Thom Hogan's Comments about the LL site

[NikosR]

Thom Hogan has published his photo site recommendations. His opinion about the LL site is interesting.

http://www.bythom.com/recommendations.htm

[michael]

I have a lot of respect for Thom and the work that he does.

Two comments. He, like many people, think that this site is just about landscape photography. My interests are much broader than that. The name is just that, a name. I don't let it pideon hole me even though some people would like that to be so. (Thom on the other hand is known for being highly focused on things Nikon, so I'm actually not surpised that he sees the world though the filter of narrow interests).

He's totally correct though in that I wrote about what interests me, and my interest are always shifting. Nothing more, nothing less. If people want to come along for the ride, and enjoy it, that's great. Otherwise....

This is not a commercial enterprise that needs to fit into a certain genre of activity. Yes, I make money from the videos and workshops that I do, but then people buy them because of my eclectic interests, not in spite of them.

Michael

[ColinDoncaster]

I'm sure you don't need anyone to tell you this Michael, but keep on doing what you're doing - plenty of people visit the site and more importantly, you're enjoying it.  Once you start conforming to what people expect you can easily lose focus and it becomes a chore.

Looking forward to seeing your studio once it's set up here in Toronto, though I think I might be off on the rest of my travels before then.

[Gary Brown]

He, like many people, think that this site is just about landscape photography. My interests are much broader than that. The name is just that, a name. I don't let it pideon hole me even though some people would like that to be so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One minor suggestion might be to reword the first sentence on the main page, which says "Welcome to The Luminous Landscape, the web's most comprehensive site devoted to the art of landscape, nature and documentary photography...".

I like your site the way it is, but I can see how a first time visitor might get an initial impression that it has a more limited scope than it really does.

[Ken Tanaka]

Thom Hogan has published his photo site recommendations. His opinion about the LL site is interesting.

http://www.bythom.com/recommendations.htm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really have no idea who this Thomas Hogan is and see no particular reason why I should care.  (Other than his techie history footnote of being a software developer for the early 1980's Osborne computer company.  I used to call them "Osboxes"...somewhat innovative but always flakey and strictly for geeks.)  My impression of his site and commentaries is that he's just another Internet "personality" who emerged largely from behind a keyboard and screams for attention and authentication with the same gear obsession that he accuses his peers of having.  

I've no real interest in landscape photography but I do enjoy LL because it's personal, thoughtful, frank, and eclectic.  I don't always agree with Michael's opinions or impressions, but that's part of what makes the place fun.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

One minor suggestion might be to reword the first sentence on the main page, which says "Welcome to The Luminous Landscape, the web's most comprehensive site devoted to the art of landscape, nature and documentary photography...".

I like your site the way it is, but I can see how a first time visitor might get an initial impression that it has a more limited scope than it really does.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94331\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Or even, " ... the web's most comprehensive site devoted to the art of landscape, nature and documentary photography, and any other kind I feel like at the moment ..."

I first came here at the suggestion of a friend, because some of my work is landscape. But I like the variety here, and I find it especially stimulating to follow Michael on his momentary whims and digressions.

Just imagine how much poorer we would all be if Michael had decided not to share any of his images that are not strictly speaking "landscapes!"

Please, just keep on doin' what yer doin', Michael!  

[Dale_Cotton]

Thom Hogan wrote:

Another site that barely makes it onto the recommended list today that was a slam dunk earlier.

I cannot see any way in which this site has gone downhill from any previous time.

Michael doesn't quite seem to know what he wants the site to be when it grows up, so it tends to follow his latest curiosity and gear interest at the expense of consistency and focus.

Thom's underlying assumption is that consistency and focus are a good thing. Variety is a good thing. A house does not need only bedrooms or only kitchens. Or, as Emerson once wrote, "a petty consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". ;)

[MarkKay]

I read through his comments and have to agree with most related to the other sites but I really take exception with his comments about this site. I can say that this site is the best one  I know of for getting information on medium format digital.  I used to get a lot of useful information on RG before the big change.  I like the fact that this site is not over managed or moderated by the owner and that everyone is allowed to speak their peace.   Mark

Thom Hogan wrote:

I cannot see any way in which this site has gone downhill from any previous time.
Thom's underlying assumption is that consistency and focus are a good thing. Variety is a good thing. A house does not need only bedrooms or only kitchens. Or, as Emerson once wrote, "a petty consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94356\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Gary Brown]

Or even, " ... the web's most comprehensive site devoted to the art of landscape, nature and documentary photography, and any other kind I feel like at the moment ..."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94353\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The way I look at it, it's more the landscape of photography than the photography of landscape, if that makes any sense.

[John Camp]

I really have no idea who this Thomas Hogan is and see no particular reason why I should care.  <snip>  My impression of his site and commentaries is that he's just another Internet "personality" who emerged largely from behind a keyboard and screams for attention and authentication with the same gear obsession that he accuses his peers of having.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94349\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hogan has a narrow focus -- the Nikon system. If you don't have it, then there's no particular reason to be interested. I do have it, so I'm interested -- when the D2x came out, for example, he produced the most through and painstaking documentation of the camera, when it was much needed. In a way it's like reading Erwin Puts on Leica; if you don't have Leica glass, then reading one of Puts' analysis of a particular lens might not mean much. If you're about to drop $3500 on a lens, it might. Hogan also does commentary on the various camera companies' financials, which I also find interesting.

My impression is that Hogan is a pretty interesting guy; a serious outdoorsman in addition to being a photographer. Actually, my impression of most of the operators of the long-lasting photography sites (like Reichmann, Askey, Hogan etc.) is that they're pretty interesting guys with eclectic interests. That's part of what keeps the sites interesting.

JC

[DiaAzul]

The way I look at it, it's more the landscape of photography than the photography of landscape, if that makes any sense.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Any more comments like that and you are likely to blow the main circuit breaker on the internet. That's too insighful.

My own half penny is that things have changed over the last couple of years. Whereas in the past everything was new, people had little experience of digital photography and many avenues were to be explored, things have perhaps now matured a little bit. There is definitely a bigger corpus of literary knowledge down at the bookshop that didn't even exist a couple of years ago.

Judging from Thom's list it doesn't take into account the growth in other sources of information on the website and he appears to have become trapped in his comfort zone. Where are the references to [a href=\"http://strobist.blogspot.com/]Strobist[/url], Radiant Vista and Fred Miranda? Or any of the other multitude of resources and insightful commentary that have been springing up throughout the interverse?

Perhaps it is a sign that Michael has matured (like a fine wine?) that his interests have become more diverse.

[kaelaria]

I think his review was spot on.  I also don't think there was anything negative about it, and there shouldn't be any need of defensive or snide comments here.

I found this site looking for reviews of Canon equipment.  I too thought it was a Landscape site at first, but quickly realized it may havge started as so, but was no longer.  No biggie, it wasn't what I was after anyway - but it's OBVIOUS why people would think it to be so.  To be shocked or dismissive otherwise is not believeable.

In the end he was simply compiling a list of site for newbies.  And this site in general is not what it appears to newbies.  These forums are also not anywhere near the size or intent of others, as he noted.  No biggie, he's mearly making it clear to his readers.

[Rob C]

As I fail to see Michael taking offence where non appears, to me, to have been intended, this is starting to sound a somewhat sycophantic chorus indeed; I doubt Michael needs it, folks.

Ciao - Rob C

[paulbk]

T. Hogan’s review is dead on. So what? Here’s a few comments of my own:
L-L as a web site is poorly organized. Rarely is a reference date given for past written material so the reader can put the information in context of a fast moving technology. The side bar menu categories are ambiguous -- what’s the difference between: columns, essays, and techniques? (Click around and you tell me.) The Galleries link alphabetical listing is mysterious -- why is “June Lake” and “Yosemite” listed under E?

However, the beauty of L-L is that in spite of the above, as Thom says, “... the basic articles here are quite good, and when Michael and crew do get around to speaking landscape photography they do it as well as anyone.”

p

[mcanyes]

why is “June Lake” and “Yosemite” listed under E?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=94663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because they are part of the Eastern Sierra trip.

Sites like this and Digital Outback take on a life of their own. That direction does not always match the way they were named, and also it takes a lot of time to keep a site organized. I have learned much from both sites (Thom also) and am very happy to take what I get. My thanks to both Michael and Uwe.

This is not intended to defend them - they don't need that - just to say that I am very grateful for those that are willing to spend their time creating websites like this. I am beginning to feel like half my brain is gone when I can't connect to the web.

Michael

[larsrc]

I cannot see any way in which this site has gone downhill from any previous time.

There's one thing that's stopped on LL which I really miss:  The monthly critique of user pictures.  It really taught me a lot about how to correct mistakes, frame shots or look for the right light.  I'm glad the pages are still around, even if they aren't linked from the site anymore.  I understand why MR (probably) did it, since it'd be something that could take a lot of time and generate much flak on the board, but I do miss it.

-Lars