Poll

Should members be forced to reveal first and surnames?

yes
- 28 (47.5%)
no
- 31 (52.5%)

Total Members Voted: 59

Voting closed: September 17, 2019, 02:33:06 pm


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Who are you?  (Read 4311 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2019, 09:04:13 am »

A site, presumably dedicated to photography can and should be able to run without political posts.
A site, presumably dedicated to photography should allow 'members' pictures.

A. It can, but why should it be so constricted and constrained?

B. Oh dear; that entire post was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, which I'd imageined to be patently obvious!

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2019, 09:07:57 am »

Keith, I agree wholeheartedly: the entire post was supposed to be read as tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.

;-)

Rob, your post obviously went way above my head but I'm pleased to hear your explanation.

:-)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2019, 09:09:10 am »

Yes it was until it was reinstated.  But then, maybe you enjoy that kind of banter..... I don't and I'm not alone. 

This is a photography site - is it so unrealistic to think that just maybe it should be limited to photography?

You want politics then there a lots of other places to get beat up. 

Victor

Yes, Victor, it is. We are adults here (I think) and LuLa has grown to offer far more to its community of members than simple-minded gratifications of GAS.

That is why we have so many long-time members. We enjoy the closest thing to Internet friendships that you can find.

Rob
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 09:44:33 am by Rob C »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2019, 09:40:07 am »

I’m in favor of real names on “serious” sites like this, but as many have said, good moderation matters more.

But, as the thread has expanded to another look at politics, I’ll give my thoughts on that as well: I think political discussions are sucking all the air out of this forum, and as they do, the value of the forum to photographers is diminished.

I made the mistake, some time ago, of commenting on the “American constitution” thread. I realized the pointlessness of it in short order, but having commented, it continues to appear on my “replies” list even though I’ve set my profile to ignore the Coffee Corner. I see that thread has now grown to 90+ pages in a fairly short time. What other thread gets that much attention? The “Professional Works” thread has 140+ pages, but it’s been going on since 2013.

It doesn’t matter what I think of the opinions expressed. And I do understand that for some members it’s an important social outlet—even community. But what I see is that the energy expended in the political discussions is not being expended in discussions of the photographic arts, and I think it’s an existential threat to this forum. Internet forums live and die on their brands. If the brand is vibrant discussions of the art of photography and deep technical resources, then it has value. If the brand is a bunch of photographers talking politics, I see a dim future.

I feel I've been in LuLa since forever; remind me of the times when there were great discussions on the "Photographic Arts". Posting on the list of links (Style) to great photographers is a pretty lonely profession... I know all about that - check it out. It was always like that. If there is a shortage of posters, it's because so few are actively interested enough to spend time online looking for such photographers or artists to enjoy and to pass along for the pleasure of others.

True, we used to enjoy input from several very good professional photographers in advertising; most abandoned LuLa as a place in which to place images. Some fell out amongst themselves and others just realised that, professionally, it was a waste of time: who was gonna offer gigs out of LuLa? Be serious; and time is money. And why would they pay to read articles they could write even better? LuLa is a site aimed fairly and squarely at the amateur photographer, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Pros get their kicks by impressing other pros: that amateurs say wow! means not a lot in the greater scheme of professional life. If you were around during the period from the 50s to the 80s you'd see that personal competition on the pages of every fashion magazine, every travel magazine and every weekend supplement: the client was secondary - we had to kick the asses of our competitors: that was the spiritual payoff after basic professional survival.

Anyway, those who contribute to the political threads are/were not all prolific posters of images, whether great or shitty. Posting in one end of the LuLa spectrum has never prevented the same person doing so in any other section. The main reason for not posting images is this: we have no great list of great new ones to post. And the longer one remains here, the more one becomes aware of one's own inadequacy and how few of us really have the style or even ability to make a picture a picture, rather than just a record of something we saw at some time or in some place.

Don't pass the blame to the politically interested: pass it to those not willing to post their snaps.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1739
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2019, 09:42:07 am »

Yes, Victor, it is. We are adults here (I think) and LuLa has grown to offer far more to its community of members than simple-minded gratifications of GAS.

That is why we have so many long-time members. We enjoy the closest thing to Internet friendships that vou can find.

Rob

And I think this is a part of the problem. These friendships - indeed our friendship - are seen by many as little cliques, they do nothing to attract new blood and the result is familiarity, stagnation and decline.

I've had my say in the past about the political threads and I won't bore you further other than to say I find them addictive, divisive and ultimately destructive. 
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15660
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2019, 09:55:57 am »

A. It can, but why should it be so constricted and constrained?
How about a forum dedicated to unclogging septic tanks and brain surgery?
LuLa is a photography centric site. There's zero reason for political discussions any more than those dedicated to pathology or the American Constitution.
And there are plenty of sites dedicated to politics. LuLa has lost its focus. Photographically and honestly by going utterly off topic by having such a forum that's hugely (look at the numbers) populated by politics. Topics utterly devoid of photography.
I suspect Michael is looking down at this and not happy about the direction (and yes, I did knew him personally).
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2019, 09:57:33 am »

And I think this is a part of the problem. These friendships - indeed our friendship - are seen by many as little cliques, they do nothing to attract new blood and the result is familiarity, stagnation and decline.

I've had my say in the past about the political threads and I won't bore you further other than to say I find them addictive, divisive and ultimately destructive.

You could be right; however, all of us were strangers, the one to the other, at some period. We became friends because of shared interests and the impressions that we gain of personality over time.

I guess new blood can only be attracted by the management, and advertising. Some comes by world of mouth; other people find it by accident. I stay precisely because of a handful of people I have grown to understand, respect and to like. There are few of you; you know well who you are, even though a rare one or two would probably be surprised to find themselves on that little list of personal likes.

As with all technical resources, they mean different things at different times in your personal development. There are those here in the tech. threads who helped me no end in my early days in digital; that we no longer have anything to say to one another does not mean that I do not hold gratitude towards them for that help. It simply means we both move on to other, unrelated things in our lives.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2019, 10:12:20 am »

How about a forum dedicated to unclogging septic tanks and brain surgery?
LuLa is a photography centric site. There's zero reason for political discussions any more than those dedicated to pathology or the American Constitution.
And there are plenty of sites dedicated to politics. LuLa has lost its focus. Photographically and honestly by going utterly off topic by having such a forum that's hugely (look at the numbers) populated by politics. Topics utterly devoid of photography.
I suspect Michael is looking down at this and not happy about the direction (and yes, I did knew him personally).

I don't mean to offend, but isn't what you have expressed a typically techy absolutist attitude to life?

I have yet to see a single example cited of where LuLa having a political section has actually prevented anyone from reading or contributing either an article or a photograph.

As with those Brexiteers who recite the thoughtless mantra: "I want my country back!", not a one actually defines who has taken said country away from them, and which former right might have been denied them since joining the wider European club. More and more certainly realise every day what they are on the verge of forfeiting.

Life often allows for multiple choices; LuLa is one such source. Rejoice it lives and, according to the owners, doing better than ever before.

Rob

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15660
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2019, 10:38:48 am »

I don't mean to offend, but isn't what you have expressed a typically techy absolutist attitude to life?
NO offense taken as I have absolutely no idea what you're suggesting.
LuLa is a photo centric site. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that. Discussions of politics are not discussions of photography. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that either. There are other sites with forums dedicated to auguring (or discussing) politics. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that too.
LuLa has a forum that's open to non photographic topics. And it's (IMHO) polluted largely by politics and rarely about coffee or much else. Again, you can simply look at the numbers of posts attached to political discussions; you don't need to be a tech whinnies to see the numbers and how they correlate to those topics.
So, given what I believe are facts that non tech whinnies could understand, IMHO, LuLa has lost a part of its focus in the forums, concerning photography.
And yeah, I don't have to (nor do I any longer) go to those forums to discuss politics, it doesn't serve Michael's memory and what he built IMHO. 
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17553
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #49 on: August 29, 2019, 11:08:15 am »

LuLa is a photo centric site. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that. Discussions of politics are not discussions of photography. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that either. There are other sites with forums dedicated to auguring (or discussing) politics. You don't have to be a tech wienie to accept that too.
LuLa has a forum that's open to non photographic topics. And it's (IMHO) polluted largely by politics and rarely about coffee or much else. Again, you can simply look at the numbers of posts attached to political discussions; you don't need to be a tech whinnies to see the numbers and how they correlate to those topics.
So, given what I believe are facts that non tech whinnies could understand, IMHO, LuLa has lost a part of its focus in the forums, concerning photography.
And yeah, I don't have to (nor do I any longer) go to those forums to discuss politics, it doesn't serve Michael's memory and what he built IMHO.
+100.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 14934
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #50 on: August 29, 2019, 11:14:22 am »

Wasn’t it the site owners, including Mr. Reichmann, if my memory serves me well, who opened the floodgates by attacking Indiana politics? Or even before that, when the woke attacked Mr. Reichmann for using the world Lolita in a title?

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15660
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #51 on: August 29, 2019, 11:17:38 am »

Wasn’t it the site owners, including Mr. Reichmann, if my memory serves me well, who opened the floodgates by attacking Indiana politics? Or even before that, when the woke attacked Mr. Reichmann for using the world Lolita in a title?
The owner of the site can do as he pleases! And if memory serves, it didn't result in THOUSANDS of posts.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1584
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #52 on: August 29, 2019, 11:18:40 am »

Andrew, you of all people, shouldn't really be a spokesperson on civility.  If we were in the days of the Wild West you'd be the one shooting up a saloon over a lens cap. [/light hearted quip, no offence intended]. I don't say I didn't 'enjoy' some of your more extreme moments (Gary Fong comes to mind) but honestly your post has much of 'the pot calling the kettle black'.

You knew Michael ? Yes, I know you did. You also knew of Schewe, Eric Chan, Mark Segal (the original snowflake), add Nick Devlin and on and on. They've all gone. All friends of LuLa's founding father, Michael and all part of the rich 'tapestry' that made LuLa the number one photo site.

And they didn't go 'cos of the Coffee Corner.

But I'll leave the last word to Nick Devlin who, in response to one who raised an objection similar to your "Because they are not appropriate for this site", posted this whilst Michael was still with us.

Quote
This site is the private property of the people who run it.  It also happens to be a powerful public forum.  If they be moral men, which they are, it is an imperative that they use it to decry acts of immorality which undermine the sorts of fundamental freedoms which we, the creative class (and if ye be not one of those, what the hell are you doing here?) rely on for the things which give our lives meaning.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 11:48:32 am by Manoli »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15660
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #53 on: August 29, 2019, 11:25:44 am »

I've said nothing of civility sir. I've commented on the FOCUS of the forums!
Now, in terms of civility "piss off" 🤪
Quote
And they didn't go 'cos of the Coffee Corner.
They each told you specifically why they left or this is another assumption, like I knew this guy Nick (I never did).
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7959
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #54 on: August 29, 2019, 12:57:40 pm »

I have yet to see a single example cited of where LuLa having a political section has actually prevented anyone from reading or contributing either an article or a photograph.

There's an awful lot of nonsense on this thread, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

If the comments about censorship were directed at me, they were misdirected. I have never censored a topic, save last year when I banned political discussions altogether. I have closed threads for various reasons, usually because the signal to noise ratio was unacceptably low (unacceptable to me, that is); but I have never ruled that a topic could not be discussed in a courteous fashion.

As Rob points out, active discussion of topics in one area does not prevent active discussion of other topics. There is no limit (no practical limit, anyway) to the number of posts which the forums will accept.

There is equally no reason why members of a photo-centric site should suffer from forced monomania and be prevented from discussing other topics in a separate area of the site. If that curtailed photography-related discussion, I would agree that it should be prevented; but it doesn't. Political topics are, in general, easily identified from their titles. If people aren't interested in politics, they need neither read nor contribute to those threads.

Jeremy
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15660
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2019, 01:03:14 pm »

As Rob points out, active discussion of topics in one area does not prevent active discussion of other topics. There is no limit (no practical limit, anyway) to the number of posts which the forums will accept.
I don't think anyone suggested this was a technical forum issue.
Quote
There is equally no reason why members of a photo-centric site should suffer from forced monomania and be prevented from discussing other topics in a separate area of the site.
No, there isn't. Nor any reason to have it (other than perhaps inflate traffic for advertising).
Look, it's now Michael’s son's site and he can and will do as he pleases. And I don't think there is any question more work for moderators if we assume they view all posts (just look at the number of this pup):
1967 posts to 'examine'?

If you're OK viewing them all and moderating, fine with me. I'm not going there. If you want to demand people enroll with actual names, and I think that's a good idea, fine. If not, fine. It's your time to spend (waste?).  ;D
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers"

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3705
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #56 on: August 29, 2019, 01:36:17 pm »

In looking at the forums, there is far less technical comment being posted these days.  If one were to look at only "new" post numbers, The Coffee Corner wins hands down.  What does this say about a photography site.  The content on the Home Page has changed dramatically as well but the site owner has the right to reshape this according to his own thinking.  Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of folks who were regular contributors move on.  Michael was unique in his own way and new what kind of content would attract photographers.  The videos that he did with the help of Chris and Jeff were excellent examples of this.  The cost was modest but the instructional content was high.  That model disappeared with the growth of YouTube and the ability of YouTuber participants to monetize their works.  I don't think the LuLa video series would be as successful today.  Alternate platforms have taken over.   there are some esteemed folks such as Jim Kasson who posts here and also on his own website where he covers a lot of very good technical issues for those of us who have moved on to mirrorless cameras.  DP Review is attracting a more diverse membership though one has to sift through a lot of stuff to get to good content.  Kevin Raber's new site is doing some good work on equipment reviews and it's good to see some of the LuLa old guard who have moved over to that venue.

there is some good stuff on the color management thread where Doug Gray is exploring better approaches to profiling but there are lots of fora here that attract a very small number of posts on a daily basis.  LuLa used to be a go-to place to read about photography and get answers to questions.  I don't think this is the case today and it's sad but maybe it's also progress as the Internet evolves.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22465
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2019, 02:42:12 pm »

In looking at the forums, there is far less technical comment being posted these days.  If one were to look at only "new" post numbers, The Coffee Corner wins hands down.  What does this say about a photography site.  The content on the Home Page has changed dramatically as well but the site owner has the right to reshape this according to his own thinking.  Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of folks who were regular contributors move on.  Michael was unique in his own way and new what kind of content would attract photographers.  The videos that he did with the help of Chris and Jeff were excellent examples of this.  The cost was modest but the instructional content was high.  That model disappeared with the growth of YouTube and the ability of YouTuber participants to monetize their works.  I don't think the LuLa video series would be as successful today.  Alternate platforms have taken over.   there are some esteemed folks such as Jim Kasson who posts here and also on his own website where he covers a lot of very good technical issues for those of us who have moved on to mirrorless cameras.  DP Review is attracting a more diverse membership though one has to sift through a lot of stuff to get to good content.  Kevin Raber's new site is doing some good work on equipment reviews and it's good to see some of the LuLa old guard who have moved over to that venue.

there is some good stuff on the color management thread where Doug Gray is exploring better approaches to profiling but there are lots of fora here that attract a very small number of posts on a daily basis.  LuLa used to be a go-to place to read about photography and get answers to questions.  I don't think this is the case today and it's sad but maybe it's also progress as the Internet evolves.


Reasoned, and seems obviously true to me: the early days of digital ignorance at the level required to make reasonably good happy smaps has been and gone. Folks either have cameras or cellphones that do the thinking, and for those well beyond that, specific expertise is still avaiable here to those who seek it out.

Look at the stats on camera sales: unless the manufacturers are fibbing for tax purposes, fewer people, year on year, are buying quality cameras. It's all peaked, folks. Of course it's inevitable that related written traffic slows, though we are assured by LuLa's ownership that that does not mean that fewer people look in, but that many do without adding content of their own.

And as I have mentioned before, not all photographers, good or otherwise, either can or enjoy writing about their field or anything much else. It's just another fact of life. My wife could knock the spots off me in spelling or the finer points of English grammer, but once we left school, she might as well have forgotten what a pen was. On the other hand, she was never idle when not doing her work as wife, mother and photographer's essential moral booster and assistant; she would always be found digesting the latest historical novel. She loved literature, but produced none of her own. Why expect the world's photographers to be any the more literally productive?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2019, 02:46:52 pm by Rob C »
Logged

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1511
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #58 on: August 29, 2019, 03:44:37 pm »

Rob, my friend qnd 99.4 % of you I wish you the best.

IMO

BC
Logged

vjbelle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 565
Re: Who are you?
« Reply #59 on: August 29, 2019, 04:49:28 pm »

There's an awful lot of nonsense on this thread, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

If the comments about censorship were directed at me, they were misdirected. I have never censored a topic, save last year when I banned political discussions altogether. I have closed threads for various reasons, usually because the signal to noise ratio was unacceptably low (unacceptable to me, that is); but I have never ruled that a topic could not be discussed in a courteous fashion.

As Rob points out, active discussion of topics in one area does not prevent active discussion of other topics. There is no limit (no practical limit, anyway) to the number of posts which the forums will accept.

There is equally no reason why members of a photo-centric site should suffer from forced monomania and be prevented from discussing other topics in a separate area of the site. If that curtailed photography-related discussion, I would agree that it should be prevented; but it doesn't. Political topics are, in general, easily identified from their titles. If people aren't interested in politics, they need neither read nor contribute to those threads.

Jeremy

I don't get where you're going with all of this.  Is this direction YOU or ownership?  As has been pointed out by others and supported by me and others this is a PHOTOGRAPHIC site and should remain committed to that end.  Coffee corners in my opinion should be eliminated and more serious effort should be made to propagate the original reasons for founding this site. Why don't you just change the name to 'Luminous Landscapes and Politics'?

I also think that your ego gets into the way of making rational decisions regarding the direction of LL.

Victor
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Up