A New Change For Luminous-Landscape

[jeremyrh]

[...] Dpreview, Thom Hogan, The Online Photographer, GetDpi.com, Brucepercy.com, Admiringlight.com, GuyTal, Oopoomoo, The Nimble Photographer, The Lightweight Photographer etc etc.

Thanks for that list!  I wonder what other sites people use on a regular basis?

[sjprg]

I came to LL because of a long running discussion of deconvolution which has died out over the last couple of years as if the technique is no longer evolving or of interest which is too bad. I will wait a bit and see where the site goes after the change or if it goes the way of Galbraith.

[dennisd]

I will wait a bit and see where the site goes after the change or if it goes the way of Galbraith.

"Don't wait a bit" to sign up or you won't be able to "see where the site goes after the change" !

I personally support the change and have every confidence this will continue to be one of the best photography sites around.  The inclusion of the videos is a big plus.

[uaiomex]

And of that I'm afraid too. Now, that posting members will be supporting economically this site, they will be kings. It may well become the photo haven of texting abusers. Or probably not at all. Let's hope for the better.
On the other hand, I was thinking that I like to visit and post on some other 20 places. What if they all do the same? I am not ready to spend 240 bucks a year on forum posting! No way men, no way!
Eduardo

I joined Lula a couple of years ago and found it very informative. However in the last year or so the forum has become a nasty place. There are a lot of high and mighty keyboard warriors who seem to have no purpose other to break down other peoples comments sentence by sentence and ridicule them. If people don't agree with someone else comment, then abuse is a gutless response.

I have no problem with the price but hope that there will be more moderation and a better atmosphere going forward.

[digitaldog]

And of that I'm afraid too. Now, that posting members will be supporting economically this site, they will be kings.

Based on 11 years here, I seriously doubt Chris will handle his moderation duties any differently nor should he. Part of Galbraith's demise was his heavy handed moderation. IF anyone really believes $12 is going to change how Chris deals with locking down posts probably doesn't know Chris very well.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Now, that posting members will be supporting economically this site,... On the other hand, I was thinking that I like to visit and post on some other 20 places. What if they all do the same? I am not ready to spend 240 bucks a year on forum posting! No way men, no way!
Eduardo

Dear Eduardo,

Posting on forums ideally comprises two distinct actions: reading and writing. Had you read other posts in this thread, you would have noticed an announcement repeated several times, namely that forums will remain free.

Slobodan

(Your friendly texting abuser)

[digitaldog]

Dear Eduardo,
Posting on forums ideally comprises two distinct actions: reading and writing. Had you read other posts in this thread, you would have noticed an announcement repeated several times, namely that forums will remain free.

Not wanting to put words in Eduardo's mouth, perhaps he is implying that those that do pay might get extra slack from Chris moderating their posts. I really doubt that.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not wanting to put words in Eduardo's mouth, perhaps he is implying that those that do pay might get extra slack from Chris moderating their posts. I really doubt that.

That is why I included his last sentence, of him not wanting to spend 20 x $12 on forum postings.

[Mark Lindquist]

I'm very much looking forward to seeing more content in the realm of printing.

In 2009, when Michael posted about the HP Z3100, ( The Z3100 article ) it is what tipped me over to pulling the trigger on my purchase of it.  Since then, I now have 3 Z-Series printers and have learned the workings of them inside out. 

Unfortunately, I believe HP will abandon this series eventually, but I will keep going because of my familiarity and appreciation of these printers, and my ability to repair them ( Repairing HP Z-Series Printers ).

Undoubtedly, there will be little discussion about these printers going forward, particularly since Canon and Epson seem to be currently favored and HP is apparently dropping the ball.  Yet all the information that comes about regarding printing is extremely valuable to me.  It all translates, from printer to printer, regarding process.

The upcoming announced emphasis on printing is exciting to me, and a welcome direction that I support.

During the events surrounding an exhibition I was in at the Smithsonian American Art Museum a few years back, the museum had a special workshop for the exhibition participants on the topic of archiving and "archival-ness" which I found to be most illuminating.  It is my hope that going forward on LuLa, many of the peripheral as well as central concerns of photo-print-making will be addressed.

I'm hopeful that we will all benefit from a new era at Luminous Lanscape, one that may translate into "The Luminous Print".

Considering that the vast majority of LuLa participants don't respond on the forums mainly because they are pleased, or fine with it and the proposed changes, it appears to me that there is excitement and anticipation in the air.  I hope any and all who have expressed concern regarding this paradigm shift will eventually, at least, return, as they have both much to learn and much to contribute.

As the face of photography shape-shifts continually, I'm looking forward to seeing the articles, the videos, the instruction, the discussion.  And for that, I am pleased to pay more than my fair share.

-Mark

[Christopher Sanderson]

...Now, that posting members will be supporting economically this site, they will be kings....
Eduardo

Moderation will remain the same. No Kings - except for Michael Kevin & I (I mean Us)
However, perhaps it might be a good idea to read the thread above your post. The forum will remain open to all without charge.

[Quentin]

I joined Lula a couple of years ago and found it very informative. However in the last year or so the forum has become a nasty place. There are a lot of high and mighty keyboard warriors who seem to have no purpose other to break down other peoples comments sentence by sentence and ridicule them. If people don't agree with someone else comment, then abuse is a gutless response.

I have no problem with the price but hope that there will be more moderation and a better atmosphere going forward.

Tend to agree.  Interesting threads can get taken over by a few.  The atmosphere is more elitist, less friendly. 

If the forums remain free, I will drop by occasionally, but in my view, there are now better moderated forums around.  As to subscription, I will wait and see.

[uaiomex]

Chris, Slo, Andy: I've read most posts from the begining to the end. Somehow i missed to understand (perhaps lost in translation) that posting in the forums will remain free.
However, I'm glad you will keep moderation at least as tight as it is now. One bad apple too many can be enough to spoil the fun for the rest of us.
Good luck to you.
Eduardo

Moderation will remain the same. No Kings - except for Michael Kevin & I (I mean Us)
However, perhaps it might be a good idea to read the thread above your post. The forum will remain open to all without charge.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Chris, Slo, Andy: I've read most posts from the begining to the end. Somehow i missed to understand (perhaps lost in translation) that posting in the forums will remain free.

Kevin has posted that information clearly several times in different threads. Hard to miss.

[image66]

i don't believe this will end well. Not only will the conversion rate to subscription be lower than desired, but once you lose the casual visitor, you will have also lost the ability to gain the first time visitor. Without gaining first time visitors, you will not be able to gain additional subscriptions. The spiral of death will kick in. You can stave off the death spiral through additional marketing efforts, like promotions and advertising on other websites, but you will have lost the free word-of-mouth marketing you've had all along.

Maybe this is the plan. To have an exit strategy. If so, stay the course and go with the subscription model. But if you have any hopes of having this survive to see 2017, don't do it. When you decide to reverse course, it will have been too late and the site will never regain the status it has now.

I suppose that if this really is an exit strategy for Luminous-Landscape, it is probably the most peaceful way for it to go. Better than just giving a notice that you've closed up shop and the site goes 404.

Please, Tell me I'm wrong.

Ken

[BJL]

i don't believe this will end well. Not only will the conversion rate to subscription be lower than desired, but once you lose the casual visitor, you will have also lost the ability to gain the first time visitor. Without gaining first time visitors, you will not be able to gain additional subscriptions. The spiral of death will kick in.

That was what I feared until the plan was revised: now, these forums will stay free, except that only paid members will be able to advertise by posting in the For Sale forum.  My guess and hope is that the forums are what attract many people to this site, and so will serve to advertise the other, paid, content.

My feeling, perhpas more moral than practical, is that the quality of a product is improved when its users pay a bit for it, by reducing the pressure to insinuate advertising everywhere, so I hope for the best.

[Schewe]

Please, Tell me I'm wrong.

Yeah, pretty much. Look, the Internet has changed..."free content" is usually worth what you pay for...I've seen a lot of free content and it pretty much sucks. There are a few (precious few) free content that is worthy like Julianne Kost at Adobe.com or Andrew Rodeny's free content. But if you want good content, it can't be free.

So, the question you gotta ask yourself, are you willing to be a paying customer where you can influence the direction as a paying customer? Or are ya gonna sit on the sideline and kvetch (Piss&Moan).

You decide...I've followed this thread with some interest. The vast majority seem to be in favor of the change. A few seem to take some sort of offense...it reminds me a bit about the change in perpetual vs subscription licenses for Photoshop.

What, you pay a monthly bill for cable, internet, Uber, etc...but you don't want to pay for a subscription to information? You drop $'s for equipment but don't want to pay for education to use it?

You control your wallets...vote with them. You want better content? Pay for it...or not.

[Guillermo Luijk]

i don't believe this will end well. Not only will the conversion rate to subscription be lower than desired, but once you lose the casual visitor, you will have also lost the ability to gain the first time visitor. Without gaining first time visitors, you will not be able to gain additional subscriptions. The spiral of death will kick in. You can stave off the death spiral through additional marketing efforts, like promotions and advertising on other websites, but you will have lost the free word-of-mouth marketing you've had all along.

This is also something the owners should bear in mind. They better than anyone can have info about first time vs recurrent visitors, links from other sources to their articles/forums, interrelation between the forums and other contents,...

Formulas to let non subscribers know about the last published paying contents must be found: advertising, an "official" discussion thread in the forum,...

I also find a good idea that the new contents are partially published (some online newspapers do that) with a "Want to read more?" subscription link. An additional idea to that is to make content publicly available only after some time from publication (one year?).

Regards

[Martin Kristiansen]

I will give it a go. Its worth it just to see how it pans out. Not really money $12.

Forums are not my favourite place here. I pop in to monitor whatever is currently generating hysteria the move on to make my own mind up about the issues raised.

[jeremyrh]

Yeah, pretty much. Look, the Internet has changed..."free content" is usually worth what you pay for...I've seen a lot of free content and it pretty much sucks. There are a few (precious few) free content that is worthy like Julianne Kost at Adobe.com or Andrew Rodeny's free content. But if you want good content, it can't be free.

Have you told the users of Wikipedia and Linux about this ?

There is an argument that in an age where the biggest "value" in a product is information, and that information can be copied for free, the old economic certainties are now up for debate. But that is for another forum.

[Dave Millier]

The idea that you get what you pay for in web content is an interesting argument but I simply don't find it to be true.  All of my internet content is free and good.

I like Lula and have been a visitor from the beginning but frankly it is no better than the other free sites I visit - it is by no means my favourite these days (I'd rather read Guy Tal or Bruce Percy over Alain Briot, for example,  and I get their content from their own sites).   

I think the nature of the web doesn't favour the magazine subscription approach. With magazines you buy the whole magazine and become a customer of that particular title; with the web you browse interesting pieces of content from a wide variety of sources. Also, magazines are periodicals - you wait for an edition to be published and you get a shot of content in one go, then nothing til the next edition. With the web, I expect to see something new 10 times a day. Can any one online site feed that? I don't think so. The web is a pick'n'mix environment. I get an continous stream of quality content by casting my net widely amongst the available sources.

It's a similar problem for print magazines. My two favourite magazines are Black and White Photography and Outdoor Photography (the UK versions). I like them because they focus on pictures, rather than gear. However, at £5 an edition for a flimsy handful of pages, why would I buy them over visiting say 1x.com, where I can view an unlimited number of even better pictures? To be compelling at the price, a print magazine has to offer both quality and quantity,  to concentrate the goodness in a way that the web doesn't offer.  And none of them can do that sufficiently to earn my £5. 

Is Lula going to improve so dramatically both in quality and quantity as a result of the paywall that it will become the only source of photographic content I want? Would we want the whole web to go this way? Who would pay for a hundred subscriptions?

I have subscribed to onlinelandscape.com, Reidreviews, landscape photography magazine in the past but I have never felt the need to renew, they are not that extra special. I currently subscribe to physics.org but I won't renew. The only online content I have found so far that is so compellingly good and valuable to keep me as a customer is lynda.com - not for their photography training but for their web courses.

I have a suspicion that Lula suffers from the high costs of providing video content. I don't think much of a great deal of expensive to produce video content because mostly video is a poor medium. I do video production at work as part of my job and it takes a lot of effort to produce what can usually better be said in text. A video interview is a tortuous long winded slow way of conveying information. Mostly our audience doesn't have the time to sit through it. Video is at its best when you are showing your audience something it is difficult to describe with text. Text is quicker for simply telling them stuff).

Don't overlook the power of RSS feeds either. I subscribe to a bunch of favourite websites through RSS and through feeds I get my own customised online magazine delivered automatically to my feed reader. Change my tastes? Just adjust the feed aggregator and I have a new magazine.

I wish Lula good fortune with the new approach - despite my misgivings - and even if I wish you had not decided on this route.

Yeah, pretty much. Look, the Internet has changed..."free content" is usually worth what you pay for...I've seen a lot of free content and it pretty much sucks. There are a few (precious few) free content that is worthy like Julianne Kost at Adobe.com or Andrew Rodeny's free content. But if you want good content, it can't be free.

So, the question you gotta ask yourself, are you willing to be a paying customer where you can influence the direction as a paying customer? Or are ya gonna sit on the sideline and kvetch (Piss&Moan).

You decide...I've followed this thread with some interest. The vast majority seem to be in favor of the change. A few seem to take some sort of offense...it reminds me a bit about the change in perpetual vs subscription licenses for Photoshop.

What, you pay a monthly bill for cable, internet, Uber, etc...but you don't want to pay for a subscription to information? You drop $'s for equipment but don't want to pay for education to use it?

You control your wallets...vote with them. You want better content? Pay for it...or not.