Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Robert-Peter Westphal on December 01, 2019, 12:51:47 pm
-
Hello,
my subscription to this forum will end by 3rd of December, and I will not go on here. It is not due to the financial aspect, but Luminous-landscapes doesn't give me anything I need to improve my photography, nor anything which is of interest for me.
I'm really sorry, I'm member of this site since many years, but now the time has come to quit.
Goodbye to all members and have a great time !
Yours Robert
-
This forum is free, only the website costs money.
-
Hello,
my subscription to this forum will end by 3rd of December, and I will not go on here. It is not due to the financial aspect, but Luminous-landscapes doesn't give me anything I need to improve my photography, nor anything which is of interest for me.
I'm really sorry, I'm member of this site since many years, but now the time has come to quit.
Goodbye to all members and have a great time !
Yours Robert
Take care, enjoy your photography in the future.
Rob
-
The problem with LuLa at present is the articles on the home page are not of the same quality as in the past. It may be that the technology is pretty stable these days and new advances in digital imaging and printing no longer warrant the types of product coverage that LuLa had several years ago. I no longer visit the home page these days. Earlier this year when I was shopping for a new printer to replace my dead Epson 3880, I found the printer reviews by Mark Segal extremely useful in helping me to make a decision. As a result of the lack of interest in the main articles, I too have decided not to pay for another year's membership.
Some of the forums are still useful but others see very little traffic.
-
The problem I have with the home page articles is that there is nothing like the quality of the shooting with the masters series. There have been a few nice videos of interesting photographers and interesting places. But they lacked the information contained in the shooting with the masters.
The recent articles have been by a few authors 5 by Josh and 7 by Dan Wells. (see the list of 17 articles displayed in the Dec 3 front page.)
I'm planning on sticking around for another year to see how things go but I really hope of a wider section of authors and more emphasis on photography.
Les
-
The problem with LuLa at present is the articles on the home page are not of the same quality as in the past. It may be that the technology is pretty stable these days and new advances in digital imaging and printing no longer warrant the types of product coverage that LuLa had several years ago. I no longer visit the home page these days. Earlier this year when I was shopping for a new printer to replace my dead Epson 3880, I found the printer reviews by Mark Segal extremely useful in helping me to make a decision. As a result of the lack of interest in the main articles, I too have decided not to pay for another year's membership.
Some of the forums are still useful but others see very little traffic.
I don't see the articles in LuLa Mk 2 but I always saw the ones in the original incarnation.
As consequence to the above, I'm in no position to judge the relative value of the new ones. However, I can't, either, say that all that was published towards the end of that former regime was wonderful. Frankly, in my eyes, it was nothing but a simple quest for the latest and, thus (by implied definition), best, with a typically commercial slant that made belief difficult to maintain. It smacked of the shill, if you will, and the Leica visits towards the end were, for me, acutely embarrassing due to their fawning atmosphere. It was as a report of an audience with the Pope might read, if written by the head of the Swiss Guard.
Frankly, as others suggest, the basic problem lies in the lack of new products of great import. With digital snapping tools now pretty much understood and evenly distributed across the marques, forums need to focus on photography rather than its tools, and there just aren't that many interesting photographers around with the time or interest to contribute to the photographic social networks, of which this is a part.
There was the attempt, as there had been with the paper magazines, to float travel adventures as an alternative or additional draw, but as those events have little to do with photographers in general, all they can do is provide a revenue stream, which is not the same thing as providing an interesting site.
It's my belief that there is just not enough critical mass to sustain photographic websites if the attraction is predicated upon a constant supply of new equipment to review; the comments here are usually all from the same group of writers, and they surely can't all be buying new cameras every week - can they? Bringing it to the personal, the last thing I want to do is waste more money buying new stuff that won't make me one degree better as a photographer. Maybe many folks understand that point and share it; enough really is sometimes enough. The interest, the draw, eventually has to come from looking at exciting pictures - from somewhere.
-
It's my belief that there is just not enough critical mass to sustain photographic websites if the attraction is predicated upon a constant supply of new equipment to review; the comments here are usually all from the same group of writers, and they surely can't all be buying new cameras every week - can they? Bringing it to the personal, the last thing I want to do is waste more money buying new stuff that won't make me one degree better as a photographer. Maybe many folks understand that point and share it; enough really is sometimes enough. The interest, the draw, eventually has to come from looking at exciting pictures - from somewhere.
There are about five sections in the forum that are useful and a good place to both ask technical questions and offer assistance when one can (color management, some software issues, printing and practical experience with new cameras/lenses; not reviews). Those I continue to find valuable.
In my mind it's always useful to hear what experiences others have had, particularly when there will be a money investment in equipment or software.
-
There are about five sections in the forum that are useful and a good place to both ask technical questions and offer assistance when one can (color management, some software issues, printing and practical experience with new cameras/lenses; not reviews). Those I continue to find valuable.
In my mind it's always useful to hear what experiences others have had, particularly when there will be a money investment in equipment or software.
That was one of my points: what does new equipment bring you that skill would not? It's the buying of new in the hope of it making us better that's the silly bit, if we already have working equipment.
Don't believe me? None of the greats had af; none required it. Ditto zooms and/or f0.90 lenses.
The tragedy of much photography is that many still believe the wallet makes them better photographers.
That said, if the buying of new is unashamedly the buzz, more power to the elbow - and wallet; and may they both live happily together for ever more in perfect synchrony.
;-)
-
If someone is stuck in a rut then a new camera or lens might encourage them to get out and find new possibilities?
-
That was one of my points: what does new equipment bring you that skill would not? It's the buying of new in the hope of it making us better that's the silly bit, if we already have working equipment.
Don't believe me? None of the greats had af; none required it. Ditto zooms and/or f0.90 lenses.
The tragedy of much photography is that many still believe the wallet makes them better photographers.
That said, if the buying of new is unashamedly the buzz, more power to the elbow - and wallet; and may they both live happily together for ever more in perfect synchrony.
;-)
Rob,
There was always an evolution in camera design: glass plates -> sheet film -> 35mm -> view cameras -> Leica -> SLR (including medium format) -> DSLR -> mirrorless There are probably very few on LuLa who still shoot with film. If you look at the advances since the introduction of DSLRs it is very difficult to rationalize sticking with a camera that only had a 6mp sensor. My point is not rushing out to purchase new gear every year but to intelligently figure out what one's needs are and then decide. These days a good cell phone camera may be all that one needs and perhaps the declining sales of stand alone digital cameras reflects that. Several months ago I printed a very nice image my wife took with her cell phone in New Zealand at 13x19 inches. It looks quite good and at a normal viewing distance one probably could not tell that it was shot with a cell phone. I bought a Nikon Z6 earlier this year as the weight of my old Nikon D800 and associated zoom lens was a tad to unwieldy for travel. The Z6 has IBIS which gives extremely sharp images when hand held. I don't need more than the 24mp this camera offers. It's compact enough for both street and landscape use and likely is the last camera I will purchase. I may get a prime lens in addition to the 24-70 f4 that came with the camera but that would be it.
-
If someone is stuck in a rut then a new camera or lens might encourage them to get out and find new possibilities?
That can be the case if they get a pretty exotic new lens. However, it's often a shallow encouragement or motivator that doesn't maintain its potency. Familiarity can breed contempt, but certainly not always. I would say that the move to digital had that effect on me, because for the first time that I can remember since retiring, I started to shoot in some volume without a constant eye on the bottom line.
Fortunately, I had already restocked my lens arsenal after the silly move to total reliance on 120 format cameras, because I'd bought back into Nikon long before digital. I think the only thing I had not rebought prior to going digital was the 500 reflex lens, because I saw no future work for it. But, once happy with digi, I did buy one again, and the ability to use a high ISO with it (a fixed f8 probem) did allow me to get things crisp. That said, and nature (mine) being contrary, I ended up shooting much more with everything intentionally OOF just to play with the doughnuts.
But more importantly, and back to your point, after an initial summer of use a few years ago, it has not been enough to drive me back out recently to play with it. I really think that the "encouragement" process, to work, has to begin not with the purchase of a new lens, but with a deep desire for a particular sort of image that the new optic will facilitate.
Rob
P.S.
Actually, I discovered that the most lasting thing that happened on buying digital was that the cut-frame camera (D200), with the standard 1.8/50mm (effective 75mm), became an almost constant fixture. I have an FF D700 and hardly use it, probably because of that effective 75mm and lack of desire for buying and carting around an 85mm. At 10mp, the D200 gave me great A3+ when I was still printing, as did the only slighter more mps (12) of the D700. Frankly, my colour or back/white conversions from Kodachrome 64 pro 35mm slides are just a good as from either digital source at my disposal... so much depends on how you process the digital file and how you want the end product to look.
-
It was pretty obvious since Josh took this over that the quality of Lula unfortunately, noticeably declined. Although there is occasionally an article of interest, it is much rarer than it used to be. Starting with the badly handled transition to Josh to articles of lesser interest - I totally agree with the comment about the Master series, nothing even close to that has appeared - it's just not the go-to site that, for many of us, it used to be. And, no, I don't think it's about the lack of exciting new equipment. Lula used to be a learning place, whether it was about equipment or technique. No longer. Now, it is about Josh's self-indulgent writing that I find terribly off-putting.
-
It was pretty obvious since Josh took this over that the quality of Lula unfortunately, noticeably declined. Although there is occasionally an article of interest, it is much rarer than it used to be. Starting with the badly handled transition to Josh to articles of lesser interest - I totally agree with the comment about the Master series, nothing even close to that has appeared - it's just not the go-to site that, for many of us, it used to be. And, no, I don't think it's about the lack of exciting new equipment. Lula used to be a learning place, whether it was about equipment or technique. No longer. Now, it is about Josh's self-indulgent writing that I find terribly off-putting.
Well there you go: I never read his writings because I have no access to the pay-for bits of the site. As such, I cannot comment on his musings. But, as with the single member of this site whose posts I have blocked, it makes no negative difference to my life and I can still enjoy the bits of LuLa that interest me.
Pretending that the writing immediately previous to Josh's time was in any way wonderful is surprising: I often found it quite tedious. As with the video "performances", a lot less was often a lot more; I think Chris Sanderson did a wonderful job in getting anything out of the process and making a show for us to see. There is a reason why superstars become superstars and the rest not even eye candy.
As far as I can tell, all the expertise upon which you need to draw to get yourself going in digital photography and printing is still freely available on LuLa, from those very experts who have historically been so generous with both time and patience. What more does anybody require?
If LuLa was ever meant to be a learning-only place, then it would have no long-term membership. Once you know what's what and can fly with your own wings, you would move on to something or somewhere more fulfilling of your newly discovered abilities. How many times a day, week, month, year or even decade do you go back to visit your old school? I have never been back.
However, unlike school, LuLa has provided a meeting place - a forum, would you believe? - where one can correspond with people one likes by choice, not from any sense of obligation to something larger.
Master series. Be wary of developing crushes on any photographic hero; perhaps the worst aspect of the now technically possible access to them that the Internet allows, is that when you see a few interviews with them, they mostly turn out to be little more than endless loops running the same jokes and contrived anecdotes. It's like watching several different takes of the same scene, and wishing the editor would make up his mind and settle for one goddam cut! The graveyards of heroes are littered with the remains of their shattered feet of clay. If you can find two or three with whom you can travel the course of your life, you have done well; many more than that and you have just let your judgement slip right on down and over the cliff.
Interesting articles demand two things: interesting topics and capable, imaginative writers. In this modern photographic world, we have pretty much consumed them all. The supply is not infinite.
If one wants to make LuLa interesting, then become a nett contributor, not just a reader who, in other than fiscal terms, can contribute nothing. It's the chat between members and enjoyment of some occasional photographs that make it all worth the electricity bill.
-
If someone is stuck in a rut then a new camera or lens might encourage them to get out and find new possibilities?
+1
-
... what does new equipment bring you that skill would not? It's the buying of new in the hope of it making us better that's the silly bit, if we already have working equipment...
Says the man who finds esthetic pleasure in an expensive bunch of metal and glass that tells time ;)
Who says that the only reason is to make us better photographers? Like with watches, there is esthetics, handling, comfort, convenience, new features (e.g., eye focus), the new spark that comes with a new toy, etc.
I just sold all five of my DSLRs, plus a film Hasselblad, and replaced it with a mirrorless Canon R. New fun, new options, new opportunities.
-
1. Says the man who finds esthetic pleasure in an expensive bunch of metal and glass that tells time ;)
2. Who says that the only reason is to make us better photographers? Like with watches, there is esthetics, handling, comfort, convenience, new features (e.g., eye focus), the new spark that comes with a new toy, etc.
3. I just sold all five of my DSLRs, plus a film Hasselblad, and replaced it with a mirrorless Canon R. New fun, new options, new opportunities.
1. That Rolex Submariner was meant to be for life, and after forty-seven years, was well on its way to being just that, and would have been, and on to my son after me, but for that thieving street rat bitch.
2. One could have said the same as I have in (1) for a Leica M3 or my Nikon F, and but for the fact that I was a pro and always needed a spare "just in case", as with my 500C that had to have a 500C/M friend for the very same professional reason, I might never have felt obliged to buy an F2. The FM and FM2 came for a single reason: higher flash synch. for the few times I used flash instead of what God offered. None of it was bought on caprice. Toys are for children.
3. Quite why anyone truly needs five DSLRs is beyond me. Why a mirrorless camera would provide "New fun, new options, new opportunities." is even further beyond me. I see nothing in your work or mine that a reflex camera of quality could not let us do. None of the founding street heroes had "eye focus" in their Leicas; it didn't prevent them making better snaps than most of us here. Frankly, as so little work is normally shot wide open, especially with human subjects, it seems like a load of old cobblers to me, just one more desperate feature to shift slow sales... It would not have made my career one iota better, and depending on such crap may have made it a damned sight shorter!
Rob
-
3. Quite why anyone truly needs five DSLRs is beyond me...
I was just lazy in selling the older ones. I had Canons 20D, 40D, 60D, 6D, and 5Ds. Or 8, 10, 18, 20, and 50 Mpx.
As for some other points of yours, it is worth noting that the success of HCB’s street photography was predicated, to a large degree, on availability of the then-state of the art equipment: small, unobtrusive Leica. Using your logic, he should’ve been just as successful with a 4x5 Graflex.
-
i will renew my membership on December 31st. I appreciate the direction Josh has taken. His dad is not replaceable. Those days of Lula are gone. If what Michael did was able to be copied, it would have happened during Lula’s heyday. I enjoy reading about the different photographer’s processes that Josh has presented and I look forward to seeing the direction the site takes.
Josh hasn’t been promoting workshops or gear he gets ad dollars for pushing. I very much appreciate that. He is interested in the art of photography. I am too.
Josh, a special thanks for making the Ctein dye transfer videos available. You are a good steward of your dad’s legacy.
Sharon
-
I was just lazy in selling the older ones. I had Canons 20D, 40D, 60D, 6D, and 5Ds. Or 8, 10, 18, 20, and 50 Mpx.
As for some other points of yours, it is worth noting that the success of HCB’s street photography was predicated, to a large degree, on availability of the then-state of the art equipment: small, unobtrusive Leica. Using your logic, he should’ve been just as successful with a 4x5 Graflex.
That's not my logic at all; it's your interpretation of what it might suit your argument for it to have been.
HC-B used what was around at the time, and though small, far from incredibly "smart" in the sense of today's incessant upgrades leading to nothing very much. The last genuine, great change happened some time ago with the advent of consumer digital. At once it freed the snapper from the financial burden of both films and mistakes. From then onwards, much of the digital progress has been playing catch-up with what was state of the art. And as far as I can gather, no dslr yet has a screen quite as good as a traditional Nikon filmie, and for me, a split-image screen was the best kind. I even bought one for my 500C/M. The march towards ever more high ISO may have its place in news snaps, but for most of us, it doesn't make us better photographers, just able to get images in lower light of nothing much as before.
Anyway, the first street and sports photography was made on wooden cameras...
-
I feel much the same as Sharon about how LuLa has developed. The interregnum between Michael and Josh was the time when I found the main site less interesting. It did seem as though certain brands and activities were pushed. Although Josh's stuff is sometimes rather "out there" for me I have enjoyed many of the article that have appeared under his direction. I have just resubscribed.
Tony
-
The intolerance of other's choices and decisions here regarding the photographic equipment they use and own is a real turn off. We all have differing needs and preferences. it is the differences between people that makes life interesting: long may that be the case.
The progression of my work has been facilitated by the progression of my choices of equipment. It's that simple.
-
I'm with the OP :'( Hasta luego all. I appreciate what I learned here from so many. But time to move on.
Once you ... can fly with your own wings, you ... move on to something or somewhere more fulfilling.
Send me a pm/email if you want to stay in touch.
-
As a couple of people have already implied I found the period immediately after Michael's death the real problem. It destroyed the uniqueness of the site - of course Michael was irreplaceable but there was ( to say the least ) an apparently deliberate descent into the ordinariness and shallowness of many other sites. The result of this 'interregnum' was that any new version would struggle to regain previous momentum and quality and so consequently a very different LULA has emerged which is no bad thing - it is certainly easily distinguishable from the generality of photographic sites and one does not need to like or appreciate everything in any publication - certainly not if one expects more than previous opinions and ideas merely being repeated.
I have never understood the attitude of those who feel that withholding, or withdrawing, the minute payment involved to keep LULA going is some form of significant 'statement'. Personally I consider that money well spent if only very occasional articles inspire, educate or amuse me. As an example I was unaware of the work of Marcus Cederberg until reading the recent LULA article recently - for me that article repaid my subscription several times over on it's own. Other articles I can take or leave - as with any intelligent thoughtful and thought-provoking publication - and any miserly concern for the few 'pennies' per week that LULA costs me can be easily discounted as a consequence as being repaid in full so that the others are merely freebies.
However I hope you all will allow me to wish you the season's greetings and good shooting whatever choices you may make on this, or indeed, any other matter .... and incidentally share my hope that we will all relish and encourage variety in our work and our opinions.
-
Sharon, thanks for the nice post.
Dave, e tu, Brute!?
-
The intolerance of other's choices and decisions here regarding the photographic equipment they use and own is a real turn off. We all have differing needs and preferences. it is the differences between people that makes life interesting: long may that be the case.
The progression of my work has been facilitated by the progression of my choices of equipment. It's that simple.
Are you sure you've been reading it right, Keith?
I can't bring to mind many fanboy wars; if anything, there are those delighted to relate their happy experiences with whatever marque they use, some working across several of them. But to be fair, maybe it's my fault for avoiding most of the equipment threads, so I might have missed all the fun...
For me, it matters nothing which brands other folks think make them exceptional photographers. Such people would be exceptional whatever brand they use. Maybe that's why iPhones work for Nick Knight.
My own position is simple: I used Nikon from when I could buy into it. Nothing has made me change to other brands of 135 format, occasional thoughts about rangefinder Leicas of my day almost instantly dismissed exactly because of the rangefinder system. Leica slr cameras may have had great optics, but the bodies didn't even give full-frame coverage in the viewfinders, or at least, up to the R6 models which I did consider once, but also decided against.
What I do think is daft is the constant chase after minute changes that, in the end, make bugger all difference to the real life pix people produce. Of course, it's their choice to play along or not.
People may well be forced into changes of equipment through eye problems; such is life, and one has to do what can be done to help the situation, or just take up something else. Those are very different circumstances and motivation for change.
Would I be a different photographer if I had used Pentax, Canon or Minolta? A Minolta wouldn't have made me David Hamilton. Of course not. Had I used a rangefinder, then certainly, yes: I would have left long lenses well alone during my working life. Sieff used Leica M4, Nikon, 'blad and Rollei, and it was horses for courses. That much of his published work stems from Leica M4 and a 21mm optic is testament to the magazines, creating a look, and the ethos of the times. He writes about having gone on a magazine shoot with nothing else, hoping it didn't mean his last gig, and the relief that he got away with it.
Rob
-
Are you sure you've been reading it right, Keith?
I can't bring to mind many fanboy wars; if anything, there are those delighted to relate their happy experiences with whatever marque they use, some working across several of them. But to be fair, maybe it's my fault for avoiding most of the equipment threads, so I might have missed all the fun...
For me, it matters nothing which brands other folks think make them exceptional photographers. Such people would be exceptional whatever brand they use. Maybe that's why iPhones work for Nick Knight.
My own position is simple: I used Nikon from when I could buy into it. Nothing has made me change to other brands of 135 format, occasional thoughts about rangefinder Leicas of my day almost instantly dismissed exactly because of the rangefinder system. Leica slr cameras may have had great optics, but the bodies didn't even give full-frame coverage in the viewfinders, or at least, up to the R6 models which I did consider once, but also decided against.
What I do think is daft is the constant chase after minute changes that, in the end, make bugger all difference to the real life pix people produce. Of course, it's their choice to play along or not.
People may well be forced into changes of equipment through eye problems; such is life, and one has to do what can be done to help the situation, or just take up something else. Those are very different circumstances and motivation for change.
Would I be a different photographer if I had used Pentax, Canon or a Texas Rangefinder instead? Of course not. Had I used a rangefinder, then certainly, yes: I would have left long lenses well alone during my working life. Sieff used Leica M4, Nikon, 'blad and Rollei, and it was horses for courses. That much of his published work stems from Leica M4 and a 21mm optic is testament to the magazines, creating a look, and the ethos of the times. He writes about having gone on a magazine shoot with nothing else, hoping it didn't mean his last gig, and the relief that he got away with it.
Rob
Rob, are you sure you've been reading it right, my post had little if anything to do with fanboy wars.
-
Sharon +1
Something has to be pretty bad to be not worth $1/month, but Lula "pre-Josh" was pushing the boundary. The new site has had some excellent articles and an interesting new direction.
-
Rob, i am afraid you’d be responsible for a hay-fever epidemic with your straw men 😉
-
Rob, are you sure you've been reading it right, my post had little if anything to do with fanboy wars.
"The intolerance of other's choices and decisions here regarding the photographic equipment they use and own is a real turn off."
That isn't an address to fanboyism? Really?
Rob
-
Rob, i am afraid you’d be responsible for a hay-fever epidemic with your straw men 😉
See above, to Keith.
-
"The intolerance of other's choices and decisions here regarding the photographic equipment they use and own is a real turn off."
That isn't an address to fanboyism? Really?
Rob
Really.
It was an address to your contention that anybody deviating from your own path regarding equipment is flawed and is consequently dismissed.
-
I feel much the same as Sharon about how LuLa has developed. The interregnum between Michael and Josh was the time when I found the main site less interesting. It did seem as though certain brands and activities were pushed. Although Josh's stuff is sometimes rather "out there" for me I have enjoyed many of the article that have appeared under his direction. I have just resubscribed.
Tony
Thanks Shanon, thanks Tony!
Thanks to all for the continuing vitality of conversation and the useful feedback.
People’s subscription of $1 dollar a month keeps the lights on for the entire site, forum included. Without that support non of this is possible.
Josh
-
Really.
It was an address to your contention that anybody deviating from your own path regarding equipment is flawed and is consequently dismissed.
Dismissed? No, thought to be chasing false gods.
Rob
-
Rob, i am afraid you’d be responsible for a hay-fever epidemic with your straw men 😉
Here's one of Sieff's Leica-with-21mm snaps; does it well, non?
No hay fever for him, always a cup of tea instead.
:-)
-
Dismissed? No, thought to be chasing false gods.
Rob
Rather than yourself.
;-)
-
Here's one of Sieff's Leica-with-21mm snaps; does it well, non?
No hay fever for him, always a cup of tea instead.
:-)
You can see this picture was taken long time ago.... when Leica was top
-
You can see this picture was taken long time ago.... when Leica was top
In Taschen's book (ISBN 3-8228-4647-3) which, in my edition is 35.5cms tall x 26.5cms wide, hardback and beautifully printed, with copy in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, he writes a very gentle (yet mordant where need be) story of his life right up to the end - the book came out just after his death. It has many photographs to enjoy all the way through, and is broken up into his decades. It's one of the few photo monographs that I have bought that was really worth the then high price. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in fashion photography.
I had no idea of the number of exhibitions that he had been given until I looked at the list in this book; it's a miracle he found the time to work!
Rob
-
Okay. Let Mr Nick Knight have a word. This first is the making of, all the techy info. to fill a heart with joy, the next the final video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc5OaTiRuFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV2Ea_046hk
:-)
-
No matter how much I respect Michael and his team in days gone bye, Josh is putting his own mark on the site. For me its for the better, with a right balance between gear and Aesthetics.
The now gone site Adore Noir had this aesthetics feeling as well and so do a few other sites that care for the emotion photography is.
Lets not forget, its the eye,
brain and imagination of the photographer than makes the picture, not the equipment.
A few weeks ago I visited a local workshop on portraits. The teacher apologised for using a Nikon D90 and a Tamron 85mm. (a 2010 consumer cam combo for those who do not dare to go below pro stuff)
The results were just amazing because of how he interacted with the models , light and clothing.
If the site continues to show me insights of others then there is plenty to distinguish it from the other sites. out there
-
Hello,
my subscription to this forum will end by 3rd of December, and I will not go on here. It is not due to the financial aspect, but Luminous-landscapes doesn't give me anything I need to improve my photography, nor anything which is of interest for me.
I'm really sorry, I'm member of this site since many years, but now the time has come to quit.
Goodbye to all members and have a great time !
Yours Robert
I used to be a very enthusiastic and super frequent reader of LULA, for many, many years, and I really liked Michael Reichmann's style, his charisma, personality, his commanding presence, what he covered, his known-how, etc. He and LULA were something really special.
After he passed, gradually things got worse. Taken into the wrong direction. And when Joshua took over, to be frank and honest, it got even more bland. I have not renewed. No disrespect intended towards anyone, but this site needs a life injection shot.
If the site were free again, it might pick up more traffic, because I honestly feel it's not worth my money anymore. Nothing to learn here. The last technical article was basically old news.
I might still visit this forum sometimes.
Arrive Deci.
Adrian
-
No matter how much I respect Michael and his team in days gone bye, Josh is putting his own mark on the site. For me its for the better, with a right balance between gear and Aesthetics.
The now gone site Adore Noir had this aesthetics feeling as well and so do a few other sites that care for the emotion photography is.
Lets not forget, its the eye,
brain and imagination of the photographer than makes the picture, not the equipment.
A few weeks ago I visited a local workshop on portraits. The teacher apologised for using a Nikon D90 and a Tamron 85mm. (a 2010 consumer cam combo for those who do not dare to go below pro stuff)
The results were just amazing because of how he interacted with the models , light and clothing.
If the site continues to show me insights of others then there is plenty to distinguish it from the other sites. out there
Thanks Vidja,
Appreciate the words.
Agree - in the end it’s the human angle that finds the mark.
HNY.
J
-
As a couple of people have already implied I found the period immediately after Michael's death the real problem. It destroyed the uniqueness of the site - of course Michael was irreplaceable but there was ( to say the least ) an apparently deliberate descent into the ordinariness and shallowness of many other sites. The result of this 'interregnum' was that any new version would struggle to regain previous momentum and quality and so consequently a very different LULA has emerged which is no bad thing - it is certainly easily distinguishable from the generality of photographic sites and one does not need to like or appreciate everything in any publication - certainly not if one expects more than previous opinions and ideas merely being repeated.
I have never understood the attitude of those who feel that withholding, or withdrawing, the minute payment involved to keep LULA going is some form of significant 'statement'. Personally I consider that money well spent if only very occasional articles inspire, educate or amuse me. As an example I was unaware of the work of Marcus Cederberg until reading the recent LULA article recently - for me that article repaid my subscription several times over on it's own. Other articles I can take or leave - as with any intelligent thoughtful and thought-provoking publication - and any miserly concern for the few 'pennies' per week that LULA costs me can be easily discounted as a consequence as being repaid in full so that the others are merely freebies.
However I hope you all will allow me to wish you the season's greetings and good shooting whatever choices you may make on this, or indeed, any other matter .... and incidentally share my hope that we will all relish and encourage variety in our work and our opinions.
Exactly my feelings and thoughts, and incidentally the Marcus Cederberg article was precisely such a gold nugget as described by you, John!
-
I used to be a very enthusiastic and super frequent reader of LULA, for many, many years, and I really liked Michael Reichmann's style, his charisma, personality, his commanding presence, what he covered, his known-how, etc. He and LULA were something really special.
After he passed, gradually things got worse. Taken into the wrong direction. And when Joshua took over, to be frank and honest, it got even more bland. I have not renewed. No disrespect intended towards anyone, but this site needs a life injection shot.
If the site were free again, it might pick up more traffic, because I honestly feel it's not worth my money anymore. Nothing to learn here. The last technical article was basically old news.
I might still visit this forum sometimes.
Arrive Deci.
Adrian
"Arrive Deci"? Is he/she a cousin to the well-known Italian of similar sounding name?
-
:)
-
"Arrive Deci"? Is he/she a cousin to the well-known Italian of similar sounding name?
Sounds like an Albanian mafia’s capo ;)
-
How difficult is it really to compare the metrics of different camera gear? Exactly what artistic skill is involved? Ok, maybe some. The key to me is the linkage between gear and the resulting photography, not gear statistics per se. But there were problems with earlier LuLa coverage. Unlike some, I was not a fan of the masters series, not because the photographers didn’t have something to contribute, but because of the way questions were put in the most uninteresting and sometimes fawning way. We spent too much time in awe and too little time in depth. So I welcomed new leadership under Josh. I still visit this site for essays on the art of photography and will read gear articles now and then. I am not at all interested in brand bashing or fanboy stuff. In fact, following the lead of the younger generation, I am renewing my acquaintance with film photography, precisely because of the limitations of the technology. And if you do not think that some great work was done in that medium, take another look. There is little new film gear, but many enthusiastic film shooters. And the industry survives. Check recent Kodak news releases on their film business. Ilford recently brought out a new emulsion. Etc. So, to summarize, I’ll continue reading this site, looking forward to articles exploring the art of photography and the gear that is as essential as pigment is to the painter.