Change of direction in the site.

[stamper]

Is it my imagination or is there a change of direction in the forum? Since the changeover whenever I look at all the new posts - which is my preference when logging on - most of them seem to be about scratch disks, monitors, computer systems etc etc. As to photography and seeing images they seem to be fewer and fewer. Of course I don't need to look at them and I can look at individual forums but I prefer wading through the new posts. I think that the forum and the site seems to be more gear orientated than it used to be? Any thoughts?

[RSL]

Stamper, I agree with you 100 percent and it's a sad thing. There are plenty of equipment-oriented sites out there; in fact, most of the sites out there are equipment-oriented. For instance, if you want a good laugh go to Nikonians "http://www.nikonians.org/forums/." Some of these people list their entire inventory of cameras and lenses, etc. in their signature block. The Leica users forums are the same. Nobody on that site talks about photographs. All they talk about is their cameras. The wonderful thing about LuLa is that it's oriented toward photographs. Let's see if we can get the equipment folks to move to Nikonians or LUF or an equivalent Canon site.

[feppe]

Is it my imagination or is there a change of direction in the forum? Since the changeover whenever I look at all the new posts - which is my preference when logging on - most of them seem to be about scratch disks, monitors, computer systems etc etc. As to photography and seeing images they seem to be fewer and fewer. Of course I don't need to look at them and I can look at individual forums but I prefer wading through the new posts. I think that the forum and the site seems to be more gear orientated than it used to be? Any thoughts?

Nothing new, unfortunately. For example, "But Is It Art?" sub-forum has eighty topics in the last five years, while "Digital Image Processing" has generated more topics than that in past three months.

I've occasionally tried with the Is It Art forum, and sometimes there's a good discussion. There are some worthwhile ones in the critique forum as well. The several recent works -threads are good for viewing some great photography, but there's very little discussion other than "nice" and "thanks for sharing."

The sad thing is that even with the above dismal rate LL has a much higher proportion of non-gear posts than any other photography forum I've seen, with the possible exception of the incredibly busy Large Format Photography Forums, which obviously is a very specialized forum with little relevance to vast majority of photographers, even those on LL.

Not sure what the reason is, as I'm quite convinced that waterpainting and poetry forums aren't inundated with endless redundant topics on what's the best brush material or who makes the best thesaurus. Arguably gear makes a bigger difference in photography, though.

The only way out of it is to ignore the gear posts (I try to but it's soooo tempting ), and to start and participate in non-gear discussions. I just bought David duChemin's Within The Frame which is non-gear oriented photography "guide" (they do exist), and I'll post a topic or two in the coming weeks based on ideas and questions it raises.

To get your fix on non-gear talk although with limited means for discourse, you can hit the blogs. TOP has many non-gear posts as do blogs by John Paul Caponigro, Joe McNally and David Ziser, and Tao Of Photography is purely about photography as art. I'm interested to hear about other non-gear blogs.

[Riaan van Wyk]

Some of these people list their entire inventory of cameras and lenses, etc. in their signature block.

Russ, some people even list their writing pads and a special type of pencil in those. 

Stamper sorry- can't comment on your question, I have not spent enough time here. 

[michael]

The site isn't changing direction. If anything forum discussions simply reflect the interests of those that participate.

This tends to be cyclical. Come back in a month and someone will be complaining about all the artsy-fartsy talk. 

Michael

[JohnKoerner]

Stamper, I agree with you 100 percent and it's a sad thing. There are plenty of equipment-oriented sites out there; in fact, most of the sites out there are equipment-oriented. For instance, if you want a good laugh go to Nikonians "http://www.nikonians.org/forums/." Some of these people list their entire inventory of cameras and lenses, etc. in their signature block. The Leica users forums are the same. Nobody on that site talks about photographs. All they talk about is their cameras. The wonderful thing about LuLa is that it's oriented toward photographs. Let's see if we can get the equipment folks to move to Nikonians or LUF or an equivalent Canon site.

Why is it sad to talk about gear?

Is not every photograph ever taken, taken with gear? Since this is true, why should the discussion of gear not be important?

The truth is, many of us are in the stage where we are still acquiring our gear, and since not all gear is equal either in ability, value-for-the-buck, nor in specialization ... and since a whole set of gear costs tens of thousands of dollars ... I think it is absolutely essential for anyone who is still in the buying phase to talk very much about gear before investing in same. In point of fact, it is only the person who has all of their gear in-hand who no longer feels the need to discuss gear. But for the person who is looking to buy gear, and add to his inventory, the ability to discuss gear with others who already have experience using it is critical IMO.

Jack




.

[feppe]

and since a whole set of gear costs tens of thousands of dollars ...

Many of the most celebrated and respected photographers would disagree...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why is it sad to talk about gear?...

Perhaps because [discussing] gear often becomes a hobby/obsession/competitive sport on its own, and ultimately ends up having very little to do with its original purpose: photography?

[pcunite]

I think the temporal surge in Gear talk in the time of year. Canon and others are releasing new items for the upcoming shows.

[RSL]

What bothers me most about it is that it gives beginners the idea that to make good photographs you must have really expensive gear. As most of the folks on LuLa know, that's simply not true -- at least I hope they know it. Many, if not most, of the world's finest photographs were made with equipment much less capable than the simplest point and shoot you can buy nowadays. That's one thing Ken Rockwell does well: he explains quite clearly that photographs are made by people, not by cameras.

[JohnKoerner]

Many of the most celebrated and respected photographers would disagree...

Many? I would say that most top photographers would disagree.

I think if you do the math, in this day and age putting together a competitive digital system ... from camera, to lenses, to tripod, to monitor, to software, to printer ... is going to cost anyone who's serious well over ten thousand dollars ... and tenS of thousands if they really can afford to go first class. That a few people get by on the cheap end of the continuum doesn't change the fact that, in order to get the best of what's being offered today, the majority of people are ultimately going to spend a great deal of money to get there.

Also, different products have different advantages/disadvantages, and so to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of same (prior to purchase) is also wise ... and every bit as relevant a discussion topic to photography as is the "art" aspect IMO.




___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Perhaps because [discussing] gear often becomes a hobby/obsession/competitive sport on its own, and ultimately ends up having very little to do with its original purpose: photography?

I hear you.

Ironically, whining about what goes on within a message board forum also can become a popular sport/obsession, which likewise has very little to do with the subject of photography itself.

The neat thing is this forum has a lot of different sub-boards, hosting a lot of different topics, so people can pick and choose where they like to go and which kinds of subject they like to discuss ... from gear, to art, to locations ... to whining about what others are doing

Jack



.

[wolfnowl]

A couple of things for those less 'gear-focused'.  One is Andy Ilachinski's blog - 'The Tao of Photography' - http://tao-of-digital-photography.blogspot.com/

Also, over on The Online Photography site recently there's been a series of posts and comments recently on 'A Leica Year'. http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/08/a-grand-85-years-it-was.html  Quite interesting... While it may seem to be entirely gear focused from the title, the suggestion was to take one simple camera (an M6 for example) and one fixed lens (35mm for example) and make pictures with that combination for one year.  It sparked some interesting creativity.  For me, the combination has always been my old Yashica Mat124G -> 6x6 image, WLF, one lens... forces me to be creative.  It does have a match needle light meter, but no autofocus...

Mike.

[RSL]

I think if you do the math, in this day and age putting together a competitive digital system ...
Jack

Competitive in what way, Jack? Are you talking about shooting weddings? Yes, if you're going to set yourself up as that kind of professional you need some pretty expensive equipment. But I doubt most of the contributors to LuLa are setting up to shoot weddings. For most of us "competitive" means to shoot good photographs, maybe sell some prints and get some exposure in the top fine art photography magazines. I've spent a bundle of money on my equipment, and sometimes that top-of-the-line equipment lets me get shots I'd otherwise miss, but a few of my favorite and most often sold shots came from a Casio QV-3000EX, the first digital camera I owned. If I picked up that camera tomorrow and went out on the street with it, it would still be "competitive."

[feppe]

Many? I would say that most top photographers would disagree.

I think if you do the math, in this day and age putting together a competitive digital system ... from camera, to lenses, to tripod, to monitor, to software, to printer ... is going to cost anyone who's serious well over ten thousand dollars ... and tenS of thousands if they really can afford to go first class.

That is utter nonsense, and I'm being generous.

I don't know where you live, but in Europe and especially US one can build a "competitive" digital setup including L zooms or high-end primes, good tripod, computer, software and printer spending in the mid four figures, which in amateur hands will produce photographs which are often technically superior to what high-end 35mm professional film gear could produce in seasoned professional hands.

If by "competitive system" you mean bigger and better than that guy at the photo club, good luck with that. It's like street fighting: there will always be a bigger and meaner guy than you no matter how much iron you pump and how many years you do martial arts. Point being that you can always spend more but you will never be satisfied. There's a book a gentleman called Lao Tze wrote which explains this succinctly.

Then of course there are the ones who ignore the law of diminishing returns and pay an order of a magnitude more for those last few percentage points of IQ. But IQ doesn't matter at all if there's no vision. The world is full of technically amazing photographs which don't move anyone - and there are possibly more technically "inferior" photographs which do. We are already drowning in pedestrian photography, and it doesn't matter whether that's taken with an iPhone or P65, it still sucks. And great photography can be produced with either of those, as well.

[Vuurtoren]

======I think if you do the math, in this day and age putting together a competitive digital system ... from camera, to lenses, to tripod, to monitor, to software, to printer ... is going to cost anyone who's serious well over ten thousand dollars ... and tenS of thousands if they really can afford to go first class.=======

Hi Jack, How are things?  Thought I would also ask why you think like this.  Personally I believe that honest photography and shooting from instinct is the most competitive form of image making and produces the grandest of works.  My tutor once said that he seen more quality photography from students down through the years than he has on the digital market.  I think that there are visionless macdonalds photographers who make it because they know about business and there are very talented people whose work will never get past their local geographical boundary because they do not know how to promote themselves and push into a very competitive market.  A bit like the difference between macdonalds and your excellent restaurant around the corner.  Who has the marketing prowess wins.  Now this is not the rule of course, but it is the dominant factor I believe.

Of course I am leaving out the fashion photographer and advertising photographer who will without a doubt need to invest in a couple of thousands of pounds worth of equipment, that goes without saying.  But that is the camera as a tool in the world of economics.

I think over-saturation of the market is the number one enemy here.  I think that people will be soon fed-up with sharper images and HDR, it always happens, too much of the perfection and the mass sub-conscious desire for reality and imperfection will be longed for once again.  I sense some keyboards will be rattling at me soon!  

[JohnKoerner]

Moderator's Note: This post was not consistent with our guidelines and has been removed.

[JohnKoerner]

======I think if you do the math, in this day and age putting together a competitive digital system ... from camera, to lenses, to tripod, to monitor, to software, to printer ... is going to cost anyone who's serious well over ten thousand dollars ... and tenS of thousands if they really can afford to go first class.=======
Hi Jack, How are things?  Thought I would also ask why you think like this.  Personally I believe that honest photography and shooting from instinct is the most competitive form of image making and produces the grandest of works.  My tutor once said that he seen more quality photography from students down through the years than he has on the digital market.  I think that there are visionless macdonalds photographers who make it because they know about business and there are very talented people whose work will never get past their local geographical boundary because they do not know how to promote themselves and push into a very competitive market.  A bit like the difference between macdonalds and your excellent restaurant around the corner.  Who has the marketing prowess wins.  Now this is not the rule of course, but it is the dominant factor I believe.
Of course I am leaving out the fashion photographer and advertising photographer who will without a doubt need to invest in a couple of thousands of pounds worth of equipment, that goes without saying.  But that is the camera as a tool in the world of economics.
I think over-saturation of the market is the number one enemy here.  I think that people will be soon fed-up with sharper images and HDR, it always happens, too much of the perfection and the mass sub-conscious desire for reality and imperfection will be longed for once again.  I sense some keyboards will be rattling at me soon!  

Hi Vuurtoren;

My reasons are stated in the above post.

I understand everything you've said, but that still doesn't change the fact gear costs money, and the discussion of which gear provides the best service/value for the money remains a valid photography topic for those photographers who are looking to buy gear.

Jack




.

[feppe]

blaah blaah blaah

I had you on ignore in the old forum software, and back you go.

[JohnKoerner]

I had you on ignore in the old forum software, and back you go.

Thank you for underscoring my point




.

[tom b]

Hi guys.

To get back to a bit of sanity, it is summer in the northern hemisphere and from previous experience this forum is slow at this time as most photographers are out taking photographs not talking about them.

Take pity for me as I suffer the cold winds of an Australian winter.

Cheers,