Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 26   Go Down

Author Topic: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape  (Read 144623 times)

elolaugesen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 248
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #100 on: November 24, 2015, 10:13:02 am »

Yes.  Worth the money.     But do not split site keep as it is.... 
Logged

RobSuch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #101 on: November 24, 2015, 10:15:24 am »

Will our email addresses be shared with third parties, i.e. companies, under this subscription model?
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20588
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #102 on: November 24, 2015, 10:22:20 am »

The point is that for me personally, these sites have negative value.
Then please do not subscribe.
When I saw $12 a year, I had to do a double take thinking it was a typo. If that's all it takes to support this site, you're got me sold!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1339
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #103 on: November 24, 2015, 10:43:22 am »

Any information gathered from membership sign up will not be sold to any third parties.  That is not our intention.  We will do emails once in a while when there is news to report and share as well as letting readers know of sponsor specials as we discussed in our video.  We also will not do email blasts for third parties. 
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

RS-Colo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #104 on: November 24, 2015, 10:47:51 am »

I am totally SHOCKED! This is unreasonable. I had no idea a pack of gum cost more than a dollar. However, LuLa at $12/yr, is an incredible bargain. Count me in. Congratulations guys.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18087
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #105 on: November 24, 2015, 10:50:48 am »

Many museums, galleries, art fairs, etc., charge entrance fees to see otherwise copyrighted material, even when it was donated.

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #106 on: November 24, 2015, 11:03:45 am »

Many museums, galleries, art fairs, etc., charge entrance fees to see otherwise copyrighted material, even when it was donated.
the fault in your logic is so obvious - when I donate to a gallery that charges the entrance fees I know that it does... not the same with the forum
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #107 on: November 24, 2015, 11:09:35 am »

To pay or not to pay: that is not the question.

Yes, I will certainly pay to retain access, but in doing so, a lot will have been changed. I have been a contributor to this site for a few years now, and it, along with the early BJP website and some few special people I met there, have helped me through the threshold of digital to the stage where I need no further help in achieving anything that I want to achieve, technically, in the medium, which was where I already was with film, after building a reasonably successful career in photography, starting in 1960. My sense of gratitude to LuLa is why I shall pay, as well as my gratitude to those here who have helped me, too.

I received an e-mail from a photographer today, thanking me for my LuLa input, which helped him on his own way in the business, if in the discipline of motion; that's a very gratifying place in which I find myself this afternoon, and makes much of the hassle worthwhile.

But. And several buts come to mind.

I have already left this site on perhaps three occasions, and am currently distant. This isn't about hurt feelings, but it is about health: I have scored two heart attacks, and I'm told a third is usually curtains. Now this is all about frustration and exasperation created when confronted with the rare posters whom I consider to be congenital idiots, even if one of them can produce rather good photographs. Anger isn't hurt feelings or 'sensitivity'; it's its own very damaging emotion and I don't need the risk that increased nervous tension offers me.

As often admitted, I have never been much interested in landscape, finding it very difficult to tell the difference between high-art landscape and commercial stock landscape. Some of it that I see here (or anywhere else) falls into the stock category, and much more even fails that basic litmus test. The truth is, there are really very, very few good photographers around – here or anywhere else. If you want to find the best work, look at photographers' agents' websites and eat your collective hearts out. So, if LuLa turns more to fit the label on the tin, it loses ever more appeal for me and, perhaps, others, too. Will it turn that way? When Michael was running the show, his greatest input, in my view, was his exemplary reportage work. It fitted him like a glove – which, no doubt, was why he spent so much time working at it. Health fucks everybody up at some time – change is inevitable; it's the only sure bet there is.

Workshops? Trips? Photography is something best done alone, so you can think, react and be yourself. If you just want some fun with fellow snappers, that's okay too, but not for me - never was nor could be.

So, technical videos are of no interest to me, and neither are camera/lens reviews, which simply fly right over my head. I already own all the gear I need - and more – to do what I find that I do today. I don't even like digital gear, findng it so unlike Nikon F Series or Hasselblad 500 series miracles of instinctive usage, as to be obstacles in the way of images rather than aids to making them. But, as I said, change happens and you gotta go along with it or simply quit, which creates its own void to list amongst others.

However, on the matter of LuLa's future, perhaps this is the time to create a two-tier LuLa, where one section is clearly restricted to pros and another to amateurs, this to facilitate conversation between people with some common professional experience where the bullshit chat (and even insult) is not present, because there is shared substance in place of wannabe. You only have to look at the existing, two broadish parts of Lula to see that few pros ever migrate to the Coffee Corner/Critique part, because they simply don't need it or give a toss about what's written there. This indicates, to me at least, that there are two very different constituencies in LuLa, and this shouldn't be overlooked or underestimated. I'm not suggesting denial of reading access to non-pros, just denial of contribution in order to keep it professional.

Another of the buts is this: writing and posting images freely is all right when the site is also free; who really feels that they want to contribute in the same manner where the organ is now grinding out money? Being a supplier of free content where money is being made for somebody else, is akin to microstock, and flies in the face of self-respect. I have no problem with people making money, just with that being made on my supplied content without some return to myself. Which, of course suits the amateur perfectly, it always has, because being published is the holy grail for these people, not monetary value in return.

So yes, I'll pay, but I doubt I'll be having much to write about.

Rob C

« Last Edit: November 26, 2015, 08:45:24 am by Rob C »
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4383
    • Pieter Kers
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #108 on: November 24, 2015, 11:17:19 am »

$12 is fair but...

Including forum access as a paid resource is simply a bad idea.
A forums value lies in the contributions of its members, so you'll start to feel like your both paying the fee and creating the content.

I recommend splitting the forum access from the regular site access.

+1
I am afraid that the forum will loose its sparkle if it cannot be accessed by anyone anytime
I would rather like to 12$ pay to LL with a open forum than with a closed one.
I can imagine that money is needed to keep LL going and i like it better without advertisement.


Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #109 on: November 24, 2015, 11:22:40 am »

Many museums, galleries, art fairs, etc., charge entrance fees to see otherwise copyrighted material, even when it was donated.

If one accepts the analogy, it's different when something has been donated to an organisation that made it freely available, but then decided to charge to see it.
Logged

weglerm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #110 on: November 24, 2015, 11:29:30 am »

The problem with paid memberships is- if the member passes away the fee will be still debited.
So, what do you think about having the choice between a recurring and non-recurring membership?

Thanks
Manfred
Logged

Peter Mellis

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #111 on: November 24, 2015, 11:31:36 am »

I have no problem with someone attempting to monetize a web site. Once it becomes a paid site it is evaluated at renewal time, and if found lacking, it loses a reader. Welcome to the marketplace. Bear in mind that, if your long term goal is to sell the business, you'll need to show a history of a fairly stable subscription base.

That said, I have gotten a great deal from this site over the years and had expected it to become a paid site long ago. I'll certainly sign on and will be curious to see how things play out. Hope that you will be able to keep up and process the initial flood of subscriptions; it'll be very irritating to not be able to sign up and be blocked from access. Best of luck going forward
Logged

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #112 on: November 24, 2015, 11:33:26 am »

If I offer to pay more than $12.00 will you close the Coffee Corner forum? 8)

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #113 on: November 24, 2015, 11:40:25 am »

Rob's comments bring up another issue.

When a site starts charging a fee, the site will also be held to a higher standard then when it was free.

This is especially true concerning the forums.

If the site is going to charge me a fee to participate in the forums, I would expect the site owners to do a better job in enforcing their own rules.  If entry to the forums requires payment, and a member  adheres to the rules, I expect that if a member were subjected to the the type of behavior common in the "free" LuLa (insults, ad hominem attacks and other childish behaviours), that the offending posters will be banned.

When LuLa was "free", considerable leeway was given to the owners concerning the enforcement of their own rules.  It was free after all.  But once you start charging people money, there is an expectation of more professional management of the forums.

Are the owners of this site going to commit to banning, and losing revenue from, members who violate their own rules?  If the answer is no, things will continue just the way they were when LuLa was free, then why would anyone pay for admittance?
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Harald L

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 856
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #114 on: November 24, 2015, 11:50:54 am »

"Today, LuLa has become one of the world’s largest web sites devoted to the art and craft of photography, with some 1 million readers monthly from more than 130 countries worldwide."

I wonder if your move will make you filthy rich or irrelevant. Nevertheless I not begrudge you the success. I'm in.
Logged
Glad to be an amateur

Rusty

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 176
    • http://www.woodsgift.ca/
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #115 on: November 24, 2015, 11:58:09 am »

I'm in. Obviously you gave a lot of thought to the pricing and 50k subscribers is a reasonable goal. This could work well to ensure that LL stays with us for a very long time.
Best wishes

jed best

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 398
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #116 on: November 24, 2015, 12:02:13 pm »

AWESOME DEAL!  Happy to Pay!
Logged

Kevin Raber

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1339
  • Kevin Raber
    • Kevin Raber
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #117 on: November 24, 2015, 12:05:02 pm »

Otto,  What you don't see is how often we do ban users either temporarily or permanently.  We hope that the Forum stays civil and we'll be watching it carefully. Chris send lots of PM to certain posters letting them know they step over the line. 
Logged
Kevin Raber
kwr@rabereyes.com
kevin@photopxl.com
rockhopperworkshops.com
photopxl.com

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3307
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #118 on: November 24, 2015, 12:05:48 pm »

Dear LL,

I think the $12 a year subscription fee is a bargain. I have learned a lot from the LL community, and I sometimes revisit the LL several times throughout the day. My only complaint about the new guidelines is limiting jpgs to 800 pixels on the long side.

I respectfully ask LL to reconsider the 800 limit and increase the maximum to 1200.

Some photographers post pictures exceeding 800 pixels by a factor of 2X, 3X, or more. No question, IT administration is costly--maintaining servers, optimizing data flow, and managing security.

SO, I appeal to the powers that be, to reconsider upping the maximum pixel count to 1200. That is only a 50% increase. 400 pixels matter. Many photos require more than 800 to view and interpret--subjects, processing techniques, diagrams and charts, etc.

Sincerely,.

BobDavid (Robert D. Rosinsky)
Logged

sandymc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 350
Re: A New Change For Luminous-Landscape
« Reply #119 on: November 24, 2015, 12:06:36 pm »

If the site is going to charge me a fee to participate in the forums, I would expect the site owners to do a better job in enforcing their own rules.  If entry to the forums requires payment, and a member  adheres to the rules, I expect that if a member were subjected to the the type of behavior common in the "free" LuLa (insults, ad hominem attacks and other childish behaviours), that the offending posters will be banned.

Well, that's kind of a problem. Banning someone from something they are getting for free is fine. Depriving someone of something they are paying for - legal and moral problem, unless they have very clearly crossed a boundary that's specified in the user agreement, or done something illegal.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 26   Go Up