Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on August 27, 2019, 02:33:06 pm
-
In the (almost certainly vain) hope that it might improve levels of courtesy on the site, I am considering introducing a requirement that anyone who posts on any forum at LuLa must reveal his or her true name in the post, either as his or her forum name or in the signature. There is, I gather, at least anecdotal evidence that obnoxious behaviour is reduced when anonymity is withdrawn.
This referendum is strictly advisory.
Jeremy
-
Voted no, for the "forced" part. Prefer free will.
Besides, plenty of us post obnoxious* things under our full real names.
* as per the opposing side's views, I suppose
-
Yes please.
Personally I'd love to see more contributors posting under their *true names. I remember that Michael was keen to see this requirement introduced but eventually concluded it would be all but unworkable.
Jeremy, good luck, you'll need it.
*I don't doubt there are those here who would question my *true name despite the fact that I always link to my work, my website, my email and post under the name on my birth certificate. But we know there are those here who enjoy nothing more than being obnoxious argumentative.
;-)
-
I hope anyone seeking further identity clarification just clicks on the website address beneath all my posts: my name pops up right there under the girl.
No pun etc., but wasn't that easy?
:-)
-
Voted no.
While I already use my real name, I feel there is no correlation between anonymity and obnoxiousness.
-
There is, I gather, at least anecdotal evidence that obnoxious behaviour is reduced when anonymity is withdrawn.
Agreed, emphatically.
Also, I would recommend that anyone posting provide at least a (verified; it isn't difficult) country identification, or some more precise location information, so—for example—responders don't wind up providing information about commercial U.S. services to U.K. subscribers.
Time to get rid of Internet "handles." This isn't 1980, anymore.
-
I prefer when members use their real names, but I don't see how you are going to enforce something like this, unless you use some kind of reliable validation system, which would probably scare away members.
If you force people to write a name, you will end up with a bunch of "John Doe"
-
I prefer when members use their real names, but I don't see how you are going to enforce something like this, unless you use some kind of reliable validation system, which would probably scare away members.
If you force people to write a name, you will end up with a bunch of "John Doe"
Eliminating political discussions would eliminate most of the obnoxious behavior.
-
Eliminating political discussions would eliminate most of the obnoxious behavior.
+1
-
Eliminating political discussions would eliminate most of the obnoxious behavior.
+2
-
+2
The vast majority of us that have fun in the political discussions manage to leave it there and interact constructively in other forums without animosity.
-
Agreed. Using our real name is basic courteous behavior. I don't see why I would use another name except to hide who I am.
-
Jeremy I think you are dodging the issue. Just ban the repeat offenders and be done with it.
-
Rules do no effectively improove behaviour.
cheers,
Boudewijn Swanenburg
-
I would have agreed with you except that on a forum I participated in once a number of people used my name to try to create trouble with my employer, posted photos of my family etc.
-
The vast majority of us that have fun in the political discussions manage to leave it there and interact constructively in other forums without animosity.
This. And indeed in real life (well, e-mail exchanges etc)
-
There is not always just sweetness and light in the use of real names.
It's sometimes just another marketing device that can become very annoying. I have lost any interest in reading anything anyone has to say who has tied up their identity with some specific camera brand or commercial deal they are constantly selling.
To be frank: I just don't believe anything they have to say. If those people are good enough photographers to have become "brand ambassadors" or the like, you can bet your ass they could do exactly the same with any other capable camera: they just become shills and, consequently, lose their credibility. If there is a readership need for such information, then it might make sense to start a new deparment in LuLa devoted to brand/services marketeers; then, such stuff can be confined to those who seek it.
If we want to find out more about someone, we need only look at their website. And if they don't have one, why not? You can have them for free these days.
Rob
-
I've heard that "handles" dates back to the horrors of CB radio in the 1970s. Personally I'd rather feel that I was talking to an actual person rather than a Mr/Ms Pentaxlover.
But I haven't lodged a vote. Probably too jaded from trying to aid people on a local forum I help administrate. They can't log in because they've forgotten their "handle". So I set them with their real name and a threat if they change it.
As to real names minimising obnoxiousness, I doubt it. I'd go with stopping politics. For the reason that we are entering a time where our collective ruling classes are defective in the functioning of mental processes such as reasoning. Read: "going insane". Witness a party recently who lost some election in the US, and rather than admit they reaped what they sowed, blamed the Russians. The lot who won are no better. Don't even mention the UK. It could be simple mendaciousness. No matter, the political climate is suffering from global warming and is not a safe place for humans.
-
I've heard that "handles" dates back to the horrors of CB radio in the 1970s. Personally I'd rather feel that I was talking to an actual person rather than a Mr/Ms Pentaxlover.
But I haven't lodged a vote. Probably too jaded from trying to aid people on a local forum I help administrate. They can't log in because they've forgotten their "handle". So I set them with their real name and a threat if they change it.
As to real names minimising obnoxiousness, I doubt it. I'd go with stopping politics. For the reason that we are entering a time where our collective ruling classes are defective in the functioning of mental processes such as reasoning. Read: "going insane". Witness a party recently who lost some election in the US, and rather than admit they reaped what they sowed, blamed the Russians. The lot who won are no better. Don't even mention the UK. It could be simple mendaciousness. No matter, the political climate is suffering from global warming and is not a safe place for humans.
Indeed, it is not a safe place, but isn't that perhaps a good reason for hiding behind Rubber Duck?
-
About the only thing this will accomplish is fewer postings.
Get rid of politics in any form.
Victor
-
Almost everyone who participates in the political debates posts under their full names or has their web site in signature. So, what are we really discussing here?
-
I can think of not a single persistent poster, irrespective of their ‘handle’, who disguises their true identity.
If one wishes to reduce incivility, less bombast and braggadocio wouldn’t go amiss.
Whether you called yourself Kikashi or Jeremy Roussak I surmise made little difference to your personal standards and even less to the qualitative input on this site.
-
Get rid of politics in any form.
And wasn’t that such a resounding success last time?
Edit:
Go back a few years and read some of the old threads. It wasn’t politics, more current affairs - everything from hi-fi , wine, the Canadian health service and more. In fact some of the biggest (and more entertaining) bust-ups were both pro and photography related.
I won’t even mention the threads on RAW V DNG.
Good old days , when humour wasn’t drowned in male testosterone.
-
I've always used my real name and only do "screen names" if the site(s) ask for one. I am also in the let's return to no more political posts group.
-
About the only thing this will accomplish is fewer postings.
Get rid of politics in any form.
Victor
Good idea!
And then get rid of members' pictures too: you just know how controversial those can be, and it's only ego-tripping anyway.
Nothing beats a forum full of commercial advertising videos and makers' reviews of their latest and greatest cameras, lenses, tripods and crocodile leather bags. Never forget the thrill of courses, and mentors willing to take you on them for a little exchange of lucre, filthy or otherwise - who cares?
Some sites will actually grant you a review of your work and help you get into art galleries where you will soon meet international investors/fine-art collectors! Wow! I just love this Internet, don't you? So much opportunity to turn a buck learn!
-
In answer to the original concept of this thread, how come nobody answered "Polly Maggoo!"? Have all the girls left?
;-(
-
A site, presumably dedicated to photography can and should be able to run without political posts.
A site, presumably dedicated to photography should allow 'members' pictures.
-
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course. To me the issue is how that opinion is expressed. IMHO I cannot understand why the expression of an opinion means that it is OK to use obnoxious language. It is a complete turnoff to me. I do not know what the use of such language says about the user's communication skills. As for pseudonyms, that is something else I do not understand. Are we back in the 18th and 19th Century when women had to write under a male pseudonym in order to be heard, or is it that such use allows people to say things they would not say as a real person?
I hope this scores low on the obnoxious scale.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
Good idea!
And then get rid of members' pictures too: you just know how controversial those can be, and it's only ego-tripping anyway.
Nothing beats a forum full of commercial advertising videos and makers' reviews of their latest and greatest cameras, lenses, tripods and crocodile leather bags. Never forget the thrill of courses, and mentors willing to take you on them for a little exchange of lucre, filthy or otherwise - who cares?
Some sites will actually grant you a review of your work and help you get into art galleries where you will soon meet international investors/fine-art collectors! Wow! I just love this Internet, don't you? So much opportunity to turn a buck learn!
Rob, as far as I'm concerned the more controversial the pictures the better and I prefer to think of posting them as sharing work and passions rather than ego-tripping.
But perhaps it's just me?
-
And wasn’t that such a resounding success last time?
Edit:
Yes it was until it was reinstated. But then, maybe you enjoy that kind of banter..... I don't and I'm not alone.
This is a photography site - is it so unrealistic to think that just maybe it should be limited to photography?
You want politics then there a lots of other places to get beat up.
Victor
-
My final word is be careful on rules. Regardless of the name the person uses, if they go nuts, just turn them off. Anyone can set up a new account using g-mail or a dozen other services.
Perhaps what is different now is that what passes for political discourse has been poisoned at the highest levels. It's become a Disney re-make without the intellect rigour. A KFC fatburger minus the flavour. An illiterate obese aunt in a mini skirt with badly applied lipstick teaching philosophy.
That's what we have. A turd without polish.
Time to have a break from the tiresome farting and posturing?
PS
Cool photo BC. I look in astonishment at the plastic chair. You've taken something lost in my past and elevated it. What has been discarded and unloved becomes a source of wonder.
-
... I look in astonishment at the plastic..
On the left or on the right?
-
Yes it was until it was reinstated. But then, maybe you enjoy that kind of banter..... I don't and I'm not alone.
This is a photography site - is it so unrealistic to think that just maybe it should be limited to photography?
There are 99+ pages on the American Constitution.
I haven't read a single post.
I suggest you do likewise.
Live and let live.
In the meantime there's GetDPI (where you also post) so you're hardly deprived.
-
On the left or on the right?
Naughty man! :o
-
In the meantime there's GetDPI (where you also post) so you're hardly deprived.
Great to know that you're one of my many followers......
Victor
-
I’m in favor of real names on “serious” sites like this, but as many have said, good moderation matters more.
But, as the thread has expanded to another look at politics, I’ll give my thoughts on that as well: I think political discussions are sucking all the air out of this forum, and as they do, the value of the forum to photographers is diminished.
I made the mistake, some time ago, of commenting on the “American constitution” thread. I realized the pointlessness of it in short order, but having commented, it continues to appear on my “replies” list even though I’ve set my profile to ignore the Coffee Corner. I see that thread has now grown to 90+ pages in a fairly short time. What other thread gets that much attention? The “Professional Works” thread has 140+ pages, but it’s been going on since 2013.
It doesn’t matter what I think of the opinions expressed. And I do understand that for some members it’s an important social outlet—even community. But what I see is that the energy expended in the political discussions is not being expended in discussions of the photographic arts, and I think it’s an existential threat to this forum. Internet forums live and die on their brands. If the brand is vibrant discussions of the art of photography and deep technical resources, then it has value. If the brand is a bunch of photographers talking politics, I see a dim future.
-
...it continues to appear on my “replies”...
Delete your original post, and it will stop appearing.
... what I see is that the energy expended in the political discussions is not being expended in discussions of the photographic arts, and I think it’s an existential threat to this forum....
These things are not mutually exclusive. Rob C continues to post in the Art subforum, James Clark, Bernard, Russ, and myself as well. Bart is active in technical and equipment forums, as well as Bernard. Sorry if I omitted anyone.
The other thing is discussing photography styles and art is all but dead. Not the fault of political discussions. In many other Internet sites. Fred Miranda, for instance, is much more photography-heavy, but posting a picture there, in any other forum but Landscape, results in about 2-3 replies on average (Landscape gets maybe 5-6). People are tired of discussion photography. It is a visual discipline, not verbal.
-
I think political discussions are sucking all the air out of this forum, and as they do, the value of the forum to photographers is diminished.
[...]
and I think it’s an existential threat to this forum. Internet forums live and die on their brands. If the brand is vibrant discussions of the art of photography and deep technical resources, then it has value. If the brand is a bunch of photographers talking politics, I see a dim future.
An existential threat indeed, though not if you are to believe the new owner. Monthly page hits declined from a 2018 high of over 99m to barely 30m. And though there was pickup once the CC was resurrected the damage was done.
The forums on Lula used to be a gathering place for knowledgeable pros and serious amateurs to discuss photography, both the tech and the art, as well as real issues. Now it's mostly the same people, having the same tedious conversations with themselves, over and over. It's driven out the high-value people and diminished the value to the general readership.
Moderating is one thing, censorship and 'rules' another.
The old guard didn't leave 'en masse' because of the Coffee Corner.
-
An existential threat indeed, though not if you are to believe the new owner. Monthly page hits declined from a 2018 high of over 99m to barely 30m. And though there was pickup once the CC was resurrected the damage was done.
The forums on Lula used to be a gathering place for knowledgeable pros and serious amateurs to discuss photography, both the tech and the art, as well as real issues. Now it's mostly the same people, having the same tedious conversations with themselves, over and over. It's driven out the high-value people and diminished the value to the general readership.
Moderating is one thing, censorship and 'rules' another.
The old guard didn't leave 'en masse' because of the Coffee Corner.
+1
Couldn't have said it better......
Victor
-
Rob, as far as I'm concerned the more controversial the pictures the better and I prefer to think of posting them as sharing work and passions rather than ego-tripping.
But perhaps it's just me?
Keith, I agree wholeheartedly: the entire post was supposed to be read as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.
;-)
-
A site, presumably dedicated to photography can and should be able to run without political posts.
A site, presumably dedicated to photography should allow 'members' pictures.
A. It can, but why should it be so constricted and constrained?
B. Oh dear; that entire post was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, which I'd imageined to be patently obvious!
-
Keith, I agree wholeheartedly: the entire post was supposed to be read as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.
;-)
Rob, your post obviously went way above my head but I'm pleased to hear your explanation.
:-)
-
Yes it was until it was reinstated. But then, maybe you enjoy that kind of banter..... I don't and I'm not alone.
This is a photography site - is it so unrealistic to think that just maybe it should be limited to photography?
You want politics then there a lots of other places to get beat up.
Victor
Yes, Victor, it is. We are adults here (I think) and LuLa has grown to offer far more to its community of members than simple-minded gratifications of GAS.
That is why we have so many long-time members. We enjoy the closest thing to Internet friendships that you can find.
Rob
-
I’m in favor of real names on “serious” sites like this, but as many have said, good moderation matters more.
But, as the thread has expanded to another look at politics, I’ll give my thoughts on that as well: I think political discussions are sucking all the air out of this forum, and as they do, the value of the forum to photographers is diminished.
I made the mistake, some time ago, of commenting on the “American constitution” thread. I realized the pointlessness of it in short order, but having commented, it continues to appear on my “replies” list even though I’ve set my profile to ignore the Coffee Corner. I see that thread has now grown to 90+ pages in a fairly short time. What other thread gets that much attention? The “Professional Works” thread has 140+ pages, but it’s been going on since 2013.
It doesn’t matter what I think of the opinions expressed. And I do understand that for some members it’s an important social outlet—even community. But what I see is that the energy expended in the political discussions is not being expended in discussions of the photographic arts, and I think it’s an existential threat to this forum. Internet forums live and die on their brands. If the brand is vibrant discussions of the art of photography and deep technical resources, then it has value. If the brand is a bunch of photographers talking politics, I see a dim future.
I feel I've been in LuLa since forever; remind me of the times when there were great discussions on the "Photographic Arts". Posting on the list of links (Style) to great photographers is a pretty lonely profession... I know all about that - check it out. It was always like that. If there is a shortage of posters, it's because so few are actively interested enough to spend time online looking for such photographers or artists to enjoy and to pass along for the pleasure of others.
True, we used to enjoy input from several very good professional photographers in advertising; most abandoned LuLa as a place in which to place images. Some fell out amongst themselves and others just realised that, professionally, it was a waste of time: who was gonna offer gigs out of LuLa? Be serious; and time is money. And why would they pay to read articles they could write even better? LuLa is a site aimed fairly and squarely at the amateur photographer, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Pros get their kicks by impressing other pros: that amateurs say wow! means not a lot in the greater scheme of professional life. If you were around during the period from the 50s to the 80s you'd see that personal competition on the pages of every fashion magazine, every travel magazine and every weekend supplement: the client was secondary - we had to kick the asses of our competitors: that was the spiritual payoff after basic professional survival.
Anyway, those who contribute to the political threads are/were not all prolific posters of images, whether great or shitty. Posting in one end of the LuLa spectrum has never prevented the same person doing so in any other section. The main reason for not posting images is this: we have no great list of great new ones to post. And the longer one remains here, the more one becomes aware of one's own inadequacy and how few of us really have the style or even ability to make a picture a picture, rather than just a record of something we saw at some time or in some place.
Don't pass the blame to the politically interested: pass it to those not willing to post their snaps.
-
Yes, Victor, it is. We are adults here (I think) and LuLa has grown to offer far more to its community of members than simple-minded gratifications of GAS.
That is why we have so many long-time members. We enjoy the closest thing to Internet friendships that vou can find.
Rob
And I think this is a part of the problem. These friendships - indeed our friendship - are seen by many as little cliques, they do nothing to attract new blood and the result is familiarity, stagnation and decline.
I've had my say in the past about the political threads and I won't bore you further other than to say I find them addictive, divisive and ultimately destructive.
-
A. It can, but why should it be so constricted and constrained?
How about a forum dedicated to unclogging septic tanks and brain surgery?
LuLa is a photography centric site. There's zero reason for political discussions any more than those dedicated to pathology or the American Constitution.
And there are plenty of sites dedicated to politics. LuLa has lost its focus. Photographically and honestly by going utterly off topic by having such a forum that's hugely (look at the numbers) populated by politics. Topics utterly devoid of photography.
I suspect Michael is looking down at this and not happy about the direction (and yes, I did knew him personally).
-
And I think this is a part of the problem. These friendships - indeed our friendship - are seen by many as little cliques, they do nothing to attract new blood and the result is familiarity, stagnation and decline.
I've had my say in the past about the political threads and I won't bore you further other than to say I find them addictive, divisive and ultimately destructive.
You could be right; however, all of us were strangers, the one to the other, at some period. We became friends because of shared interests and the impressions that we gain of personality over time.
I guess new blood can only be attracted by the management, and advertising. Some comes by world of mouth; other people find it by accident. I stay precisely because of a handful of people I have grown to understand, respect and to like. There are few of you; you know well who you are, even though a rare one or two would probably be surprised to find themselves on that little list of personal likes.
As with all technical resources, they mean different things at different times in your personal development. There are those here in the tech. threads who helped me no end in my early days in digital; that we no longer have anything to say to one another does not mean that I do not hold gratitude towards them for that help. It simply means we both move on to other, unrelated things in our lives.
-
How about a forum dedicated to unclogging septic tanks and brain surgery?
LuLa is a photography centric site. There's zero reason for political discussions any more than those dedicated to pathology or the American Constitution.
And there are plenty of sites dedicated to politics. LuLa has lost its focus. Photographically and honestly by going utterly off topic by having such a forum that's hugely (look at the numbers) populated by politics. Topics utterly devoid of photography.
I suspect Michael is looking down at this and not happy about the direction (and yes, I did knew him personally).
I don't mean to offend, but isn't what you have expressed a typically techy absolutist attitude to life?
I have yet to see a single example cited of where LuLa having a political section has actually prevented anyone from reading or contributing either an article or a photograph.
As with those Brexiteers who recite the thoughtless mantra: "I want my country back!", not a one actually defines who has taken said country away from them, and which former right might have been denied them since joining the wider European club. More and more certainly realise every day what they are on the verge of forfeiting.
Life often allows for multiple choices; LuLa is one such source. Rejoice it lives and, according to the owners, doing better than ever before.
Rob
-
I don't mean to offend, but isn't what you have expressed a typically techy absolutist attitude to life?
NO offense taken as I have absolutely no idea what you're suggesting.
LuLa is a photo centric site. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that. Discussions of politics are not discussions of photography. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that either. There are other sites with forums dedicated to auguring (or discussing) politics. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that too.
LuLa has a forum that's open to non photographic topics. And it's (IMHO) polluted largely by politics and rarely about coffee or much else. Again, you can simply look at the numbers of posts attached to political discussions; you don't need to be a tech whinnies to see the numbers and how they correlate to those topics.
So, given what I believe are facts that non tech whinnies could understand, IMHO, LuLa has lost a part of its focus in the forums, concerning photography.
And yeah, I don't have to (nor do I any longer) go to those forums to discuss politics, it doesn't serve Michael's memory and what he built IMHO.
-
LuLa is a photo centric site. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that. Discussions of politics are not discussions of photography. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that either. There are other sites with forums dedicated to auguring (or discussing) politics. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that too.
LuLa has a forum that's open to non photographic topics. And it's (IMHO) polluted largely by politics and rarely about coffee or much else. Again, you can simply look at the numbers of posts attached to political discussions; you don't need to be a tech whinnies to see the numbers and how they correlate to those topics.
So, given what I believe are facts that non tech whinnies could understand, IMHO, LuLa has lost a part of its focus in the forums, concerning photography.
And yeah, I don't have to (nor do I any longer) go to those forums to discuss politics, it doesn't serve Michael's memory and what he built IMHO.
+100.
-
Wasn’t it the site owners, including Mr. Reichmann, if my memory serves me well, who opened the floodgates by attacking Indiana politics? Or even before that, when the woke attacked Mr. Reichmann for using the world Lolita in a title?
-
Wasn’t it the site owners, including Mr. Reichmann, if my memory serves me well, who opened the floodgates by attacking Indiana politics? Or even before that, when the woke attacked Mr. Reichmann for using the world Lolita in a title?
The owner of the site can do as he pleases! And if memory serves, it didn't result in THOUSANDS of posts.
-
Andrew, you of all people, shouldn't really be a spokesperson on civility. If we were in the days of the Wild West you'd be the one shooting up a saloon over a lens cap. [/light hearted quip, no offence intended]. I don't say I didn't 'enjoy' some of your more extreme moments (Gary Fong comes to mind) but honestly your post has much of 'the pot calling the kettle black'.
You knew Michael ? Yes, I know you did. You also knew of Schewe, Eric Chan, Mark Segal (the original snowflake), add Nick Devlin and on and on. They've all gone. All friends of LuLa's founding father, Michael and all part of the rich 'tapestry' that made LuLa the number one photo site.
And they didn't go 'cos of the Coffee Corner.
But I'll leave the last word to Nick Devlin who, in response to one who raised an objection similar to your "Because they are not appropriate for this site", posted this whilst Michael was still with us.
This site is the private property of the people who run it. It also happens to be a powerful public forum. If they be moral men, which they are, it is an imperative that they use it to decry acts of immorality which undermine the sorts of fundamental freedoms which we, the creative class (and if ye be not one of those, what the hell are you doing here?) rely on for the things which give our lives meaning.
-
I've said nothing of civility sir. I've commented on the FOCUS of the forums!
Now, in terms of civility "piss off" 🤪
And they didn't go 'cos of the Coffee Corner.
They each told you specifically why they left or this is another assumption, like I knew this guy Nick (I never did).
-
I have yet to see a single example cited of where LuLa having a political section has actually prevented anyone from reading or contributing either an article or a photograph.
There's an awful lot of nonsense on this thread, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
If the comments about censorship were directed at me, they were misdirected. I have never censored a topic, save last year when I banned political discussions altogether. I have closed threads for various reasons, usually because the signal to noise ratio was unacceptably low (unacceptable to me, that is); but I have never ruled that a topic could not be discussed in a courteous fashion.
As Rob points out, active discussion of topics in one area does not prevent active discussion of other topics. There is no limit (no practical limit, anyway) to the number of posts which the forums will accept.
There is equally no reason why members of a photo-centric site should suffer from forced monomania and be prevented from discussing other topics in a separate area of the site. If that curtailed photography-related discussion, I would agree that it should be prevented; but it doesn't. Political topics are, in general, easily identified from their titles. If people aren't interested in politics, they need neither read nor contribute to those threads.
Jeremy
-
As Rob points out, active discussion of topics in one area does not prevent active discussion of other topics. There is no limit (no practical limit, anyway) to the number of posts which the forums will accept.
I don't think anyone suggested this was a technical forum issue.
There is equally no reason why members of a photo-centric site should suffer from forced monomania and be prevented from discussing other topics in a separate area of the site.
No, there isn't. Nor any reason to have it (other than perhaps inflate traffic for advertising).
Look, it's now Michael’s son's site and he can and will do as he pleases. And I don't think there is any question more work for moderators if we assume they view all posts (just look at the number of this pup):
1967 posts to 'examine'?
If you're OK viewing them all and moderating, fine with me. I'm not going there. If you want to demand people enroll with actual names, and I think that's a good idea, fine. If not, fine. It's your time to spend (waste?). ;D
-
In looking at the forums, there is far less technical comment being posted these days. If one were to look at only "new" post numbers, The Coffee Corner wins hands down. What does this say about a photography site. The content on the Home Page has changed dramatically as well but the site owner has the right to reshape this according to his own thinking. Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of folks who were regular contributors move on. Michael was unique in his own way and new what kind of content would attract photographers. The videos that he did with the help of Chris and Jeff were excellent examples of this. The cost was modest but the instructional content was high. That model disappeared with the growth of YouTube and the ability of YouTuber participants to monetize their works. I don't think the LuLa video series would be as successful today. Alternate platforms have taken over. there are some esteemed folks such as Jim Kasson who posts here and also on his own website where he covers a lot of very good technical issues for those of us who have moved on to mirrorless cameras. DP Review is attracting a more diverse membership though one has to sift through a lot of stuff to get to good content. Kevin Raber's new site is doing some good work on equipment reviews and it's good to see some of the LuLa old guard who have moved over to that venue.
there is some good stuff on the color management thread where Doug Gray is exploring better approaches to profiling but there are lots of fora here that attract a very small number of posts on a daily basis. LuLa used to be a go-to place to read about photography and get answers to questions. I don't think this is the case today and it's sad but maybe it's also progress as the Internet evolves.
-
In looking at the forums, there is far less technical comment being posted these days. If one were to look at only "new" post numbers, The Coffee Corner wins hands down. What does this say about a photography site. The content on the Home Page has changed dramatically as well but the site owner has the right to reshape this according to his own thinking. Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of folks who were regular contributors move on. Michael was unique in his own way and new what kind of content would attract photographers. The videos that he did with the help of Chris and Jeff were excellent examples of this. The cost was modest but the instructional content was high. That model disappeared with the growth of YouTube and the ability of YouTuber participants to monetize their works. I don't think the LuLa video series would be as successful today. Alternate platforms have taken over. there are some esteemed folks such as Jim Kasson who posts here and also on his own website where he covers a lot of very good technical issues for those of us who have moved on to mirrorless cameras. DP Review is attracting a more diverse membership though one has to sift through a lot of stuff to get to good content. Kevin Raber's new site is doing some good work on equipment reviews and it's good to see some of the LuLa old guard who have moved over to that venue.
there is some good stuff on the color management thread where Doug Gray is exploring better approaches to profiling but there are lots of fora here that attract a very small number of posts on a daily basis. LuLa used to be a go-to place to read about photography and get answers to questions. I don't think this is the case today and it's sad but maybe it's also progress as the Internet evolves.
Reasoned, and seems obviously true to me: the early days of digital ignorance at the level required to make reasonably good happy smaps has been and gone. Folks either have cameras or cellphones that do the thinking, and for those well beyond that, specific expertise is still avaiable here to those who seek it out.
Look at the stats on camera sales: unless the manufacturers are fibbing for tax purposes, fewer people, year on year, are buying quality cameras. It's all peaked, folks. Of course it's inevitable that related written traffic slows, though we are assured by LuLa's ownership that that does not mean that fewer people look in, but that many do without adding content of their own.
And as I have mentioned before, not all photographers, good or otherwise, either can or enjoy writing about their field or anything much else. It's just another fact of life. My wife could knock the spots off me in spelling or the finer points of English grammer, but once we left school, she might as well have forgotten what a pen was. On the other hand, she was never idle when not doing her work as wife, mother and photographer's essential moral booster and assistant; she would always be found digesting the latest historical novel. She loved literature, but produced none of her own. Why expect the world's photographers to be any the more literally productive?
-
Rob, my friend qnd 99.4 % of you I wish you the best.
IMO
BC
-
There's an awful lot of nonsense on this thread, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
If the comments about censorship were directed at me, they were misdirected. I have never censored a topic, save last year when I banned political discussions altogether. I have closed threads for various reasons, usually because the signal to noise ratio was unacceptably low (unacceptable to me, that is); but I have never ruled that a topic could not be discussed in a courteous fashion.
As Rob points out, active discussion of topics in one area does not prevent active discussion of other topics. There is no limit (no practical limit, anyway) to the number of posts which the forums will accept.
There is equally no reason why members of a photo-centric site should suffer from forced monomania and be prevented from discussing other topics in a separate area of the site. If that curtailed photography-related discussion, I would agree that it should be prevented; but it doesn't. Political topics are, in general, easily identified from their titles. If people aren't interested in politics, they need neither read nor contribute to those threads.
Jeremy
I don't get where you're going with all of this. Is this direction YOU or ownership? As has been pointed out by others and supported by me and others this is a PHOTOGRAPHIC site and should remain committed to that end. Coffee corners in my opinion should be eliminated and more serious effort should be made to propagate the original reasons for founding this site. Why don't you just change the name to 'Luminous Landscapes and Politics'?
I also think that your ego gets into the way of making rational decisions regarding the direction of LL.
Victor
-
... As has been pointed out by others and supported by me and others this is a PHOTOGRAPHIC site and should remain committed to that end. Coffee corners in my opinion should be eliminated and more serious effort should be made to propagate the original reasons for founding this site....
What did YOU do to propagate this site? Where is YOUR article, or even YOUR photographs?
-
I don't get where you're going with all of this. Is this direction YOU or ownership?
Exactly my thoughts too. As the moderator, let alone the original poster, he can lock this down. But HE asked the question and now it's somehow a burden with posts filled with (in his opinion), nonsense. I'm out of here; time to cease notifications of this thread. I provided a vote, not that it means anything to anyone. ;D
I agreed with someone else about political posts, I stick to that agreement.
This has turned into the usual CWOBaT (colossal waste of bandwidth and time), and somewhat my fault for falling into the trap of answering the poll and attempting to engage with mods.
But before I leave, in terms of where this has gone, the so called nonsense which are replies to the question asked, I have to provide feedback from good old Jules:
“If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions.”
― Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKS6xy87ewk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKS6xy87ewk)
-
What did YOU do to propagate this site? Where is YOUR article, or even YOUR photographs?
Articles??? That's a reach!! Photographs?? look around. What I have always been sensitive to is the 'Club' that would always comment on any photograph posted by club members but an outsider wouldn't get the time of day. If you want to see my photographs go to GetDpi where I post a lot of images.
Get real......
Victor
-
...go to GetDpi where I post a lot of images.
Seriously!? You post images there but come here to pontificate?
-
Seriously!? You post images there but come here to pontificate?
No Slobodan.... I've posted images here..... look around.
Are you one of the standard bearer's at LL?? No wonder why this place has gone down hill....
It really, really is time for a new direction here.....
Victor
-
I vote no. Some of the longest flame wars on the forum are by people using real names. Use moderator powers to stop bad behavior.
Les
-
How about a forum dedicated to unclogging septic tanks...
We already have that one:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=131841.0
-
I vote no. Some of the longest flame wars on the forum are by people using real names. Use moderator powers to stop bad behavior.
Les
But who moderates the moderator?
-
The OP mentioned obnoxious behaviour. I stop reading posts and threads that resort to such language. If posters cannot express an opinion without being rude then IMHO, they are not worth reading. That part of the original has been lost, so I will continue to self censor - a pity. This thread has become meandering in a way that is not interesting, so bye bye thread, another self censor.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
What I find annoying is being told that if you don't like something then don't read it. If you don't read it then you won't know if you like it or not??? Jeremy bite the bullet and ban the politics. The same members are constantly arguing about topics which they will NEVER agree on. :(
-
I post under my name but I don't care if others do or not. I will read the posts and do my best to react to the post not too who said it. Play the ball not the man.
As to getting rid of the politics I don't see why that should happen. A number of people clearly enjoy the debates and are quite active in that area. For myself I decided I don't have much to say and so decided to avoid posting on those threads. I do read through them on occasion, its interesting to read others opinions and perhaps I will pick up a fresh perspective.
I would prefer that there was more discussion on photographic subjects but it is what it is. Forums are weird. Is it that grumpy people like forums or is it that there are just a lot of grumpy people in the world?
-
But who moderates the moderator?
This guy.
(http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/The_Moderator.jpg)
Sorry, Oscar, I am weak and can never resist.
-
What I find annoying is being told that if you don't like something then don't read it. If you don't read it then you won't know if you like it or not??? Jeremy bite the bullet and ban the politics. The same members are constantly arguing about topics which they will NEVER agree on. :(
And what many others dislike is being told that because another poster doesn't enjoy a particular set of threads, they should be closed down.
How incredibly arrogant!
Rob
-
Rob, my friend qnd 99.4 % of you I wish you the best.
IMO
BC
Thank you, BC; and as ever, I wish you and yours the best.
It's a difficult world out there.
:-)
-
Articles??? That's a reach!! Photographs?? look around. What I have always been sensitive to is the 'Club' that would always comment on any photograph posted by club members but an outsider wouldn't get the time of day. If you want to see my photographs go to GetDpi where I post a lot of images.
Get real......
Victor
Victor, do you then think of comments on pictures as a club thing, some kind of reward from some secret society within a society?
Many of my snaps receive no comment whatsoever. I accept that as indicating nobody thinks them worth commenting upon. I do the same thing sometimes, regardless of how friendly or otherwise I may be with the author.
It shows yet again that amateur photography is the most difficult branch of all: it has no valid reason why it should interest anyone but the shooter. In commercial life, you get your validation or otherwise pretty damned quickly, so you generally know if you are cutting it or not. An amateur is best off asking his partner...
-
Victor, do you then think of comments on pictures as a club thing, some kind of reward from some secret society within a society?
Many of my snaps receive no comment whatsoever. I accept that as indicating nobody thinks them worth commenting upon. I do the same thing sometimes, regardless of how friendly or otherwise I may be with the author.
It shows yet again that amateur photography is the most difficult branch of all: it has no valid reason why it should interest anyone but the shooter. In commercial life, you get your validation or otherwise pretty damned quickly, so you generally know if you are cutting it or not. An amateur is best off asking his partner...
Then why do you bother posting your own non-commercial images here on LuLa and viewing and commenting on those of others?
As an aside I feel pretty indifferent towards most commercial photography, including my own.
-
Then why do you bother posting your own non-commercial images here on LuLa and viewing and commenting on those of others?
As an aside I feel pretty indifferent towards most commercial photography, including my own.
Easy one: to discover if those snaps interest anyone else.
Regarding comments from my direction towards other's snaps: to encourage where I feel it is deserved, and to make a happier day all round. Probably much as you do yourself.
Certainly not from any feeling of being in a secret mafia.
;-)
-
Easy one: to discover if those snaps interest anyone else.
Regarding comments from my direction towards other's snaps: to encourage where I feel it is deserved, and to make a happier day all round. Probably much as you do yourself.
Certainly not from any feeling of being in a secret mafia.
;-)
But there's no valid reason why they should.
;-)
-
This guy.
Sorry, Oscar, I am weak and can never resist.
Sigh...
-
Real Art trumps Real Name!
Da Beat (circa 2019)
-
Sigh...
;D
-
How incredibly arrogant!
Rob
If you don't like arrogance then why do you post this crap?
Quote Rob C
It shows yet again that amateur photography is the most difficult branch of all: it has no valid reason why it should interest anyone but the shooter.
Uquote
-
To the owners, moderators, and the ignorati(*),
The other day I checked the forums without being logged in. By force of habit I clicked "recent posts".
What I saw gave me the impression I have of Reddit. A no-holds-barred-anything-goes, K2 cage fight type of forum about politics. It actually scared me. In the list that you see there is no reasonable way to determine you've just entered a photography forum about the art of photography. It is perhaps useful to think about that impression in terms of a potential new user entering the forum pages and trying to determine whether this is a welcoming place to discuss his/her photographic endeavours.
An existing user can obviously add that part of the forum to their ignore list, but visitors can't. Do with that info what you will...
(*) in this case meaning: those that think it is easy to simply not read what you don't want to read. Whether it might also refer to its original meaning, is left as an exercise for the reader...
-
To the owners, moderators, and the ignorati(*),
The other day I checked the forums without being logged in. By force of habit I clicked "recent posts".
What I saw gave me the impression I have of Reddit. A no-holds-barred-anything-goes, K2 cage fight type of forum about politics. It actually scared me. In the list that you see there is no reasonable way to determine you've just entered a photography forum about the art of photography. It is perhaps useful to think about that impression in terms of a potential new user entering the forum pages and trying to determine whether this is a welcoming place to discuss his/her photographic endeavours.
An existing user can obviously add that part of the forum to their ignore list, but visitors can't. Do with that info what you will...
(*) in this case meaning: those that think it is easy to simply not read what you don't want to read. Whether it might also refer to its original meaning, is left as an exercise for the reader...
Where the hell is that clapping hands emoji when one needs it?
;-)
-
And what many others dislike is being told that because another poster doesn't enjoy a particular set of threads, they should be closed down.
How incredibly arrogant!
I am not asking for anything to be closed down. I am stating that certain subjects should not posted. >:(
-
To the owners, moderators, and the ignorati(*),
The other day I checked the forums without being logged in. By force of habit I clicked "recent posts".
What I saw gave me the impression I have of Reddit. A no-holds-barred-anything-goes, K2 cage fight type of forum about politics. It actually scared me. In the list that you see there is no reasonable way to determine you've just entered a photography forum about the art of photography. It is perhaps useful to think about that impression in terms of a potential new user entering the forum pages and trying to determine whether this is a welcoming place to discuss his/her photographic endeavours.
An existing user can obviously add that part of the forum to their ignore list, but visitors can't. Do with that info what you will...
(*) in this case meaning: those that think it is easy to simply not read what you don't want to read. Whether it might also refer to its original meaning, is left as an exercise for the reader...
Useful info.
Thanks
Josh
-
To the owners, moderators, and the ignorati(*),
The other day I checked the forums without being logged in. By force of habit I clicked "recent posts".
What I saw gave me the impression I have of Reddit. A no-holds-barred-anything-goes, K2 cage fight type of forum about politics. It actually scared me. In the list that you see there is no reasonable way to determine you've just entered a photography forum about the art of photography. It is perhaps useful to think about that impression in terms of a potential new user entering the forum pages and trying to determine whether this is a welcoming place to discuss his/her photographic endeavours.
An existing user can obviously add that part of the forum to their ignore list, but visitors can't. Do with that info what you will...
(*) in this case meaning: those that think it is easy to simply not read what you don't want to read. Whether it might also refer to its original meaning, is left as an exercise for the reader...
Yup, I've just clicked the most recent posts link and it is indeed an eye-opener!
Just what is this place?
-
Just took a look at some interesting statistics:
Male to Female Ratio: 10.7 : 1
top poster: Rob C 22056
top topic by reply Trump II 6615
top online Slobodan Blagojevic 278d 1h 25m
-
Yup, I've just clicked the most recent posts link and it is indeed an eye-opener...
In theory.
In practice, however, it is highly unlikely that a first-time visitor is going to see that “horrible” view. They would need to scroll down 3-5 pages, past a list of 27 forums about photography and only then notice, if curious enough, a single, obscure line about recent posts.
-
In theory.
In practice, however, it is highly unlikely that a first-time visitor is going to see that “horrible” view. They would need to scroll down 3-5 pages, past a list of 27 forums about photography and only then notice, if curious enough, a single, obscure line about recent posts.
Nope.
First thing I do when visiting any new forum is move to the bottom of the page to check what kind of handles are used. They don't have to be real names, but if I see a lot of "gunloverrrr", "skullpissser", or "naziphan", I'm quickly moving on.
Second thing I check is recent posts, which, on this forum, is conveniently located thereabouts...
-
... First thing I do when visiting any new forum... if I see a lot of "gunloverrrr", "skullpissser", or "naziphan"...
I wonder what urge you had to land on such forums in the first place? ;)
-
I wonder what urge you had to land on such forums in the first place? ;)
;-)
PS. I am btw not saying politics should be banned (although I couldn't care less), but it might be useful to add the CC to the ignore list by default, and anybody can undo that once they are a member.
-
Could the CC be removed from recent posts so that only members can see the threads?
-
... A no-holds-barred-anything-goes, K2 cage fight type of forum about politics. It actually scared me...
Now, you are really, really exaggerating. Nothing of the sort. For most part, it is rhetorical, just a friendly banter between people with opposing opinions. Theatrics. Most of us are actually rather polite and friendly in email and PM exchanges and would gladly go for a beer.
-
Could the CC be removed from recent posts so that only members can see the threads?
That is an excellent suggestion.
-
Could the CC be removed from recent posts so that only members can see the threads?
Considering this kind of option as I am reading this thread.
Thanks
Josh
-
Just sweep it under the carpet.
-
Now, you are really, really exaggerating. Nothing of the sort. For most part, it is rhetorical, just a friendly banter between people with opposing opinions. Theatrics. Most of us are actually rather polite and friendly in email and PM exchanges and would gladly go for a beer.
Irony of all ironies - most surprising statement from this author, whose appetite for insult knows no bounds.
-
Irony of all ironies - most surprising statement from this author, whose appetite for insult knows no bounds.
Glad to see we are friends again, since I am not on your ignore list anymore ;)
-
So the question is when will this thread be shut down?
-
Another forum I frequent has a sub-forum titled "The Danger Zone". You can "ignore" this forum if you choose and you won't see any posts from it.
TDZ has an explicit warning, both in the forum title and inside the topic site in big red letters: "DON'T COME IN HERE IF YOU CAN'T TAKE IT".
Inside TDZ, anything goes. It is not moderated. It contains much of the same babble as we read in the various political topics here.
Those who want to partake are free to do so. Those who choose to ignore it can make that choice. Quite simple, really. Just segment the political/religious topics into their own walled garden.
As for the OP's question, there's no doubt that anonymity enables obnoxious behaviour. Citizen's Band Radio proved that point long ago. Perhaps presciently, it soon died.
-
Now, you are really, really exaggerating. Nothing of the sort. For most part, it is rhetorical, just a friendly banter between people with opposing opinions. Theatrics. Most of us are actually rather polite and friendly in email and PM exchanges and would gladly go for a beer.
Irony of all ironies - most surprising statement from this author, whose appetite for insult knows no bounds.
That is exactly the kind of pointless personal attack, contributing nothing but nastiness and spite, which I will no longer tolerate.
Jeremy
-
To the owners, moderators, and the ignorati(*),
The other day I checked the forums without being logged in. By force of habit I clicked "recent posts".
What I saw gave me the impression I have of Reddit. A no-holds-barred-anything-goes, K2 cage fight type of forum about politics. It actually scared me. In the list that you see there is no reasonable way to determine you've just entered a photography forum about the art of photography. It is perhaps useful to think about that impression in terms of a potential new user entering the forum pages and trying to determine whether this is a welcoming place to discuss his/her photographic endeavours.
An existing user can obviously add that part of the forum to their ignore list, but visitors can't. Do with that info what you will...
(*) in this case meaning: those that think it is easy to simply not read what you don't want to read. Whether it might also refer to its original meaning, is left as an exercise for the reader...
This. This is the Lula Forum brand.
-
But there's no valid reason why they should.
;-)
Which is where I came in.
I looked in Doc Google's files for old photos of the Regal cinema in Paisley - the Scottish one - and all I could find were a couole of useless vids of its demolition. So depressing; I learned so much in those back seats up there in the sky. Guess many of my generation did. Loved the 50s.
:-)
-
If you don't like arrogance then why do you post this crap?
Quote Rob C
It shows yet again that amateur photography is the most difficult branch of all: it has no valid reason why it should interest anyone but the shooter.
Uquote
And it's crap because you tell us so?
:-)
-
And what many others dislike is being told that because another poster doesn't enjoy a particular set of threads, they should be closed down.
How incredibly arrogant!
I am not asking for anything to be closed down. I am stating that certain subjects should not posted. >:(
The difference being?
The problem being: you have been drinking the Boris kool-aid where words mean what you want them to mean when you know as you utter them that they are meaningless. Welcome to the world of New Conservatives. Never thought you'd join 'em. Maybe because I finally left?
:-)
-
So the question is when will this thread be shut down?
When posters become insulting.
There is a world of difference between getting mad at somebody's flawed argument and breaking into personal abuse.
Some of the folks here with whom I share differences of opinion are actually people I quite like; some are also very accomplished photographers, which makes them even nicer. (Nice is a silly word that means nothing; think about that, and try to offer a definition of the word that holds. But I use it, for the reason that it is all positive things to all people, which is nice, despite meaning absolutely nothing at all. You could say it allows one to accomplish something with nothing. Why am I finding myself thinking of climate change?)
Rob
-
Who are you was a good title; sadly, reading all this lily-livered stuff that has cropped up, the question mighy have better been: what are you?
I feel as if the united colours of political correctness are making a play for control of the heart of LuLa. If they beat you guys into inglorious submission, check my tailpipe.
Rob
-
Irony of all ironies - most surprising statement from this author, whose appetite for insult knows no bounds.
That is exactly the kind of pointless personal attack, contributing nothing but nastiness and spite, which I will no longer tolerate.
Jeremy
Well, you have always tolerated much worse over on the Coffee Corner. This is another very good reason for shutting that section down. One cannot post anything there without being attacked in one form or another. I've pretty much given up on the section other than posting corrections and not responding to troll baiting.
-
Victor, do you then think of comments on pictures as a club thing, some kind of reward from some secret society within a society?
Many of my snaps receive no comment whatsoever. I accept that as indicating nobody thinks them worth commenting upon. I do the same thing sometimes, regardless of how friendly or otherwise I may be with the author.
It shows yet again that amateur photography is the most difficult branch of all: it has no valid reason why it should interest anyone but the shooter. In commercial life, you get your validation or otherwise pretty damned quickly, so you generally know if you are cutting it or not. An amateur is best off asking his partner...
Sorry for being so late for this but Rob.... this is complete BS. EOM
Victor
-
And it's crap because you tell us so?
:-)
Yes. Rob you have lost it. Maybe time for another "holiday"
-
Yes. Rob you have lost it. Maybe time for another "holiday"
And you fail to see the irony in your "Yes."
Oy vey, already.
-
When posters become insulting.
There is a world of difference between getting mad at somebody's flawed argument and breaking into personal abuse.
Some of the folks here with whom I share differences of opinion are actually people I quite like; some are also very accomplished photographers, which makes them even nicer. (Nice is a silly word that means nothing; think about that, and try to offer a definition of the word that holds. But I use it, for the reason that it is all positive things to all people, which is nice, despite meaning absolutely nothing at all. You could say it allows one to accomplish something with nothing. Why am I finding myself thinking of climate change?)
Rob
Hi, Rob:
It's not about being insulting or abusive. I was alluding more to the fact that the thread has devolved into a discussion of whether there should be political discussion on the forum or not. As a matter of fact, there were perhaps no more than handful of people who answered OT's intended question about using real names or not. If I understand correctly, the problem is not if people are rude on The Coffee Corner (if you go there, and like to butt heads with other people with strong opinions, it should be par for the course) but for the other photography related mainstream sub-forums that get less than polite at times (unless there is a spill-over behavioral effect from those discussions that I am not aware of.) Or at least that's how I figured. When the thread digresses dominantly into another side discussion, I feel it becomes counterproductive and should be moderated back to the main topic at hand. If the question about political discussion is important enough (which it looks like from the animated responses on both sides here) may be there should be a separate survey/thread.
All my opinions, of course.
:Niranjan.
-
Now, you are really, really exaggerating. Nothing of the sort. For most part, it is rhetorical, just a friendly banter between people with opposing opinions. Theatrics. Most of us are actually rather polite and friendly in email and PM exchanges and would gladly go for a beer.
This. Plus lots. Behind the masks worn on the CC forum there are a lot of friendly faces and metaphorical (for now) beer glasses held.
-
Warning: off-topic.
Not about first and last names, but about photography, or more specifically interest in photography, from a personal experience perspective.
When I was much younger, back in the '80s, I had a small group of friends very much into photography. All Canon guys. Two were what we would call gearheads, one was more of a classical artist, oil painting and graphics. The gearheads had all kind of exotic glass (at the time), like 17mm super-wide angle and 300/2.8 telephoto. Most of their photographs, if they were bothered to shoot, were to demonstrate a particular advantage of the lens. But I digress. The point I am trying to make: it was hard to get hold of those things in then-socialist Yugoslavia. Yes, we had a Canon representative office, but prices were astronomical, due to import duties. So, how did we get all those? Classifieds. It was surprising what you could find in those. And how cheaply, sometimes. You see, having a good camera was the flavor of the day, a matter of prestige, object of desire, so those who traveled abroad would buy it and bring it back. And then, sort of suddenly, the supply via classifieds dwindled significantly. Amateur video cameras showed up, and became all the rage. Classifieds were full of them. True photography remained a niche domain. For diehards.
Something similar is happening today. Digital isn't new anymore. Once again, video is getting more popular than stills (arguably). But it isn't just the popularity of video. We are simply drowning in photography. Gazillions of bad photography, average photography. But also gazillions of good photography, spectacular photography. We've become desensitized to it. Even to the spectacular ones. Especially to the spectacular ones. What is left to say, in terms of commenting on published photographs, after seeing so many similar photographs? Iceland was initially all the rage, due to its novelty, and since then it has been inundated with tourists, and we inundated with images of it. The same with Antarctica. Or Cuba.
The skills necessary until recently to deliver a decent (technically) photograph, not to mention spectacular, have shifted from photographer to the camera (or even phone). What took me days in Photoshop earlier can now be achieved in a single iPhone shot. It is not even "f/8 and be there." It is just "be there" these days. All it takes for Instagram "influencers," whatever that is, is to be there, at an exotic location, or in a stupidly daring activity. They don't even know what f/8 is, nor they care. Perhaps rightly so.
Once again, it is diehards only.
-
I completely disagree. No. Just kidding. It’s true - but it leads to some introspection that may be valuable. Why am I pressing this button? Do I want another Peter Lik-style image? Or do I have something unique to say(even if nobody else hears or cares?)
-
Hi all,
If your saying it's all been done, your right. So what is left? The individual, making a personal statement. Subject matter need not always be what things look like.
Learning how to have something to say about the world we inhabit. Having a point of view. So that when some one looks at the work, they can say very well who this might be.
Very few photographers use the element of time to tell a story. Time is such a wonderful thing to play with. It can take you into other realms. Yes I'm talking about the fine art of photography. Not Pro work, that has a whole other entire set of needs.
the individual needs to go beyond the craft of the medium. And the big secret is, everyone here has a camera that is more capable than their needs. It was never really about the camera. Was it?
Instead of thinking where should we go today. Instead read a novel, poetry, philosophy, et cetera and to help expand yourself to think differently. Which is discovering who you are.
In the painting world we call this a "wrist in search of an idea". I never wanted to be the wrist and wasn't.
Peter
-
The day I believe that cameras are key will be the day I hang them up.
-
Thank you Slobodan for redirecting this mostly somewhat childish thread into something that might be of interest to at least some of us. The topic might now be something like this:
"Where did we come from, where are we going, and what, if anything, should we be doing about it?"
-
I am on the side of the current approach of moderation, warnings, suspensions, bans and such. Merely asking for real names would not necessarily get them; demanding evidence of ID (the LL Border Patrol?) like links to a personal website would be a significant barrier and deterrent to new participants, the problem is not so great as to need it ... and the most recent obnoxious behavior I know of involved a "real name" participant.
For a touch of paranoia, it has happened elsewhere that angry people and trolls exploit real ID information in internet forums to harass "enemy" posters elsewhere. (Worst case: swatting.)
Yours,
"Bruce" Jun-fan Lee (maybe)
-
I am on the side of the current approach of moderation, warnings, suspensions, bans and such. Merely asking for real names would not necessarily get them; demanding evidence of ID (the LL Border Patrol?) like links to a personal website would be a significant barrier and deterrent to new participants, the problem is not so great as to need it ... and the most recent obnoxious behavior I know of involved a "real name" participant.
For a touch of paranoia, it has happened elsewhere that angry people and trolls exploit real ID information in internet forums to harass "enemy" posters elsewhere. (Worst case: swatting.)
Yours,
"Bruce" Jun-fan Lee (maybe)
I agree with much you say.
I'm keen on real names simply because I like to know who I'm speaking to.
Yours,
Jeremy Roussak
;-)
-
I agree with much you say.
I'm keen on real names simply because I like to know who I'm speaking to.
Yours,
Jeremy Roussak
;-)
Ha! And I always thought your real name was Henry Fox Talbot!
Yours,
-Louis Daguerre.
-
Warning: off-topic.
Not about first and last names, but about photography, or more specifically interest in photography, from a personal experience perspective.
When I was much younger, back in the '80s, I had a small group of friends very much into photography. All Canon guys. Two were what we would call gearheads, one was more of a classical artist, oil painting and graphics. The gearheads had all kind of exotic glass (at the time), like 17mm super-wide angle and 300/2.8 telephoto. Most of their photographs, if they were bothered to shoot, were to demonstrate a particular advantage of the lens. But I digress. The point I am trying to make: it was hard to get hold of those things in then-socialist Yugoslavia. Yes, we had a Canon representative office, but prices were astronomical, due to import duties. So, how did we get all those? Classifieds. It was surprising what you could find in those. And how cheaply, sometimes. You see, having a good camera was the flavor of the day, a matter of prestige, object of desire, so those who traveled abroad would buy it and bring it back. And then, sort of suddenly, the supply via classifieds dwindled significantly. Amateur video cameras showed up, and became all the rage. Classifieds were full of them. True photography remained a niche domain. For diehards.
Something similar is happening today. Digital isn't new anymore. Once again, video is getting more popular than stills (arguably). But it isn't just the popularity of video. We are simply drowning in photography. Gazillions of bad photography, average photography. But also gazillions of good photography, spectacular photography. We've become desensitized to it. Even to the spectacular ones. Especially to the spectacular ones. What is left to say, in terms of commenting on published photographs, after seeing so many similar photographs? Iceland was initially all the rage, due to its novelty, and since then it has been inundated with tourists, and we inundated with images of it. The same with Antarctica. Or Cuba.
The skills necessary until recently to deliver a decent (technically) photograph, not to mention spectacular, have shifted from photographer to the camera (or even phone). What took me days in Photoshop earlier can now be achieved in a single iPhone shot. It is not even "f/8 and be there." It is just "be there" these days. All it takes for Instagram "influencers," whatever that is, is to be there, at an exotic location, or in a stupidly daring activity. They don't even know what f/8 is, nor they care. Perhaps rightly so.
Once again, it is diehards only.
Beautifully written, and on the money.
The photographer that Peter writes about is an exception; he may or may not be found here on LuLa, but I'm fairly sure he's the odd man out, and as such, not of enough critical mass to keep a forum this size going. It needs to accept all sorts of photographers, just to keep active, and there arises the problem that I think we have, and Slobodan outlined: how on Earth can interest in readers' photos ever be enough to fill the pages with comment and photography we want to read and see?
Oscar has a neat little site of his ongoing work, as does Keith and as do others. It is always going to be more rewarding to sit down over a coffee or even, as do I, during lunches and look at the work in peace and without the distraction of ongoing discussions of any kind. Seeing the now and then image published here elicits comment, but that's not the same experience as soaking up somebody's style and outlook on the discipline - you need a body of work to appreciate that, though as has been mentioned, some photographers do make it easy to spot their work in solitude.
It's been pointed out that even this particular thread has drifted from its original topic; indeed, but that's how conversation goes, develops and keeps interesting enough to keep people engaged enough to type something.
I'd say that Keith's little signature joke proves the point he's making: names are no more any guarantee of anything than avatars. Only the backup of a personal website can make it fairly sure to be what it claims on the can. Why would anyone bother making a website just to name it after somebody else? If it's going to get sny glory, better that go where it belongs. Non?
Rob
-
Warning: off-topic.
. . .
Once again, it is diehards only.
Beautifully written, and on the money.
I never say "+1," but +1.
It's been pointed out that even this particular thread has drifted from its original topic; indeed, but that's how conversation goes, develops and keeps intetesting enough to keep people engaged enough to type something.
Have I mentioned that I never say "+1"? But +1.
I would prefer real names (or links to websites that identify the author of a post, which serve as proxies thereof). I also believe knowing where someone is posting from is important. One of the best attributes of this site is its international character.
-
In the (almost certainly vain) hope that it might improve levels of courtesy on the site, I am considering introducing a requirement that anyone who posts on any forum at LuLa must reveal his or her true name in the post, either as his or her forum name or in the signature. There is, I gather, at least anecdotal evidence that obnoxious behaviour is reduced when anonymity is withdrawn.
This referendum is strictly advisory.
Jeremy
I for one would not post under my own name for a variety of reasons.
First, because it's the internet. Although I have zero social media presence and this is the only place online where I have ever posted comments of any kind, I certainly see commentary everywhere I look online. YouTube, news sites, you name it, commentary is everywhere online and it routinely becomes hostile when some commentors have their assertions challenged or corrected. I'm much more comfortable having any hostility directed at my pseudonym than at me personally. I'm not interested in having online discussions that are personal in nature.
Second, I haven't had anything directed at me that was over the top, but I have received replies that were at least a bit hostile in their tone. And that's enough for me to remain anonymous or quit posting.
Third, I personally knew someone that was fired for their online comments on a forum. And rightfully so, although I did have some sympathy for that person losing their employment. They just couldn't help themselves from using their name and mentioning their employer as if that would lend any credibility to what was posted. It reflected poorly on the employer and after being warned, they continued to do so, and got the boot.
Fourth, the rare vague hostility in tone in replies I have received have, to the best of my recollection, been from people whose identities were known. So, I don't see the point in requiring real names.
Finally, it does not seem to improve the validity of any of the comments made. So again, I don't see the point in requiring real names.
Some see moderation on forums as censorship. I do not. I think forum owners have a right to decide what is acceptable in tone and what is not. But, I would encourage the moderation be based on tone and not real identity.
-
This would not be enforceable unless it’s a paid forum and I don’t think it will solve anything. Enforce moderation EQUALLY, not based on who gets under your skin more.
Political discussion online is a rabbit hole, real names or not will not change it and will not get it closer to real life discussions. Over thousands of posts spewing at each other I doubt anybody changed their opinion (outside of few factual corrections) and all actors truly believe they are right and the others aren’t.
There are a few that enjoy the antagonizing discussion (and few who just like to antagonize, they know who) and who find pleasure in this.
Coffee corner is too broad, get this under a subforum, Political discussions, and keep it hidden from visitors, only those who register can see it. They can have the mudbox there, behind the curtain.
-
This would not be enforceable unless it’s a paid forum and I don’t think it will solve anything. Enforce moderation EQUALLY, not based on who gets under your skin more.
Political discussion online is a rabbit hole, real names or not will not change it and will not get it closer to real life discussions. Over thousands of posts spewing at each other I doubt anybody changed their opinion (outside of few factual corrections) and all actors truly believe they are right and the others aren’t.
There are a few that enjoy the antagonizing discussion (and few who just like to antagonize, they know who) and who find pleasure in this.
Coffee corner is too broad, get this under a subforum, Political discussions, and keep it hidden from visitors, only those who register can see it. They can have the mudbox there, behind the curtain.
Behind the curtain... like the products that corner shops used to sell to you from beneath the counter?
No thanks; I rather buy in the open without that feeling of implied guilt.
Took years to get over the feeling that buying a pack of Durex in the chemist's shop was an act of extraordinary naughtiness, and shameful. I know people who unwillingly grew a collection of toothbrushes.
Rob
-
This would not be enforceable unless it’s a paid forum and I don’t think it will solve anything. Enforce moderation EQUALLY, not based on who gets under your skin more.
Now there’s an idea. Be a moderator. Or be a forum member.
Political discussion online is a rabbit hole, real names or not will not change it and will not get it closer to real life discussions. Over thousands of posts spewing at each other I doubt anybody changed their opinion (outside of few factual corrections)
True but I’d like to imagine that there are readers who don’t participate who benefit from the material provided in the course of the bickering.
-
This would not be enforceable unless it’s a paid forum and I don’t think it will solve anything. Enforce moderation EQUALLY, not based on who gets under your skin more.
Political discussion online is a rabbit hole, real names or not will not change it and will not get it closer to real life discussions. Over thousands of posts spewing at each other I doubt anybody changed their opinion (outside of few factual corrections) and all actors truly believe they are right and the others aren’t.
There are a few that enjoy the antagonizing discussion (and few who just like to antagonize, they know who) and who find pleasure in this.
Coffee corner is too broad, get this under a subforum, Political discussions, and keep it hidden from visitors, only those who register can see it. They can have the mudbox there, behind the curtain.
And you don't think the moderation is fair?
If you don't, perhaps you might illustrate the reasons? Otherwise, it comes across as a slur that I, for one, don't think is deserved.
That politics is a rabbit hole, I have to agree; but hey, people enjoy investigating holes.
Rob
-
And you don't think the moderation is fair?
If you don't, perhaps you might illustrate the reasons? Otherwise, it comes across as a slur that I, for one, don't think is deserved.
I thought about replying but then decided not to. Maybe that is a reply in itself?
-
And you don't think the moderation is fair?
If you don't, perhaps you might illustrate the reasons? Otherwise, it comes across as a slur that I, for one, don't think is deserved.
That politics is a rabbit hole, I have to agree; but hey, people enjoy investigating holes.
Rob
Based on what I read, which is limited, I felt a nuance of similar behaviors being addressed intermittently. I don't know the entire history and maybe I got the wrong impression but I think our human nature makes very difficult to be an active participant in discussions and moderate it at the same time. What I meant by "EQUALLY" is to do it to every time it happens, regardless if some people do it more than others.
Behind the curtain... like the products that corner shops used to sell to you from beneath the counter?
No thanks; I rather buy in the open without that feeling of implied guilt.
Took years to get over the feeling that buying a pack of Durex in the chemist's shop was an act of extraordinary naughtiness, and shameful. I know people who unwillingly grew a collection of toothbrushes.
Rob
Toothbrushes don't expire, do they? I thought I wrote clearly that behind the curtain means you have to have an account and be logged in to see the discussion.
True but I’d like to imagine that there are readers who don’t participate who benefit from the material provided in the course of the bickering.
The more it goes the ratio of quality information vs bickering goes down to the point of not being very tempting.
Listen, I get it that some of you have fun there. But it's becoming obvious that you aren't that many and what you enjoy risks keeping newbies at bay, I thought that's the reason for this poll. I rarely read the Coffee corner; I have to bite my tongue almost every time. People go there to say the others are wrong, and it goes in circles until it escalates to the point of needing moderation.
PS. As somebody who stayed out of these discussion I get a distinct feeling that the animosities developed there cross the borders into all other discussions, including strictly photo related. I don't think most people get over what is being said there to leave it there.
-
Conjectures, conjectures.
-
Conjectures, conjectures.
Always better than facts!
Actually, it's hard to think of situations where arguments in CC - even very heated ones - have had a carry-over effect. Mostly, there are few posts in other threads from some of the main debaters. Photos are not always the first intetest, even though I think everybody who debates does at least some photography.
The thing is, with the best will in the world, what the hell is there to say about photos that has not been said a million times about a million snaps?
Once in a rare blue moon one sees an exceptional image posted, but it's the very ratity that makes those few stand out. What's can one remark about the rest that isn't just kindness or politeness?
As I mentioned yesterday about one of Russ' photos: it was better - in my opinion - than anything I saw in the UK September Vogue I just bought out of respect for the late Peter Lindbergh. That is really saying something: if Vogue strikes me as listless and stale, what chance the rest of us?
Rob
-
These are my thoughts while being an outsider to all those discussions. You'll do with this info as you please.
-
I often miss greatly Michael’s influence on this site. I miss his sense of “This is how I do it” and how he held his own even in the face of Jeff Schewe. Alas, in those days, life was simpler and more at peace. A bit anyways.
I miss the old pay per view videos of Mike and Jeff standing toe to toe too.
I don’t know where this is all going, but from my point of view the LL forum is and always has been the most interesting. Aside from a few extraordinary wonderful insights into photography from Mike and Jeff, the should be greats.
-
I often miss greatly Michael’s influence on this site. I miss his sense of “This is how I do it” and how he held his own even in the face of Jeff Schewe. Alas, in those days, life was simpler and more at peace. A bit anyways.
I miss the old pay per view videos of Mike and Jeff standing toe to toe too.
I don’t know where this is all going, but from my point of view the LL forum is and always has been the most interesting. Aside from a few extraordinary wonderful insights into photography from Mike and Jeff, the should be greats.
Which is true, but off-topic, in that I might be led to believe you are the Brad of Anglina fame. Do you see what I mean?
Life is tough and often brings massive disappointment. Imagine, if you can, the spiritual loss of identity in looking at that always amazing guy in the mirror once you've had your cataracts removed (from your eyes).
:-(
-
Rob C (who seems to be a troll) has not given up his last name, per the OP.
I stand by my words.
-
Rob C (who seems to be a troll) has not given up his last name, per the OP.
Rob Campbell's surname is readily ascertainable from his web site, the link to which appears in the signature of every message he posts.
The utility of the description "troll" is not enhanced by indiscriminate use as a term of abuse.
Jeremy
-
Rob Campbell's surname is readily ascertainable from his web site, the link to which appears in the signature of every message he posts.
The utility of the description "troll" is not enhanced by indiscriminate use as a term of abuse.
Jeremy
A point, but not at all obvious or relevant. If you don’t see abuse in the above, sign me off immediately.
-
A point, but not at all obvious or relevant. If you don’t see abuse in the above, sign me off immediately.
I don't. You are, I suspect, over-sensitively mistaking for "abuse" both gentle teasing arising from your forum name and sardonic self-denigration from a man who has very recently undergone surgery for removal of cataracts.
Your description of Rob as a troll is more abusive than anything he has written.
Jeremy
-
I don't. You are, I suspect, over-sensitively mistaking for "abuse" both gentle teasing arising from your forum name and sardonic self-denigration from a man who has very recently undergone surgery for removal of cataracts.
Your description of Rob as a troll is more abusive than anything he has written.
Jeremy
Gently teasing. Wonderful. Feels great. Thanks!
Cataract surgery, sorry, I get that. I’ve been up for that for six years.
Back to the original point. Michael Reichmann sometimes teamed up with Jeff. They made this site in my view with a few others. I miss them both, and don’t know who you are.
-
if there were a "like" button, Jeremy, I would assertively click it for your (no proper order adjectives necessary) reply. Thank you for your presence~
-
if there were a "like" button, Jeremy, I would assertively click it for your (no proper order adjectives necessary) reply. Thank you for your presence~
+1*
* the closest substitute for "like" button.
-
Thank you for that heads up, Mr. Blagojevic, though I have been unable to wrap heart and intentions around the use of it~(Way back in Kinder School, notes would be sent home with me along the lines of "Patty's curiosity often results in her inability to curb disturbing her neighbors with questions and exclamations." Cellaring over long time has not helped in that regard I'm afraid.) ;)
-
if there were a "like" button, Jeremy, I would assertively click it for your (no proper order adjectives necessary) reply. Thank you for your presence~
Thank you, Pat (and Slobodan).
Michael Reichmann sometimes teamed up with Jeff. They made this site in my view with a few others. I miss them both, and don’t know who you are.
He did; they did; I suspect all of us who have been around this site for more than three or four years miss Michael (Jeff, happily, is still with us).
I moderate the forums here. I pretend to no great photographic expertise or even ability, but I occasionally take snaps that are worth looking at and have been known to pass reasonably perspicacious comment. If you want to know more about me, just search for my name using Google: just like Tigger, I'm the only one.
Jeremy
-
I don't. You are, I suspect, over-sensitively mistaking for "abuse" both gentle teasing arising from your forum name and sardonic self-denigration from a man who has very recently undergone surgery for removal of cataracts.
Your description of Rob as a troll is more abusive than anything he has written.
Jeremy
Thanks, Jeremy, but it's sort of surprising that my post could have been read as it apparently was read; maybe it's another example of the differences that come with the shared language that may not always have the same meaning, depending on which side of the pond etc.
And yeah, not only does the mirror now tell unwelcome truths, but I find that new people I've met during the past four or five years of the growing soft-focus effect are not half as attractive - or even recognisable - as they were in the period of built-in Softars. I'm not joking; I'm also relieved that one person I'd asked to sit for me, refused. Talk about living in a fool's paradise! The truth would have hit me in the face in Photoshop as soon as I opened the file.
Rob
-
Jeremy, your voting results match Brexit ;D
-
Jeremy, your voting results match Brexit ;D
Does anybody know if the Russians tampered with the voting machines? :o
-
Jeremy, your voting results match Brexit ;D
Don't know about any of that, but one thing's for sure: he attended the same medical school as my granddaughter: Edinburgh!
Rob (aka PGDDY)
-
He did; they did; I suspect all of us who have been around this site for more than three or four years miss Michael (Jeff, happily, is still with us).
Indeed we do. Badly.
Nothing has appeared on the internet to replace his style, knowledge and skill. :(
-
Don't know about any of that, but one thing's for sure: he attended the same medical school as my granddaughter: Edinburgh!
Sadly not so, Rob. My medical degrees are from Cambridge. I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh because, well, I had to become a Fellow of one of the Royal Colleges and I rather liked Edinburgh. (And I was one of the 90% who failed the exam for the London one and couldn't be bothered to take it again.)
Jeremy
-
Sadly not so, Rob. My medical degrees are from Cambridge. I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh because, well, I had to become a Fellow of one of the Royal Colleges and I rather liked Edinburgh. (And I was one of the 90% who failed the exam for the London one and couldn't be bothered to take it again.)
Jeremy
Don't let it get you down, Jeremy; I'm sure Cambridge does a good job too!
:-)
Rob
-
Don't let it get you down, Jeremy; I'm sure Cambridge does a good job too!
:-)
Rob
Cambridge is a great place. It has both Harvard and M.I.T., but Harvard Medical School is in Boston, not Cambridge.
I even think there may be another Cambridge, on the other side of the pond. No doubt named after ours. ;D
-
Cambridge is a great place. It has both Harvard and M.I.T., but Harvard Medical School is in Boston, not Cambridge.
I even think there may be another Cambridge, on the other side of the pond. No doubt named after ours. ;D
No doubt. We're a prescient lot, with the ability to see several hundred years into the future.
Jeremy
-
No doubt. We're a prescient lot, with the ability to see several hundred years into the future.
Jeremy
I guess that's why your PM is emulating all the most successful management techniques of our President. :D
-
Cambridge is a great place. It has both Harvard and M.I.T., but Harvard Medical School is in Boston, not Cambridge.
I even think there may be another Cambridge, on the other side of the pond. No doubt named after ours. ;D
Actual conversation with a Cantabrigian visitor:
Me: Harvard is in Cambridge.
Him: No, he left as a young man.
-
Actual conversation with a Cantabrigian visitor:
Me: Harvard is in Cambridge.
Him: No, he left as a young man.
I like it!
-
Dear me! This thread has certainly got off-topic.
Getting back to the topic, my view is that all discussions should focus on the rationality and truth of the evidence or argument presented. Revealing one's identity does not necessarily contribute to this. In fact, it can have adverse effects.
A lie told by a person with a PhD will tend to be accepted. A truth told by an 'officially' unqualified person will tend to be rejected.
-
Dear me! This thread has certainly got off-topic.
Getting back to the topic, my view is that all discussions should focus on the rationality and truth of the evidence or argument presented. Revealing one's identity does not necessarily contribute to this. In fact, it can have adverse effects.
A lie told by a person with a PhD will tend to be accepted. A truth told by an 'officially' unqualified person will tend to be rejected.
You need to change your friends, Ray.
Let the best sat nav be your intuition. It really is, if you polish it by frequent use.
;-)
-
Maybe this was all figured out a long while ago:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/09/16/susan-sontag-on-photography-social-media/
-
Maybe this was all figured out a long while ago:
https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/09/16/susan-sontag-on-photography-social-media/
Rob, you have in one post presented two of the women I most respect in the world! I must retread On Photography. It’s been too long. And Maria Popova’s Brain Pickings is a Sunday morning joy at our house.
-
The people, a few of them at least, have spoken. Policy will remain unchanged (although I shall be stricter with those who conceal, or at least decline to reveal, their identities).
The thread is therefore closed.
Jeremy