A New Change For Luminous-Landscape

[Jeff Griffin]

I have just spent a couple of hours watching LLVJ 20. 

Michael's wander around Art Wolfe's gallery discussing his prints and the rather technical but very educational chat with Mark Dubovoy on Carbon Pigment Printing were most enjoyable  to watch 

Of course, all the other items were worth watching too.

Needles to say I will be watching more of the others, probably during the Christmas / New Year holiday period.

[Nuvi15]

Guys,

you stand alone! The concept is simple: Cash in on your (well
deserved) popularity while NOT ripping off the individual. The
latter aspect is, unfortunately, quite unique.
May you for ever prosper!

I will certainly sign up and stay so, considering the value I get.

Keep the good stuff coming,

Matthias

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Nah, not yet at least.

If you suddenly see Chris and Kevin joining him in Ethiopia (which I presume has no extradition agreements with neither Canada nor USA) and LuLa suddenly goes dark, I would be very, very concerned for the $12 million dollars they just collected from us

Correction, Slobodan: That would only be $11,999,964. I think you forgot about the three of us who got free passes.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Correction, Slobodan: That would only be $11,999,964. I think you forgot about the three of us who got free passes.

I can neither confirm, nor deny

[Colorado David]

What a tempest this has turned out to be.

1. A lot of people must have their feelings hurt easily.

2. The owners of the site are entitled to monetize their hard work how ever they see fit.

3. The owners of the site are under no obligation to be transparent in everything they do nor every decision they make.

4. The first several years of Luminous Landscape coincided with explosive technological development in digital photography.  If some people perceive that the content is not commensurate with the earlier years, their beef is with digital photography, not the effort the site owners put into content.  The legacy content still has value and they are entitled to benefit from it.

Now, let's redirect some of this effort to something productive that benefits the community.

[BJL]

I Completely agree, both on the absurdities of griping about a tiny number of freebies, and also this:

4. The first several years of Luminous Landscape coincided with explosive technological development in digital photography.  If some people perceive that the content is not commensurate with the earlier years, their beef is with digital photography, not the effort the site owners put into content.  The legacy content still has value and they are entitled to benefit from it.

I agree with some other posters that LuLa was of greater interest to me some years ago that it is now, but almost entirely because I was far more in need of guidance to choosing and using a digital camera back then: so much was unfamiliar, and technological  progress that could visibly improve a significant proportion of my images (not just in lab tests and extreme edge cases) was happening fast!

[AlterEgo]

I Completely agree, both on the absurdities of griping about a tiny number of freebies, and also this:

I agree with some other posters that LuLa was of greater interest to me some years ago that it is now, but almost entirely because I was far more in need of guidance to choosing and using a digital camera back then: so much was unfamiliar, and technological  progress that could visibly improve a significant proportion of my images (not just in lab tests and extreme edge cases) was happening fast!

actually apart from the site itself (which is in the urgent need to find volunteer technical editors reviewing __technical__ articles before team of MR/KR/CS will dare to post them) in the forum we still have as much interesting (technical stuff) as before...

[Rob C]

Well, if this be the season for suggesting alterations, perhaps we could do with some more contributors willing to write on subjects that be even just a teensy bit beyond the mechanics of photography? Hell, it's not that difficult a process to grasp or most of us wouldn't be doing it; there must be more to photographic life than this? (As Jerry Lee sang about love.)

Rob C

[Telecaster]

I agree with some other posters that LuLa was of greater interest to me some years ago that it is now, but almost entirely because I was far more in need of guidance to choosing and using a digital camera back then: so much was unfamiliar, and technological progress that could visibly improve a significant proportion of my images (not just in lab tests and extreme edge cases) was happening fast!

Yep, IMO this sums up the situation re. technique- & gear-centric photo sites in general. With maturity comes a decrease in novelty…and novelty is what tends to generate excitement and enthusiasm. I spend more time here than at other such sites (most of which I've dumped entirely) because the content is richer, but less time than I once did. So it goes. The plus side is that I spend more time online looking at photographs. 

-Dave-

[Krug]

For a while I was amused by all of the too-ings and fro-ings about the change to a paid site but it really has gone on rather too long don't you all think ?  Could we all grow up please ?

Could we not put the energy of this storm in a teacup into something worthwhile ... like talking about - even arguing about - photography ?  Isn't that what this site is supposed to be about ?

Personally I do not believe that fortunes are going to be made for anyone by these changes - but even if they are I could not care less so long as they deliver a vibrant and challenging source of information, instruction, and entertainment on photographic matters. Just as I don't expect to examine the bank accounts or the inner workings of other sources of such things - I judge them on the quality that they provide and on that basis decide whether or not I wish to partake of their offerings - if it has value for me that is what counts not whether they are making a buck or two - although I like them to make a buck or three as that may well determine if they are still going to be there for me tomorrow and the day after that.

[Kevin Raber]

Thank You . . . I know we are back to business as usual and then some.  Lots of projects and content coming.  All of us are busy.  Our web guys are handling some issues with readers and log in problems etc.  If you experience any issues please use the help button at the bottom right corner.  It's a direct line into the help system and their desks.  They'll take car of all concerns. And, enough already about the help button comments.  It is tucked away in a corner and doesn't interfere with anything but helps those that need it and use it. And, a big thanks from Michael, Chris and myself for all the support of those that have joined the membership for Luminous-Landscape.

[Rob C]

Thank You . . . I know we are back to business as usual and then some.  Lots of projects and content coming.  All of us are busy.  Our web guys are handling some issues with readers and log in problems etc.  If you experience any issues please use the help button at the bottom right corner.  It's a direct line into the help system and their desks.  They'll take car of all concerns. And, enough already about the help button comments.  It is tucked away in a corner and doesn't interfere with anything but helps those that need it and use it. And, a big thanks from Michael, Chris and myself for all the support of those that have joined the membership for Luminous-Landscape.

I hope your Help button doesn't read Ajuda! too - might cause more confusion than ever!

;-)

Rob C

[Kevin Gallagher]

Thank You . . . I know we are back to business as usual and then some.  Lots of projects and content coming.  All of us are busy.  Our web guys are handling some issues with readers and log in problems etc.  If you experience any issues please use the help button at the bottom right corner.  It's a direct line into the help system and their desks.  They'll take car of all concerns. And, enough already about the help button comments.  It is tucked away in a corner and doesn't interfere with anything but helps those that need it and use it. And, a big thanks from Michael, Chris and myself for all the support of those that have joined the membership for Luminous-Landscape.

Hi Kev, looking forward to all the good stuff you guys will be doing and I'd like to acknowledge one of your help folks. He goes by "Job" but I'm not at all certain it's his name but rather a testament to his patience!! Anyway, thanks Job for getting me out of login loop hell!!

[TimoK]

I'm still in that loop. My username and email are unknown in LuLa. But when coming through a link to forum, i could sign in and maybe send this post, lets try!

[Quentin]

Out of respect to Michael, Kevin and the team, I have now subscribed.  Its only the price of a cocktail.  I can sacrifice the price of a single Gin & Tonic, for goodness sake..

This is of course on the strict understanding that if Michael or Kevin become bilionaires as a result, and buy a superyacht, they will some to me  - I'm a superyacht lawyer after all! 

[kencameron]

Our web guys are handling some issues with readers and log in problems etc.

They are doing a good job (pun intended there). The response was quick and effective when I had a problem.

[Rob Schroeder]

Kevin, Michael,

as rather a late addition to this thread, I'd like to quickly note why I won't subscribe, now that the transition has been in place for some days, and clicking on LuLa items in my RSS reader leads to paywalled content more and more often. I don't participate in the forums, but I have been a LuLa reader for many years.

Two reasons.

Firstly, the fee. Right, $12 a year is, by itself, nothing that would make me even so much as hesitate to pay up. But, if every website I regularly read would start charging a dollar a month, I'd soon have a financial problem. And, sorry, as valuable as I used to find the rather unique form of experienced professionals' views on photography and technology that I saw in LuLa, I must admit since two or three years I find new content less and less thorough and interesting, so LuLa wouldn't be the first site I'd start paying for, either, if the whole internet went paid-content.

Secondly, I don't read LuLa only for myself. I talk a lot about photography, and I run a small photography-related private forum myself, and I link to stuff I find to talk about it and to give others stuff to talk about. I regularly used to link to LuLa content in that forum. For obvious reasons I cannot link, though, to paywalled content, and I couldn't and wouldn't expect others to subscribe to LuLa just because I was a subscriber.

That's why I'll now delete LuLa from my RSS feeds instead of subscribing, for the time being. I'll probably be stopping by to see how things are going once in a while, though...

And yes, I do wish you well with your site.

Cheers and all the best,
Robert

[Kevin Raber]

Robert, as we have said a dozen time we wish we could keep things FREE.  It is a business decision to allow us to grow and share more.  The value is a good one as you get all the video content and we have a lot of content coming.  The price is more than fair.  If a visitor comes to us from a link they should see the article free. Magazines cost a lot to subscribe to and most likely you pay more and get less.  So far we are doing well and do realize there will be some people who will not subscribe.  Hope you reconsider sometime.

[Manoli]

... as rather a late addition to this thread, I'd like to quickly note why I won't subscribe ...

And to think that you went to all the effort of registering, just to make your first and last post. Such dedication.

So, for years you've read, benefitted, even linked articles to further your own pitifully obscure photo forum yet offered zilch in return. The perennial freeloader.

No doubt you'll be missed. Not.

[Rhossydd]

If a visitor comes to us from a link they should see the article free.

They don't.
If they did it would defeat the whole point of a pay wall anyway.

It is a business decision to allow us to grow and share more.

Please use the correct words, it's 'sell' not 'share'. The pay wall is there to make money, not give content away.