Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on January 23, 2011, 11:09:37 pm
-
It is rather sad to see this web site shift from being funded through product to being funded through advertising :(
But alas, nothing lasts forever and the only constant in life is change.
-
It is rather sad to see this web site shift from being funded through product to being funded through advertising :(
Why?
Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising...so exactly why do you think advertising will ruin things here?
You wanna Piss&Moan™, ya better be able to back it up with a bit more than opinion...
-
Why?
Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising...so exactly why do you think advertising will ruin things here?
You wanna Piss&Moan™, ya better be able to back it up with a bit more than opinion...
Why does he have to back it up with more than an opinion? Have we repealed free speech? And it seems to me that "Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising" is an opinion, and not a very good one, at that. I don't mind in the least that you hold that opinion, or express it, but I'd be a lot more happy with it if you said, "Some of the third-best photography in the history of photography..." Avedon might have done advertising work, but people collect Bee Boy, not some now-obscure shoot for Vogue. Also, I note that you set up and knocked down a straw man -- show me where he says that advertising will ruin things. He just expressed some unhappiness with the change.
I was also slightly unhappy with the move to advertising, because I worked in the media for a long time, and my feeling is that ultimately, advertising corrupts. Product sales, on the other hand, not so much.
JC
-
And it seems to me that "Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising" is an opinion, and not a very good one, at that.
Hum, you ever go to any photo shows at art museums? Did you see the Henri Cartier-Bresson retrospective? The vast majority of his work was done while on assignment for magazines which as subsidized by, wait for it, advertising...You even mentioned the ultimate, Avedon, what about Penn?
Really, you wanna go down that road?
So, the OP is sad, boothefrigginwho...move on and get a life.
-
Dismissing advertising as "evil" may be tempting but things are not so simple. "Support through advertising" isn't just about creating photographs for advertising campaigns. It's also about being sponsored by a company for your fine art work. For Example John Sexton has been sponsored by Kodak for many years. His fine art work has been used in many Kodak T Max commercials even though these images were not expressly created for Kodak but rather for fine art purposes.
-
Were it not for advertising I'd have spent a withered life working in a factory somewhere and seen nothing of this world other than what was thrust my way, outwith my control, in my early life.
Having said which, advertising does corrupt and it corrupts everything it touches. Of course it does, and that's partly why we snappers embrace it. When we get to get the payback from it.
Whether it occurs here or not is somewhat academic to me: I instantly go to the sections of the site that interest me and hardly ever see the rest of it. I have found sections that are very dear to me and that's where I play. I'd be the last to tell any host how to run his household, which is not what I think the OP has done, regardless of the inevitable Rottweiler knee-jerk.
Rob C
-
It's a slippery road. But skilled drivers can negotiate slippery roads. I guess wait and see is the motto now.
-
As long as the articles are good, I couldn't care less about the way a site is financed. OK, I'd hate flash bang pop-ups and similar "hurry up and buy" crap, but basically, LL is just not the kind of website that would be seriously inhibited by ads. Photosig is another matter; it was totally ruined by politically correct ad providers who required that all nudity be blocked, even on thumbnails, and now the site is ridiculous. But yes, I would have one request for Michael.
The first time an ad provider tries to blackmail you into changing content, block them and make it very widely known what they are. Just that. Thank you.
-
Why does he have to back it up with more than an opinion? Have we repealed free speech? And it seems to me that "Some of the best photography in the history of photography was subsidized (paid for) by advertising" is an opinion, and not a very good one, at that. I don't mind in the least that you hold that opinion, or express it, but I'd be a lot more happy with it if you said, "Some of the third-best photography in the history of photography..." Avedon might have done advertising work, but people collect Bee Boy, not some now-obscure shoot for Vogue. Also, I note that you set up and knocked down a straw man -- show me where he says that advertising will ruin things. He just expressed some unhappiness with the change.
I was also slightly unhappy with the move to advertising, because I worked in the media for a long time, and my feeling is that ultimately, advertising corrupts. Product sales, on the other hand, not so much.
JC
+1
-
I support your right to express your opinion
-
Personally I don't have a problem with the advertising I've seen a lot worse on some sites more intrusive.
On the other hand a forum does invite opinion and I'm not one to shoot it down just for the sake of it.
Regarding Mr Schewe's remarks whilst I appreciate the no nonsense approach and speak your mind theme, but I really think the comments were below a level expected on any forum. Do we really have to drag things into the mud to get the point across?
I also remember those who made posts about Adobe's iffy NR processing getting the shot 'em down treatment all I can say on that was thank goodness some bothered to highlight the issue so that the company stood up and took notice and improved their product. I welcome all views on all subjects you won't see me complain about it.
-
I felt a slight pang of disappointment when I first saw Michael's announcement. It lasted about a second.
Once I read the ground rules he explicitly stated for the ads, and given the unobtrusiveness of the recent B&H ads, I'm satisfied that the New World Order isn't going to ruin the fine LuLa experience which I get for free.
Eric
-
… I'm satisfied that the New World Order isn't going to ruin the fine LuLa experience which I get for free.
…
My thoughts exactly!
-
It has nothing to do with great photography sometimes being subsidized by advertising - that is totally irrelevant. It has to do with a site that publishes equipment reviews being subsidized by the manufacturers and sellers of that equipment. And, it has nothing to do with the chance of intentional misrepresentation to please advertisers. It has been shown over and over again that the most honest and upright people can be influenced when what they write has the potential to please or displease those who are paying them. This is not a judgment of any of the people involved, it is human nature.
-
It has nothing to do with great photography sometimes being subsidized by advertising - that is totally irrelevant. It has to do with a site that publishes equipment reviews being subsidized by the manufacturers and sellers of that equipment. And, it has nothing to do with the chance of intentional misrepresentation to please advertisers. It has been shown over and over again that the most honest and upright people can be influenced when what they write has the potential to please or displease those who are paying them. This is not a judgment of any of the people involved, it is human nature.
While I would prefer a viable LuLa with advertising over a defunct LuLa with none, the statement by Peter Ait captures my concern (a concern that is not large at this time). I just have too many memories of good sources of equipment reviews and critiques, in magazines and on websites, that gradually devolve into comparisons of features with praise for the better ones, but no real look at shortcomings of the equipment.
The "Conclusions" sections of the reviews often states the differences between 2 pieces of equipment in terms of personal preference, without mentioning, for example, some potentially game-changing faults in design or functioning.
Again, my concern is not strong. However, it has been possible for me to read the articles and reviews as well as forum threads on LuLa and come to what I considered to be fairly well educated decisions on what equipment to buy or not, and I hope that that does not fade.
-
In all honesty, do you really even notice the ads on Lula except if/when you ever click-through?
- N.
-
It has nothing to do with great photography sometimes being subsidized by advertising - that is totally irrelevant. It has to do with a site that publishes equipment reviews being subsidized by the manufacturers and sellers of that equipment. And, it has nothing to do with the chance of intentional misrepresentation to please advertisers. It has been shown over and over again that the most honest and upright people can be influenced when what they write has the potential to please or displease those who are paying them. This is not a judgment of any of the people involved, it is human nature.
I have never seen this as an equipment review site so this legitimate concern is not a big deal in my eyes. MR tries, buys, uses equipment that he's curious about, and I've never interpreted that as shilling in any sense. So long as that editorial purpose continues, I don't foresee a problem. The announcement mentions more contributions from others, so it will mean that the site maintainers may need to be more editorially vigilant in the future with more varied contributions to look over, but sooner or later someone will accuse the site of favoritism, either here or elsewhere. It's happened before and it was easy to ignore then, as I thought it was always groundless. If the fears of some materialize and the value of the content is seen to diminish in importance because of supposed advertizer influence, it will be there for all to see, it won't sneak up and harm any of us while we're not looking.
I understand the notion of "stakeholder", but just because I read and like the information here, since I get it for free, it's never occurred to try to tell the folks here what to do or how to do it. It would be interesting to see the reaction if they had decided to switch to a subscriber-only model instead of an advertizer model.
-
Regarding Mr Schewe's remarks whilst I appreciate the no nonsense approach and speak your mind theme, but I really think the comments were below a level expected on any forum. Do we really have to drag things into the mud to get the point across?
Where was the mud? I didn't see any mud...did I miss it? Do I have to put smilies on everything I write?
:~)
-
Simple fact of life, if you are offensive, people will take offense to what you write.
cheers
-
Schewe is like some kind of reverse-advertising. Everytime he hits his keyboard something comes out that is so aggressive, rude and dismissive that you think for one moment it was written by Phil Askey! You trying to drive people off this site, Jeff?
-
Schewe is like some kind of reverse-advertising. Everytime he hits his keyboard something comes out that is so aggressive, rude and dismissive that you think for one moment it was written by Phil Askey! You trying to drive people off this site, Jeff?
I'll see your Phil Askey and raise you a Fred Picker...
Uh, wait, I might have gone too far. I was the first to jump in here, so I'll add that while I think Schewe needs to be smacked every once in a while, he's worth having around for his expertise on Lightroom & etc. And I've said before, that's *despite* his sometimes caustic ways. And Jeff, you don't have to attach a smiley to everything you say, but you know, once in a while wouldn't hurt...I don't think we've had one yet this century.
As I said in my first post, I was *slightly* unhappy with the advertising thing, because I do think it may have some influence on what people write. Reichmann was idiosyncratic enough, and rich enough, that I never really thought of what he did as *reviews* as much as running commentaries, and there was enough bad said that I then appreciated the good, and trusted the commentaries.
However, along with this advertising change, it seems like there have been other changes behind the scenes. And while I have no *right* to know, I'm curious -- has the ownership changed? Are there new managers? Has Reichmann either retired or gone into semi-retirement (I note that he closed his gallery in Toronto, and now spends winter in Mexico.) I'm not demanding to know this, but it's sort of like seeing a major change on your block -- you're curious about it, and wonder how it changes the neighborhood.
JC
-
Schewe is like some kind of reverse-advertising. Everytime he hits his keyboard something comes out that is so aggressive, rude and dismissive that you think for one moment it was written by Phil Askey.
Wow, that's a low blow, wait, who's Phil Askey?
"aggressive, rude and dismissive" that's me...as for trying to drive people off the site, not at all. Couldn't really care much one way or the other...
-
I think the wink smiley works pretty well ;)
Thus suggesting that you not take the comment that seriously a bit tongue in cheek shall we say.
I don't have a problem with Jeff he's got some excellent knowledge to share and that's a benefit to all it's just sometimes things can be taken the wrong way or be a tad harsh.
-
Schewe is just being Schewe. Nothing to see here, move along.
-
Why?
It's not so much the impact of advertising, but rather the implication that the product being sold by the website is no longer enough to be self sustaining.
But alas I don't know if that's due to rising costs or declining sales (or both!)
... so why does that make me sad? Because I considered it rather cool that the LL website produced its own content in order to generate funds to survive. Now it seems to have fallen victim to meme that for a website on the Internet to be successful/viable, it needs to somehow incorporate advertising.
-
No, I have not retired. No, there has been no change in ownership, other than Mark Dubovoy coming in as a minority shareholder. The principals of LuLa are myself, Mark and my long time business partner Chris Sanderson.
The advertising expansion is because of the site's growth. We are now spending a great deal of money on developing the site's software and capabilities for future growth and expansion and that's expensive.
Michael
-
In a world where websites often come and go almost as rapidly as camera manufacturers turn over their models it is good to
hear that plans for the long-term future of LuLa are being made. The thought that LuLa might outlive us appeals to me . . . ;)
-
Whats really being discussed here is integrity and whether/how it gets lost due to the pressures of advertising,....however, would you 'trust' someone to give you information about, say, 'Lightroom' when they have claimed that HCB was just another photo pro prostituted to advertising.........
-
Schewe is just being Schewe. Nothing to see here, move along.
I have noticed that on the thread Photokit Sharpener 2 he is the model of decorum, good manners and humour, polite, and every other nice adjective I can think about. :) On other threads we see the real Jeff however. No need to elaborate? The difference is he is the ambassador/salesperson/troubleshooter for the company and pissing off potential customers wouldn't be the right thing to do. :) ;D 8)
-
they have claimed that HCB was just another photo pro prostituted to advertising.........
As opposed to someone we must bow down to?
-
I have noticed that on the thread Photokit Sharpener 2 he is the model of decorum, good manners and humour, polite, and every other nice adjective I can think about. :)
And you'll also notice that all the other participants are the same as well. I rarely if ever start a fight, but I'm happy to finish one. I tend to get into dustups with people who have already crossed lines. Do I fan fires? Yes...but I don't start them.
Personally, I was tickled to death that nobody asking questions was rude...kinda says something nice about our customers.
-
Perhaps "RTFM" doesn't mean what I thought. :-\ Or, maybe it was just used in jest. It's difficult to tell.
-
I have no problems with commercials at the website. What I think is worse is the fact that the most interesting part of LuLa apparently has the lowest priority: The Video Journals. I miss them! I don't care about the newest equipment. Watching Michael and friends shooting in Yellowstone, a visit in the summer house, a visit to people like Clyde Buttcher and many others, THIS is what is interesting. Just my opinion!
-
Perhaps "RTFM" doesn't mean what I thought. :-\ Or, maybe it was just used in jest. It's difficult to tell.
Read The Fine Manual...and it is fine according to our customers...you read it yet?
-
I agree. LuLa is valuable to me mostly for the forums, not the reviews.
-
Well, Jeff, I guess I must have missed the part in the manual where it explained the meaning of “RTFM”. :-\
-
Well, Jeff, I guess I must have missed the part in the manual where it explained the meaning of “RTFM”. :-\
What's your point?
You gonna follow me around and try to pick a fight every time I post on LuLa? That'll be pretty boring for ya...bud. But I'm game if you are. The odds of me getting kicked off the forums aren't real high.
-
Read The Fine Manual...and it is fine according to our customers...
It might be a fine manual according to your customers, but that's not what the "F" in "RTFM" stands for and I don't believe for a second that you don't know that.
-
It might be a fine manual according to your customers, but that's not what the "F" in "RTFM" stands for and I don't believe for a second that you don't know that.
Uh huh...and it's a long standing tradition to use the acronym RTFM to simply mean read the manual. I've been involved with software development for a few years now and it's a pretty standard Silicon Valley tradition that at this point essentially means read the manual and little else. Reading anything else into it is your own baggage, not mine.
-
That's a load of crap, Schewe. If it were the case then you wouldn't have lied about it in the first place.
Keep trying to dance around it all you want, you're not fooling anyone here.
-
I agree. LuLa is valuable to me mostly for the forums, not the reviews.
but the reviews will spark a very good discussion once in a while
-
That's a load of crap, Schewe. If it were the case then you wouldn't have lied about it in the first place.
Keep trying to dance around it all you want, you're not fooling anyone here.
well, because RTFM is intended to be used like this, w/o actually spelling the words behind it and as such is quite acceptable in a tech. circles... now that might not be a good way to address a photographer, who being a silly creature, honestly thinks that PSW stands for PhotoShop World and not Program Status Word
-
As a frequent lurker, I would like to thank Michael and the rest of the LuLu contributors for putting out such an informative site with such little interference from ads. I'll take the adding ads with such an eloquent design any day over making it a membership site. Heck, make as much money as possible off the ads I'm sure you'll just turn it back into quality articles/ videos. And maybe I'm wrong but all the ads on the Creative Cow don't seem to influence the informative discussions over there.
P.S. Schewe I'm in the middle of your workshop book with Martin Evening and it truly is a great book
-
P.S. Schewe I'm in the middle of your workshop book with Martin Evening and it truly is a great book
Thanks for the kind words...
-
That's a load of crap, Schewe. If it were the case then you wouldn't have lied about it in the first place.
Did you bother to read the thread and the context of the post? That's EXACTLY the way I meant ti in the context of the thread...I told the guy to RTMF and come back and I'll answer questions...what the person asked was indeed covered in the friggin' manual and did not bear repeating...
-
You gonna follow me around and try to pick a fight every time I post on LuLa? That'll be pretty boring for ya...bud. But I'm game if you are. The odds of me getting kicked off the forums aren't real high.
Wow, Jeff, you set up so many straw men, that I fear a straw shortage. ::)
(In case anybody has even a remote interest, I believe that the threads to which Jeff alluded are here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50387.20 and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50536.40 )
What's your point?
I think that my point was obvious, painfully obvious.
Moreover, I found your post defending your decorum amusing, sadly amusing. You used Stamper’s comment referring to the Photokit Sharpener 2 thread as an opportunity to write “I rarely if ever start a fight, but I'm happy to finish one. I tend to get into dustups with people who have already crossed lines. Do I fan fires? Yes...but I don't start them.“ Trouble is, you replied rudely to a very polite question in that very thread. Now come on, Jeff, ya gotta admit, that’s funny! ;D
-
Trouble is, you replied rudely to a very polite question in that very thread. Now come on, Jeff, ya gotta admit, that’s funny! ;D
Did you bother to read the the posts? D_Clear asked a basic question...I answered it...he asked another question...I told him to read the manual (albeit with short hand) and come back with his questions. Was he offended? I have no idea...he hasn't been back so that means he's either offended or the manual did indeed answer his questions.
You see the delicious irony in this situation?
First stamper says: "I have noticed that on the thread Photokit Sharpener 2 he is the model of decorum, good manners and humour, polite, and every other nice adjective I can think about."
Then you say: "Trouble is, you replied rudely to a very polite question in that very thread."
If it turns out that D_Clear was offended by my answer, I will apologize to D_Clear because my intent was simply to use short hand.
The fact that a few here on LuLa are trying to pounce on everything I write to try to cast me in a negative light is, I think pretty obvious. You and me Dean are never gonna be friends...the precipitating event of my dislike for you was your post Shills in the House? (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50428.0). Every engagement since then you've tried to cover your ass and lash out at others (primarily me) and have followed me through several threads now taking shots. The last thread was Photoshop Alternatives (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50536.0). You fanned flames there as well even though it was Justinr who took it over the top and provoked Michael's closing of the thread.
So, again, are you gonna keep stalking me through various threads here on LuLa and try to pick verbal fights? I'm willing to keep going toe to toe with you bud...is this really how you want to spend your time here on LuLa? Really? You ain't gonna win bud, cause I don't back down. This is really casting a light on you, not me.
-
Maybe at this point we could all shake hands and say Buenas Noches?
Rob C
-
P.S. Schewe I'm in the middle of your workshop book with Martin Evening and it truly is a great book
I've had a post-it note to watch for this...didn't notice is was out....had been working through Martin Evening's PSCS5 for Photographers...now I've got the "Ultimate Workshop" on order. The CS4 version has served me well...and glad to add this ...If there is so much advertising on this site...you'd think I'd have seen/heard the bells & whistles on this...
-
... RTFM is intended to be used like this, w/o actually spelling the words behind it and as such is quite acceptable in a tech. circles...
Just because it is "quite acceptable in a tech. circles" does not mean that "tech. circles" are not generally rude to non-techies, and does not mean that the "F" in the acronym is not there on purpose, to make sure nobody misses the disdain techies have for non-techies… otherwise, the acronym would have been RTMF (Read The Manual First) ;)
-
Maybe at this point we could all shake hands and say Buenas Noches?
I would be perfectly happy to bury the verbal hatchet but if dmerger keeps picking fights, it'll be in him. (in a rhetorical sense, not physically :~)
(see, I used a smilie)
-
otherwise, the acronym would have been RTMF (Read The Manual First)
Hum, I like that...good idea. Too late in the other thread but I'll have to remember this one–same letters, different order and just as useful as shorthand. (and it shouldn't get non-techies' panties in a bunch).
-
Maybe the problem lies in the Polish Sausage syndrome, which is IAEFRTM. More here:
http://www.hci.com.au/hcisite3/journal/When%20all%20else%20fails.htm
Cheers,
-
I'll close this thread now since it has become - shall we say - 'off-topic'.
Should the participants wish to continue, perhaps the Personal Message feature would be more useful.