One problem with publishing online is this: we have no money to spend on skilled editorial staff and the result is that we end up writing out our own feelings, and then repeating them ad infinitum. None of us has a broad enough mindset to avoid constant repetition and to seem fresh; we end up boring even ourselves.
Another problem of the lone venture is that it takes an unusually well plugged in character to research, and bring to fruition, enough material to keep up momentum. I tried something along the lines of a small online mag and it soon became evident to me that it was going to take a lot more effort, time, travel and money to make it happen than had appeared to be the case during the theoretical imaginings stage in front of the computer. Beginning from a base of stock images could carry one edition - perhaps - but the next one in line was going to require a lot of cooperation from disinterested third parties. There was no reason in the world that those people would inconvenience their own day in order to make mine a tad more interesting. Figures.
The only realistic way of making publishing work is to produce something that people are willing to buy.
Considering the fact that many photography magazines have closed down and that the online survivors have to hawk ads to make it possible to stay alive is far from cool. Printed magazines all carried advertising as a means of generating profit and staying competitively priced, but the difference is that with print, as reader, you can just turn a blind eye and page; you can't do that as easily on a screen, especially when ads move and flicker for attention.
I look at and occasionally contribute posts to a couple of small sites that deal with photography. The problem is that in both cases, the majority of replies are all of the same type: nothing but a slightly extended version of the +1. How in hell do you take that conversation a step further - by writing +2? On top of that, one has to wait a day or two for one's own post to get moderated and presented. It stifles debate because debate requires instant communication to be interesting and to remain relevant during the short lifespan of online themes. LuLa permits that rapid communication.
To conclude, I believe that the only online publishing that would work would be from people who have massive reputations. Were Avedon, Penn, W. Eugene Smith, HC-B alive and well and willing to devote their days to writing about their world, then I think their sites would crash under the pressure to read them!
For the rest of us, better try to find some work or curl up with a good book. Some might suggest shooting an endless series of pointless photographs instead. Had we all the initiative and balls of one Hugh Hefner, things could be different.
