A New Change For Luminous-Landscape

[Rhossydd]

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.

What an unpleasant tone to a first poster.

Just remember that the people that have been reading this site and promoting it widely in the past, aren't "freeloaders" they were the viewers that that allowed Lula to charge to advertise on the site. The viewers are the people that have been driving income to Lula since advertising was first used to subsidise the costs of running the site.

[Petrus]

The perennial freeloader.

Of one wants to read a photography site and forum, but does not feel that he/she can give nothing meaningful (newbie, learning, shy, not fluent in the language used, whatever) in return it is freeloading. Many of us (great majority actually) do not feel qualified to make corrections to articles or post relevant questions. What would it be like, if after reading an article about, say, faking a Grand Canyon sunset, all 50000 viewers were required to "contribute" their views about the matter. There are a lot of sites which I visit and never comment. So I am a freeloader also.

[Isaac]

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.

Spiteful.

[Christopher Sanderson]

Avoid personal attacks please. Stick to the topic or the thread will be locked.
Chris

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I just wrote my first letter to Scarlett Johansson that I am not in love with her and won't be marrying her anytime soon.

[bobtowery]

I decided to amortize the new fee over the period LuLa has entertained and educated me. Pretty sure I began in 2001. So my true cost is 80 cents per year. Pretty happy with my ROI.

[Zorki5]

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.

Well, I for one think that Rob Schroeder did the right thing -- in that he posted his opinion here. If I were Kevin, I'd want to know it.

The thing is... I suspect that many of us subscribed out of gratitude for all those years we were enjoying quality contents of LuLa. Plus, $12 is insignificant, especially given that you don't have to choose what to pay for -- vast majority of other photography-related sites out there are free.

Now, fast forward a few years, and the situation may be quite different, with
1) many more sites behind paywalls,
2) many current subscribers feeling that they kind of paid their debts to LuLa (or the perception of debt becoming not acute enough to go through the trouble of registering new CC once current one expires),
3) Michael becoming even less involved with LuLa (or rather "less visible"; we're rapidly moving from "occasional article not from Michael" to "occasional article from Michael"... if not already there).

As an avid amateur (with some 35+ years of experience), I do not benefit from LuLa access the way pros do.

Videos? I had two copies of LR5 (bought one for me, and one for my daughter), then there came botched LR6 upgrade, with no upgrade option in Russia; I'd have to buy two new copies of LR6, and that at 20% or so markup because Adobe only sells LR for rubles in Russia at their own insane exchange rate. Result? F** them, no more Adobe software for me, ever. I bought ACDSee Ultimate, and vast majority educational LuLa's videos suddenly became irrelevant (this includes C1 too; there's no way I'll even let myself locked with an "import into catalog"...)

Articles? Still enjoying many of them. Some (e.g. recent one on street photography, or Michael's article on landscape photography with long lenses) still do count as educational, of sorts, but vast majority of those that I do like fall strictly into "entertainment" category. Not long ago, I bought "Perfect Composition" video by Tim Cooper ($50, highly recommended), and I do not even see this topic represented at LuLa. I feel like my curiosity and desire to improve is better served by B&H photo tutorials on YouTube (it was there that I stumbled upon Tim Cooper, BTW). To me, the art of photography is subdivided into "composition" and "pixel peeping" (with the latter including color management), and I'd like the former to be [better] represented at LuLa, which is currently not the case.

Forums? Well... LuLa forums are good, but IMHO not as good as some tend to think. Yes, true experts, yes, big names, but when it comes to SNR, they are not [much] better than those of DPR -- with the true artists being so hyper-sensitive that any any disagreement has high chances of turning into childish sh!t-throwing exercise. I don't think I ever saw "Ignoring posts from <list-of-names>" in member's signature on any other forum... BTW, I've been reading LuLa almost from its inception, but only "discovered" its forums only few years ago... And I didn't feel like "oh I lost all those years!"; in fact, I only registered when it became necessary for site access.

Needless to say, all that is IMHO; just trying to provide honest feedback, as someone who wants LuLa to succeed.

[Otto Phocus]

Forums? Well... LuLa forums are good, but IMHO not as good as some tend to think. Yes, true experts, yes, big names, but when it comes to SNR, they are not [much] better than those of DPR -- with the true artists being so hyper-sensitive that any any disagreement has high chances of turning into childish sh!t-throwing exercise. I don't think I ever saw "Ignoring posts from <list-of-names>" in member's signature on any other forum... BTW, I've been reading LuLa almost from its inception, but only "discovered" its forums only few years ago... And I didn't feel like "oh I lost all those years!"; in fact, I only registered when it became necessary for site access.

I would agree with your enumeration of the forums. They could be so much better.  But there seems to be this small group that in intent on bringing down any discussion to the level of personal attacks and insults.

[Christopher Sanderson]

This forum is no more or less than what its contributors make it.

If the forum suffers from posts that are detrimental to its overall tone, use the Report to Moderator function for goodness sake. Moderation is really only swung into action by that one function. We will never be able to read every post of every thread.

[tnargs]

Avoid personal attacks please. Stick to the topic or the thread will be locked.
Chris

It would be appreciated if there was some moderation of snarky, sneering and sarcastic jibes that, while not actually personal attacks, incite bad feelings and result in the type of posts that get threads closed. Attack the disease at its root. One pro-paywall poster in this thread would have made a couple of dozen comments in that category already. Not reportable, but generally corrosive. Best Regards, Arg.

[Schewe]

It would be appreciated if there was some moderation of snarky, sneering and sarcastic jibes that, while not actually personal attacks, incite bad feelings and result in the type of posts that get threads closed.

Well, you have the ability to ignore (not respond) to anything posted on LuLa. Do you really expect a moderator to "protect you" from posts that might possibly offend? You have unreasonable expectations of moderation...moderation must be done by yourself. If it offends, it is up to you to decide how to react. You can't control the actions of others, only your reaction to what others may post. You are in control, do you really want to cede that to others? Obviously, I don't :~)

[TeeKay]

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

If you are serious about this, could you please fix the current situation in which it is not possible to see an article like "Do Sensors Out Resolve Lenses?" without subscribing to your site?

There also is an error with the attribution of this article. I don't exactly remember who contributed it to your site, but the author was definitely not Mr. Reichmann (as is currently claimed).

If you discover that actually don't want outside links to allow people to continue reading the articles for free then I hope your agreement with your past authors covers the case of having their content hidden behind a paywall. Perhaps for some authors the aspect of exposure was important and you appeared to have now changed the terms of any past deal with external authors (unless they were already told that their content may potentially disappear behind a paywall at some point).

[TeeKay]

You have unreasonable expectations of moderation...moderation must be done by yourself.

This would work in a private head-to-head discussion.

However, in a public forum, with a retreat caused by the other party becoming abrasive there is always the problem of apparent tacit approval to the other party's arguments or position.

You can't control the actions of others, only your reaction to what others may post.

In a good forum, you can control the actions of others in the form of notifying behaviour that is detrimental to the culture of discussion to moderators.

You are in control, do you really want to cede that to others? Obviously, I don't :~)

How is asking for additional help against forum members whose behaviour hurts the whole forum a case of "ceding" control?

Are you against police forces in real life as well? According to you it is just a matter of how to respond to criminals and you don't want to "cede" control to anyone else away from you.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... in a public forum, with a retreat caused by the other party becoming abrasive there is always the problem of apparent tacit approval to the other party's arguments or position. ...

Then don't retreat, respond. Flight or fight. Or faint.

...In a good forum, you can control the actions of others in the form of notifying behaviour that is detrimental to the culture of discussion to moderators

Which is already the case.

[JaapD]

I see some hyper sensitive fan boys (‘boy’ as in immature, not mentally grown up) here, protecting this forum with all that they have. Some of them are bulk-writers, having written more than 5000 posts, mostly without any interesting content. Unfortunately these boys are not aware that their behavior has a negative influence on how this forum is perceived.

If you really want to defend and contribute to this forum then think for a moment about the perception that the readers have on your post. Are you with your contribution really helping Michael with this and make it a great forum?

I expect that some are even offended by this very text and that they have a need to attack. Well, that’s fine of course. Nevertheless the previous paragraph remains still valid.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I see some hyper sensitive fan boys (‘boy’ as in immature, not mentally grown up) here, protecting this forum with all that they have. Some of them are bulk-writers, having written more than 5000 posts, mostly without any interesting content. Unfortunately these boys are not aware that their behavior has a negative influence on how this forum is perceived.

If you really want to defend and contribute to this forum then think for a moment about the perception that the readers have on your post. Are you with your contribution really helping Michael with this and make it a great forum?

Indeed. I recall a particularly well-written and pertinent post a little while ago by someone who had obviously drunk deep from your well of inspiration:

I seem to have a different opinion than most of you. Let me first mention that a subscription of $12 a year is perfectly doable for me. However, I smell Kevin’s and Michael’s GREED here and I must say I hate greed!

Jeremy

[Zorki5]

Hehe. When I sold most of my Canon stuff in mid-2006 the DO was one of two EF lenses I kept. Now that the Metabones Canon-to-Sony adapters are maturing I'll likely get one and put the DO back in play. The reason I kept it: after getting a 5D in 2005 I found the DO to be soft along the left edge & so sent it to Canon for repair/recalibration. They did a terrific job, which persuaded me to hang onto the lens.

-Dave-

I retained all my Canon gear, so I bought into Sony rather than "switched"... And I got Metabones adapter, of course, Mark IV.

The 70-300 DO works OK with it. Definitely focuses much worse than on 5DII, up to the point that when I first tried a6000 with 70-300 DO, I thought it just won't work, just like 50/1.4 (for which Metabones have specific note on their site), but no, it was just massive hunting on the first subject that I tried... Then again, I did not update adapter's firmware yet; release notes for it stated they improved focusing with A7 w/PDAF line, and no word on a6000, but the latter still uses same on-sensor phase-detection, so I'm going to give it a try and see...

So this combo is definitely not for BIF and other such stuff (though with FW update even that might be possible), but works great for compressed landscapes. Speaking of which: that's one more thing that... I'd say Michael introduced me to, so yeah, thanks again

[stamper]

    I see some hyper sensitive fan boys (‘boy’ as in immature, not mentally grown up) here, protecting this forum with all that they have. Some of them are bulk-writers, having written more than 5000 posts, mostly without any interesting content. Unfortunately these boys are not aware that their behavior has a negative influence on how this forum is perceived.

    If you really want to defend and contribute to this forum then think for a moment about the perception that the readers have on your post. Are you with your contribution really helping Michael with this and make it a great forum?


Indeed. I recall a particularly well-written and pertinent post a little while ago by someone who had obviously drunk deep from your well of inspiration:

Quote from: JaapD on November 24, 2015, 08:12:32 AM

    I seem to have a different opinion than most of you. Let me first mention that a subscription of $12 a year is perfectly doable for me. However, I smell Kevin’s and Michael’s GREED here and I must say I hate greed!


Jeremy

Nice one Jeremy. Did you take the precaution of reviewing ALL of your posts for any discretions? Do you want me to do it for you?

[Rob C]

This forum is no more or less than what its contributors make it.

If the forum suffers from posts that are detrimental to its overall tone, use the Report to Moderator function for goodness sake. Moderation is really only swung into action by that one function. We will never be able to read every post of every thread.

Trust me  Chris, your sanity depends on you not doing so!

Actually, though, I think this place is very well run; as mentioned earier, it is essentially what the contibutions allow it to be. As in all societies, there are those with quick minds and others who compensate with quick fists. In general, the latter will always lose the argument/discussion? because they simply fail to understand even when they might, by fluke, have been ceded a point, if only by their adversary's utter boredom with the topic to hand.

;-)

Rob C

[Christopher Sanderson]

I think that this thread (at 28 pages) has run its useful course.

Many thanks to all those who have made suggestions on our new setup - always appreciated.

Chris