I love this site

[ikonomov]

I really felt sad when I read the previous post with intelligent people bashing out into three pages (and growing), and the bitter taste it leaves if one is to get to the end of it, which many of the same people would have a hard time doing.  I wonder what the creators of this site were thinking, planning for it.  I hope it is not to ignore us, because I'd then feel betrayed for all the years I have spent being here.

I really enjoyed coming here and reading many of the informative and subjective opinions of Michael throughout the years.  Internet is such a great resource for learning, it is the new Library of Alexandria with endless shelves to grow.  However, although it is safe from fire, it is not safe from the other human's excesses.  Is it not enough that we've generated internet traffic for over 15 years, coming here on regular basis, sometimes daily, sometimes multiple times a day?  Is it not enough that many of the great people coming here have bought subscription to this site PRECISELY because they have been lured here by your quality free content?  Is it not enough that many of the great people coming here have decided to safe and spend their hard earned money to be part of your workshops.  This new $1 move to me is a full mystery, is this some kind of a joke to all of us until the 1st of April, when it'll be raveled and all of us are supposed to be laughing?  I hope it ends sooner, because I fear by then there will be no one left around to laugh.

I would love to be able to come here and read new content.  At the same time every fiber of my being rejects the model of asking people for money.  I have many articles that I have bookmarked and when I can't even access them on web.archive.org it hurts indeed.  I hope this short thing I've written here reaches Michael, and while I feel sorry for having mixed words of encouragement and contained disgust, I trust that he'll make the right decision (a one hopefully he is still able to make) and make this site open again.  There is no other action that would suffice to bring back the trust of his countless readers throughout the years that will not only return, but in my mind without any doubt will grow in the future.

[Jeremy Roussak]

At the same time every fiber of my being rejects the model of asking people for money.

How do you make a living?

Jeremy

[ikonomov]

Jeremy, as much as I wanted to resist replaying, I am giving up.  This is a completely inappropriate response.  We live in the year of 2016 now.  Most people nowadays that ask for money have a very small chance of receiving any.  If you have quality content and are innovative I think there is little fear of being unappreciated and being hungry. Nonetheless there are plenty of people that put out quality content that are left underpaid, but I do not believe adopting an old and failing model to be an appropriate response.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

At the same time every fiber of my being rejects the model of asking people for money.

What about the people who supply you with food, shelter, perhaps even cameras and photographic equipment? Or prints? How are they to survive if they don't ask you to pay for food, etc. ?

[Kevin Raber]

Let's stop this thread before it goes too far.  It has been hashed out time and time again.  We as owners of Luminous-Landscape have asked very little for what is a lot of content.  If this site is going to grow and provide not only the past content but future material too as well as some of the projects we are working on then as with many businesses it needs to be funded.  Is a dollar a month too much for 5000 plus articles, essays and reviews not too mention all our video content?  We don't think so.  If $12 a year is too much for you then you don't have to subscribe.  This is a business for us and it has expenses like any business.  So, decide if you are in or out.  Those that have become members will have an average of three new articles a week and a number of new and exclusive videos as well as new tutorials.  You say that this new move is full of mystery.  There is no mystery.  It's business and what is needed to sustain this site and allow to continue doing what we love to do.

Now let's get back to business. 

[ikonomov]

We are talking here about content on the internet.  Without a doubt a huge portion of traffic on the internet is of porn and the new hair styles of the day, but surely it must be bothersome to some to have the image of having the open internet that we all love be replaced by one of pay to play.  The bigger portion of the world's population is in desperate need for knowledge and education.  When I started reading this site I was a teenager, just getting started into photography, and this site has been a huge inspiration for me.  If it was paid back then I would have never even found it.  What I'm suggesting is not a disservice to whoever is involved in the making of this site.  Quite the opposite, it is absolutely obvious to me that it is a win win situation, and that is the reason why I have allowed myself to write here about it.

There is absolutely no hope that this site will be able to sustain its prominent presence a few years from now if the model changes to what they are proposing.  None.  No matter the quality and quantity of the subscribes at the moment, in time they will slowly dwindle to nothing, and there is no hope whatsoever that they will return.  Moreover, any new comers that want to get their dose of consumption will just find another source.  I have absolutely no clue at all what was whoever made this decision thinking.  My only suspect is the current number of subscribers and daily traffic, but big numbers sometimes can be deceiving.

In response to Kevin, with all my respect, this is not a sustainable business model that you are venturing into.  I think all of us here would love for this site to continue to exist, and for you guys to continue to do what you love doing, but this is just not the way.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... If it was paid back then I would have never even found it...

And that would be a damn shame indeed. We would be deprived of all seven of your posts bitching and moaning about not being able to get something for nothing.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

And that would be a damn shame indeed. We would be deprived of all seven of your posts bitching and moaning about not being able to get something for nothing.

+100! 

[ikonomov]

Slobodan I hope that felt good.  I think you understood me correctly, I am bitching and moaning for loosing something I really like, but sadly this is the best I can do, because even if I donate the whole of my small salary it won't be able to keep this sinking ship afloat.

+200 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Slobodan I hope that felt good.  I think you understood me correctly, I am bitching and moaning for loosing something I really like, but sadly this is the best I can do, because even if I donate the whole of my small salary it won't be able to keep this sinking ship afloat.

+200 

Be it as it may, I hope you will jump ship in time.

Now, if all the subscriptions and your generous donation of $200 isn't enough to keep it afloat, wouldn't the ship sink even faster without it?

[ikonomov]

Rest assured, nobody is trying to disturb your safe garden.  Your subscription was just as valid 3 months ago as it is today.  Your vomit is not very constructive, but it proves precisely why the internet is such a great place for people to share their work and opinions.  There is nothing free because everybody has bills to pay.  It is not what I was suggesting.  Your name gives a bit about you, so I don't really hold anything against you about why you would defend your point of view.  However, it is my view that will allow you to continue to bash out to other people like me here, in this forum, and not yours.

[pcgpcg]

I try to not get dragged into off-topic posts, but this just baffles me. I don't see why this is so complicated. This site is worthless to some people (like my wife who has no interest in photography) and very valuable to others. My wife doesn't beef about the price because she doesn't see the value for her. If it has less than $1/month value for you then don't subscribe. If it has value for you then subscribe. Really simple. No need to bitch about it not being free. Like you said there is lots of free stuff online for you. Go get it and be happy you are saving $1/month for something you don't think is worth it. Whether the owners' business model succeeds or not should be of no concern to you since the site apparently has little value to you anyway.

[pegelli]

I really enjoyed coming here and reading many of the informative and subjective opinions of Michael throughout the years. 

If this is really true I find it very hard to imagine it's not worth 1$/month for you. If it is pay up, if it isn't shut up. The owners made their choice and explained it. Rehashing the same points is useless.

[Isaac]

ikonomov

If you want to "bitch about it not being free" then do that.

If you enjoy "rehashing the same points" then do that.

As-long-as you stay within the forum's Terms of Service; which you'll be interested to learn, exclude inflammatory posts and ad hominem attacks.

[amolitor]

I think part of the OP's point is that if the business doesn't work out, the opportunity to pay $1/month for the content will also go away. I am sort of filling in the blanks a little here, though.

[ikonomov]

TY amolitor.  This is precisely what I tried to say.  It doesn't matter whether it is $1 or $.01.  It is the model that is problematic, not the amount.  I think everybody in the world who is able to take pictures with any type of photography equipment can afford to pay this little monthly fee.  Whether I'm a subscriber or not, in both cases I'm whining, because I'm either complaining that I need to pay or that I'm paying $1 a month.  I don't think my point is about me, but I can only use my own experience and the way I view the new change in order to get my point across.  Sure, new comers will be able to view a few articles before their browser's cache get the Subscription Access sign, but when they do get to see it this type of thing makes people feel uninvited, and they might never get the chance to feel privileged to stumble onto something special.

[kers]

TY amolitor.  This is precisely what I tried to say.  It doesn't matter whether it is $1 or $.01.  It is the model that is problematic, not the amount.  I think everybody in the world who is able to take pictures with any type of photography equipment can afford to pay this little monthly fee.  Whether I'm a subscriber or not, in both cases I'm whining, because I'm either complaining that I need to pay or that I'm paying $1 a month.  I don't think my point is about me, but I can only use my own experience and the way I view the new change in order to get my point across.  Sure, new comers will be able to view a few articles before their browser's cache get the Subscription Access sign, but when they do get to see it this type of thing makes people feel uninvited, and they might never get the chance to feel privileged to stumble onto something special.

But then again the people that make this site have to do their living and cannot only spend money. So it is up to you to do the same thing. Nothing is for free.. ( the sun;))
I think the model is in good balance. Free internet has never existed. Nor its free content.
I can imagine however that since internet reaches over this whole earth there are some that have to live from 1$ a day. Then they still can read and participate in the forum, just what you are doing now.

[pegelli]

I think part of the OP's point is that if the business doesn't work out, the opportunity to pay $1/month for the content will also go away. I am sort of filling in the blanks a little here, though.

I don't agree with that logic:
- There is no guarantee a free website keeps their contents available forever either
- If the LuLa website business goes "belly-up" the owners might still put back the (or some) content for free again, who knows? 

[pegelli]

TY amolitor.  This is precisely what I tried to say.  It doesn't matter whether it is $1 or $.01.  It is the model that is problematic, not the amount.  I think everybody in the world who is able to take pictures with any type of photography equipment can afford to pay this little monthly fee.  Whether I'm a subscriber or not, in both cases I'm whining, because I'm either complaining that I need to pay or that I'm paying $1 a month.  I don't think my point is about me, but I can only use my own experience and the way I view the new change in order to get my point across.  Sure, new comers will be able to view a few articles before their browser's cache get the Subscription Access sign, but when they do get to see it this type of thing makes people feel uninvited, and they might never get the chance to feel privileged to stumble onto something special.

I admire your feeling of solidarity with others and while I agree the scenario you paint is possible I also think it's very low probability. There's many more positive outcomes that are more likely to happen and by whining and not signing up I think you're only doing yourself a disservice if you think the content is worth the charge.

[uimike]

I for one applaud the new model. In fact, I'd pay more, for the amazing content - including some content newly made available. In the past I have bought and enjoyed MR and JS's videos, and now I have an entire library. The forums are outstanding quality, the interviews bring amazing people. It's fun to see Kevin and Michael chat. I have also been paying TOP (Michael Johnston's) and have enjoyed that one immensely as well. It's almost embarrassing that I can have so much great content for the price of, well, not even a burger. I think what both are charging is way more than honorable.