thread was anything but boring!
Just to add my 1.48 cents worth (that's in Canadian dollars), I just did a Google search on "prophoto rgb" and guess what the number one hit is? Yep, this site. And I find that happens all the time. This is a great resource, with a lot of time and effort behind it.
-
Can somebody define boring so it applies to all site visitors/participants? IMO, a site is only as boring as its participants. You shouldn't blame Micheal or Jeff, they hardly ooze blandness--witness Jeff's response to the OP. Michael provides the site, but is he suppose to be the site entertainment? The bottom line is a site can't be everything to everybody, or it becomes nothing to everyone. Some people just need to move on and the site will continue to develop its personality.
BTW, to me a forum like DP is boring. I can't stand reading the responses.
-
In the midst of wave after wave, tsunami after tsunami of new digital gear being introduced, Michael has continued to keep LL a photography website as opposed to a gear website. IMO, extremelly difficult to do given that digital lends itself to being gear minded. Every new dslr upgrade is more and more feature/function packed & increases your chances and likelyhood that you'll be able to capture that all important shot that would've been impossible some years ago. It's almost as though digital is taking the photographer out-of the photography.
In a nutshell, the paradox is: How to keep that sinister "gear" word out-of digital photography? Don't know how to answer that, but I do know that LL has done so as much as is humanly possible.
Just my 2c for all it's worth
jj
-
Wow, the ridiculously defensive responses to the original post are sorta sad. Schewe, especially, was a horses arse and probably didn't read past the first sentence before penning his insults.
This site exists to make money for Michael (which is perfectly valid and highly enviable). It's not a simple labor of love (at least anymore), it's a BUSINESS. As such, complaints are are not only valid, but helpful. If potential customers are not happy, whether the complaints have substance or not, then the business may suffer. A single complaint is rarely a lone voice, but rather speaks for many who will remain silent. Any business owner worth his/her salt welcomes complaints (and compliments) rather than belittling and insulting the presenter.
Some of you have serious anger management issues, me thinks.
Chuck
-
Me thinks the numero uno question is not whether LL is boring, but whether or not Michael has been able to keep "photography" as LL's primary objective as opposed to "gear" oriented. And IMO, LL is still about photography. Oh, I fully realize that Michael keeps his gear upgraded, however, subjective as it is, when I look at his images, I don't see gear written all over them, instead I see composition.
Yes, LL is a business. But so are all the other digital photographic websites, which IMO are extremely gear oriented.
jj
-
Wow, the ridiculously defensive responses to the original post are sorta sad. Schewe, especially, was a horses arse and probably didn't read past the first sentence before penning his insults.
This site exists to make money for Michael (which is perfectly valid and highly enviable). It's not a simple labor of love (at least anymore), it's a BUSINESS. As such, complaints are are not only valid, but helpful. If potential customers are not happy, whether the complaints have substance or not, then the business may suffer. A single complaint is rarely a lone voice, but rather speaks for many who will remain silent. Any business owner worth his/her salt welcomes complaints (and compliments) rather than belittling and insulting the presenter.
Some of you have serious anger management issues, me thinks.
Chuck
Chuck,
Should those who disagree with the OP not respond? That seems to be your opinion when you label dissenters' views as "ridiculously defensive responses." As to the rest of your response, LL's financial bottom line will determine its viability and warn Michael of any need for change. Personally, I don't see the OP as representing some Reaganese "silent majority." People talk with their fingers on the internet by not frequenting a site. In the end, declining site traffic will make more of an impression on Michael than the OP's post. BTW, has Michael belittled or insulted somebody in this thread? If so, I must have missed it.
-
Of course people can voice their disagreement. I never said, nor was I even close to insinuating, otherwise. However, the way in which it was done in this thread was absurd.
Example: "Do something useful with your life instead of wasting it making really stupid posts on forums."
Does that not rise to the level of a "ridiculously defensive response", or is that an acceptable form of disagreement?
-
This site exists to make money for Michael (which is perfectly valid and highly enviable).
That's your opinion, not based on facts. I guess you don't understand the fact that Michael is a retired photographer/businessman who really has no need to working at this stage in his life. If you think the site is designed simply to make money for Mike, you are deluded...there's a lot easier ways to make money that do what he does. He enjoys shooting, and writing and talking and teaching. He finds this medium a useful outlet. The fact that he and Chris (and to a smaller degree me) can make some money on the side is a fringe benefit. If he were to actually want to MAKE money from LL, he would not run it as he does...Sure, he tries to generate revenue to defray costs but that's a far cry from trying to use LL to "make money". That's your own baggage intruding into your opinions.
As for honest and useful critique, I know for a fact Michael welcomes it...the recent changes in the sub-forum structure comes to mind. But idle Pissing&Moaning™ with no useful content such as the OP isn't what I would call honest and useful critique. He doesn't offer any suggestions but merely complains about the lack of what HE thinks the site should have (without bothering to offer an specifics) and then bemoans the announcements of friend's workshops and complains about the bag and monopod articles.
Naw, the OP was just trying to stir things up and unfortunately he's getting far more attention than he deserves...Micheal on the other hand is having a nice and relaxing week in Arizona with friends shooting. Maybe what the OP is really pissed at is the fact that Michael really is free to do whatever he wants to do and the OP doesn't like that? Michael's off-line (out of cell and internet access) for a while. Good for him. In the meantime, I suggest the OP go out and get a life. There's lots of stuff to do and shoot out there...
-
Of course people can voice their disagreement. I never said, nor was I even close to insinuating, otherwise. However, the way in which it was done in this thread was absurd.
Example: "Do something useful with your life instead of wasting it making really stupid posts on forums."
Does that not rise to the level of a "ridiculously defensive response", or is that an acceptable form of disagreement?
I think many of the responses were pretty aggressive. That isn't my style, but, I'm just one voice on a public forum. I feel it is better to respond to the issue rather than the voice and not classify or categorize the style. This thread has become fuzzy because its subject is too subjective and now I have made my contributed to the fuzziness.
-
Naw, the OP was just trying to stir things up and unfortunately he's getting far more attention than he deserves...
That's about right Jeff, but there are some interesting issues about the slowing down of innovation. There seems to be little prospect of any great leap in performance with the current DSLR model. Nikon has now caught up with Canon, but both companies will find it difficult to provide the quantum leaps in performance that we enjoyed in the past. Unless we move to a new paradigm, we're stuck with very marginal improvements from model to model, like 20D to 40D to 50D.
-
To Bernard: Although I wasn't criticizing the quality of the forum, I accept your point, I am not exactly a heavy contributor and if you believe that this fact disqualifies me from criticizing the website, I respect although not share your opinion.
No, I was just saying that you could very well decide to cover yourself some of these topics you mentioned, write an article and submit it to Michael.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, I believe that LuLa is whatever Michael chooses it to be, but within the limits of his control, which because of the public participation cannot be total. Unless, of course, he introduces some censorship device - surely, not Schewe?
I also believe that it is a genuine resource for those of us interested in photography beyond a very basic level. There is much advice/information available here if you choose to search it out.
However, I wonder if that was part of the meaning within OP´s post; if he is referring to the conversational side of LuLa, the exchange of ideas amongst fellow photographers, then he might just have a point. My own experience here over recent years has not always been smooth, and any farting within the host´s domain has, unfortunartely, been inhaled by yours truly too. I have found myself victim of several instances of idiot-posting, where my statements have either been wilfully misunderstood or, worse, they have not even been fully read before the attacking reply leaps into print. I have not noticed any censorship coming into play at such times, though I would have welcomed it. However, the lack of it there has not prevented it (censorship) from cutting dead other threads which were possibly heading towards bitter confrontation - a futile stance vis a vis a computer at the best of times: it´s only a bloody machine with God alone knows who tickling the keys.
Boring. Well, that´s really up to the people who post here: some people have much of value to say whilst others do not, but say it anyway. Perhaps the problem is a lack of humour? There are precious few literary gems floating about the place - there is sometimes a lot of anger; there are many who are delighted to fill the various picture areas of the site with pictures, some good and others, frankly, awful; but is that just opinion saying they are awful or is it a basic truth obvious to all but their author and the blind? From that, can we deduce that LuLa needs a picture editor? I would imaging so, but who would that be and how would he be paid?
Some respected professionals post here and some show pictures. Others reserve that pleasure to their site, a wiser choice, I would say. The feeling sometimes comes over me that LuLa is being used, probably unoffically, by some of these pros - mainly those engaged in what I suppose is the teaching side of being a pro (a paradox?) - as a personal advertising space. Not sure I like that a whole lot...
I don´t really see that Michael can be expected to contribute more material of his own in the way of written reports and so forth: writing may be one of one´s skills, but it still consumes a lot of time and his calendar is already pretty full, as has been outlined in this thread. So what is expected of him? I, for one, am not in the slightest bit interested in following the latest equipment trail; I have a reasonable camera (D200) and for my needs as a retired pro, it serves perfectly well. I have an F3 which is looked at every now and again as is the freezer full of transparency films, but each time I look within the frozen wastes I think in terms of €8 a pop to get the damn things processed, if anyone can still do that for me now. I close the freezer. I take another digital photograph. Nothing in life is ever perfect because perfection means something different for every individual; I think LuLa is as good as it gets for a site not exclusively loaded towards pro photographers. Such a site might be desirable, but do they work? There is confusion in thinking that pros are more interesting than amateurs or, for that matter, always better. Some very talented amateurs are already posting here, their work amateur simply because they choose not to be dependent on photography for a living. (Wise choice!)
How to sum it up?
Enjoy it for what it is and be grateful that it exists.
Rob C
-
Naw, the OP was just trying to stir things up and unfortunately he's getting far more attention than he deserves...
Well, I think you only have yourself to blame for that one.
Rob, really liked your last post. Well said.
Chuck
-
All you have had to do is look on the first page of the site under either Product Reveiws or Essays and click on the N -
2 product reviews on the D3/D300 along with 1 Essay on the D3
Jay
-
I don´t really see that Michael can be expected to contribute more material of his own in the way of written reports and so forth: writing may be one of one´s skills, but it still consumes a lot of time and his calendar is already pretty full, as has been outlined in this thread. So what is expected of him?
See, that's EXACTLY what pissed me off regarding the OP's message...here he has been hanging around the LuLa site (I like that abbreviation BTW) and at the time of the original post had contributed exactly 17 posts to the forums over the years and he's bitching about the lack of output on Michael's behalf and complaining that the site has become "boring". Not to mention the fact he's lifted his fingers 17 whole times over the years to make any sort of contribution mind you...he's looking into the gist horse's mouth and claiming the horse suffers from bad teeth (and bad breath).
He didn't offer any solutions, he didn't offer any help or contributions...he just Pissed&Moaned™ and was "surprised" that he raised some shackles and some people took umbrage? Seriously, talk about a "taker" not a giver...
You all can keep harping on this subject if ya want. But do yourself (and the community) a service and at least offer suggestions or changes/improvements (hopefully that do not require loads of additional time from Michael) that can improve the site, not denigrate it. If you think you can do better, do so...otherwise, move on.
-
I have always known this website as the place for exciting reviews and articles about the Canon D30 vs film, Canon 1Ds, the beginning of digital backs, the kodak proback, first look at the mighty P25, comparisons of this and that, 1ds vs 645, 1ds vs 6x7, P45, then the ultimate comparison of digital backs and DSLRs and drum scanned film, and more this vs. that... it was exciting to read and I enjoyed it, and I still enjoy reading this site. There's just a bit of a slowdown, because we see these "new" products and we think, "eh, more of the same, so who the hell cares?"
Who cares about the D3? Speaking of the D3, ever read this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d3.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d3.shtml) or this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-d3-d300.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml) . What the hell more do you want? Go to dpreview.
I'm sure the upcoming reviews will probably include the P65+, new Leaf products, and look at the new announced products by RED. I have no doubt whatever RED puts out, Michael will get his hands on one configuration, or two, or three... There are so many damn things to write about in the upcoming weeks/months/year, perhaps you won't be so "bored" anymore.
-
I also know what the OP means. At one time, there was much more emotion on the site, with Nikon vs. Canon vs. Kodak, with worried early-adapters spending large amounts of money (or preparing to) on products that didn't work very well, when every judgment by Michael and his minion (or cohorts) carried a lot of weight. You just don't get that when people are trying to decide whether to upgrade from 4.1 to 4.2, or whether the DxO numbers are valid. And now, if you can pay the money, the camera you get most likely will be excellent, because the technology has matured, and the software is so much better as to seem to be from a different world of even 2005.
So, less excitement, but the information is still there, and can be very subtle and helpful.
Also, Rob is right.
I think Schewe's response was both colorful and uncalled for, but, what the hell, that's just Schewe and long-time users are pretty used to it, and it's worth putting up with it for the information he provides in other posts. OTOH, I'd like to be around when he finally tries Xanax, just to see what parts fall off. 8-P
JC
-
See, that's EXACTLY what pissed me off regarding the OP's message...here he has been hanging around the LuLa site (I like that abbreviation BTW) and at the time of the original post had contributed exactly 17 posts to the forums over the years and he's bitching about the lack of output on Michael's behalf and complaining that the site has become "boring". Not to mention the fact he's lifted his fingers 17 whole times over the years to make any sort of contribution mind you...he's looking into the gist horse's mouth and claiming the horse suffers from bad teeth (and bad breath).
He didn't offer any solutions, he didn't offer any help or contributions...he just Pissed&Moaned™ and was "surprised" that he raised some shackles and some people took umbrage? Seriously, talk about a "taker" not a giver...
You all can keep harping on this subject if ya want. But do yourself (and the community) a service and at least offer suggestions or changes/improvements (hopefully that do not require loads of additional time from Michael) that can improve the site, not denigrate it. If you think you can do better, do so...otherwise, move on.
Using statistics to support opinions tend to backfire because they can be interpreted the other way round. Having posted 17 (21 times in my case) times means that the OP have posted more messages that 94% percent of the LuLa’s forums member list, i.e. he (as me) are in the top 5% or 6% of the most active forum members.
I mean that, in my opinion, the number of posts should not be used against the OP (or any). On the opposite, when a normal person that usually does not post opinions or contributes regularly to the forums takes the effort to contribute with an opinion about the site, it is my experience as Quality Manager (at least in other fields) that generally it is to complain about something, and that this kind of complains should be taken seriously and respectfully, regardless how infuriating or destructive it may appear. When a person has been annoyed enough to take the effort to write a complain, usually there are real issues behind this annoyance, you like it or not.
It may perfectly be that these issues are deliberate changes on the site, or not, but that is another issue that only the site owner knows.
Manuel
-
...when a normal person that usually does not post opinions or contributes regularly to the forums takes the effort to contribute with an opinion about the site, it is my experience as Quality Manager (at least in other fields) that generally it is to complain about something, and that this kind of complains should be taken seriously and respectfully, regardless how infuriating or destructive it may appear.
Or not...A lot of the usefulness of customer feedback depends on the approach and the person's agenda. I would guess that the normal costumer relations model pretty much goes out the window when it comes to free web sites, don't ya think? Free is, well, free and while the OP apparently has subscribed to the Video Journal (which he seems predisposed to fast forward through) I'm not sure Michael or Chris are gonna loose sleep over the whole thing. Pretty sure Michael has other fish to fry and Chris never has any free time anyway. So, what's the point in taking the approach he took if not to stir things up (for whatever reasons he has)?
Fact is, if you want to bring about positive change, that ain't the way to go about it.
-
Fact is, if you want to bring about positive change, that ain't the way to go about it.
How else do you go about making that sort of comment ?
The original post seems honest and straight forward to me and far from nasty, while all your responses have been very defensive and IMHO a bit thin skinned.
Do we have to agree with everything written here ?
I think it shows a lot of backbone on the part of the forum that the original post is left up for debate, it's like the letters column in a good magazine where they have the guts to let people air negative views about content without the knives coming out.
It's very grown up..
-
Boring thread.
-
I think it shows a lot of backbone on the part of the forum that the original post is left up for debate
It's because Michael is off shooting in Arizona for the week and doesn't have cell or internet access...otherwise I suspect he would have closed the thread since not much of any value has come out. And while Chris is lurking in the background (prolly chuckling over my responses) he's not inclined to get into thread moderation. So, I wouldn't get all fired up about the "backbone" of the forum, it's just evidence that Michael has better things to do (so do I, but I like to play as I'm taking breaks from writing Book II).
Sorry to bust your bubble bud :~)
-
I rest my case..
-
I rest my case..
I nominate Schewe as the thread moderator......... and soon we all will be posting on the DP review site?
-
I think Schewe as a moderator is an awesome idea!!
All comments must be intelligent, witty and as abrasive as possible. Measured or boring comments will be ridiculed or deleted as he sees fit.
I see this place as an interesting diary of Michael's photographic meanderings. Why didn't he do a full review of the D3 or D90? Probably because there was little to say beyond "very nice, about what you'd expect for the price". The prospect of writing all that up into an article put the fear into him and he charged off to take some photographs somewhere.
Heck, most of us would love to swap our working lives for his. I would.
I never really though of LuLa as exciting in the first place, more contemplative. I think it's just as contemplative as it's always been.
-
Ya know what? I would demand my money back if you're not happy...oh yeah, it doesn't COST you a red cent to visit. Well, you're screwed bud.
Seriously, do you have a brain cell in your tiny head?
Well, actually someone with a brain cell in their tiny head would value all and any feedback. Sure they can decide to reject it after careful consideration of its merit. But to do so prematurely and defensively - well that demonstrates curtailed intelligence right there.
What possible good do you expect to come of this post? Michael does what Michael wants...it's a nice place to be. (I'm in the same place).
Well OK, but a lot of people in business do what their customers want and find it really really helpful to understand whether their customers are getting what they want. Yes, I know that this web site's paying customers are the advertisers rather than the readers but we all know what that model needs to work - readers.
Boorish posts like the above have zero chance of bringing about positive change (if that indeed is what you were trying to do). Doode, you need to get a life. Maybe watch daytime soap operas or donate your time to a charity. Do something useful with your life instead of wasting it making really stupid posts on forums.
I personally do not agree with the OP's view of this site but he surely has the right to express it here safely. To a business person, all customer feedback is useful, especially negative feedback. And the OP is a customer in all senses of the word.
-
Quote
Ya know what? I would demand my money back if you're not happy...oh yeah, it doesn't COST you a red cent to visit. Well, you're screwed bud.
Seriously, do you have a brain cell in your tiny head?
Well, actually someone with a brain cell in their tiny head would value all and any feedback. Sure they can decide to reject it after careful consideration of its merit. But to do so prematurely and defensively - well that demonstrates curtailed intelligence right there.
Unquote
Why is it that someone as intelligent as Schewe can't enter into a reasonable debate without insulting someone in the process? Surely in hindsight he can see that a remark like this is wrong? I take it he is taking advantage of his friendship with Michael to act in this manner?
-
I think at this point, this thread has served its purpose and has stimulated some colourful discussion and is now getting a little tired. As MR sometimes says,'Time to get some photography done.'
Topic closed