Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What a boring website this has become - where's the old Michael gone?  (Read 11253 times)
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2008, 10:27:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Wow, the ridiculously defensive responses to the original post are sorta sad. Schewe, especially, was a horses arse and probably didn't read past the first sentence before penning his insults.

This site exists to make money for Michael (which is perfectly valid and highly enviable). It's not a simple labor of love (at least anymore), it's a BUSINESS. As such, complaints are are not only valid, but helpful. If potential customers are not happy, whether the complaints have substance or not, then the business may suffer. A single complaint is rarely a lone voice, but rather speaks for many who will remain silent. Any business owner worth his/her salt welcomes complaints (and compliments) rather than belittling and insulting the presenter.

Some of you have serious anger management issues, me thinks.

Chuck

Chuck,

Should those who disagree with the OP not respond?   That seems to be your opinion when you label dissenters' views as "ridiculously defensive responses."  As to the rest of your response, LL's financial bottom line will determine its viability and warn Michael of any need for change.  Personally, I don't see the OP as representing some Reaganese "silent majority."  People talk with their fingers on the internet by not frequenting a site.  In the end, declining site traffic will make more of an impression on Michael than the OP's post.  BTW, has Michael belittled or insulted somebody in this thread?  If so, I must have missed it.
Logged
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2008, 10:48:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course people can voice their disagreement. I never said, nor was I even close to insinuating, otherwise. However, the way in which it was done in this thread was absurd.

Example: "Do something useful with your life instead of wasting it making really stupid posts on forums."

Does that not rise to the level of a "ridiculously defensive response", or is that an acceptable form of disagreement?
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 10:49:10 AM by ckimmerle » Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5257


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2008, 11:02:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
This site exists to make money for Michael (which is perfectly valid and highly enviable).


That's your opinion, not based on facts. I guess you don't understand the fact that Michael is a retired photographer/businessman who really has no need to working at this stage in his life. If you think the site is designed simply to make money for Mike, you are deluded...there's a lot easier ways to make money that do what he does. He enjoys shooting, and writing and talking and teaching. He finds this medium a useful outlet. The fact that he and Chris (and to a smaller degree me) can make some money on the side is a fringe benefit. If he were to actually want to MAKE money from LL, he would not run it as he does...Sure, he tries to generate revenue to defray costs but that's a far cry from trying to use LL to "make money". That's your own baggage intruding into your opinions.

As for honest and useful critique, I know for a fact Michael welcomes it...the recent changes in the sub-forum structure comes to mind. But idle Pissing&Moaning™ with no useful content such as the OP isn't what I would call honest and useful critique. He doesn't offer any suggestions but merely complains about the lack of what HE thinks the site should have (without bothering to offer an specifics) and then bemoans the announcements of friend's workshops and complains about the bag and monopod articles.

Naw, the OP was just trying to stir things up and unfortunately he's getting far more attention than he deserves...Micheal on the other hand is having a nice and relaxing week in Arizona with friends shooting. Maybe what the OP is really pissed at is the fact that Michael really is free to do whatever he wants to do and the OP doesn't like that? Michael's off-line (out of cell and internet access) for a while. Good for him. In the meantime, I suggest the OP go out and get a life. There's lots of stuff to do and shoot out there...
Logged
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2008, 11:19:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Of course people can voice their disagreement. I never said, nor was I even close to insinuating, otherwise. However, the way in which it was done in this thread was absurd.

Example: "Do something useful with your life instead of wasting it making really stupid posts on forums."

Does that not rise to the level of a "ridiculously defensive response", or is that an acceptable form of disagreement?

I think many of the responses were pretty aggressive.  That isn't my style, but, I'm just one voice on a public forum.  I feel it is better to respond to the issue rather than the voice and not classify or categorize the style.  This thread has become fuzzy because its subject is too subjective and now I have made my contributed to the fuzziness.  
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2008, 11:25:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Naw, the OP was just trying to stir things up and unfortunately he's getting far more attention than he deserves...

That's about right Jeff, but there are some interesting issues about the slowing down of innovation. There seems to be little prospect of any great leap in performance with the current DSLR model. Nikon has now caught up with Canon, but both companies will find it difficult to provide the quantum leaps in performance that we enjoyed in the past. Unless we move to a new paradigm, we're stuck with very marginal improvements from model to model, like 20D to 40D to 50D.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2008, 11:37:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Peter_Gulbinat
To Bernard: Although I wasn't criticizing the quality of the forum, I accept your point, I am not exactly a heavy contributor and if you believe that this fact disqualifies me from criticizing the website, I respect although not share your opinion.

No, I was just saying that you could very well decide to cover yourself some of these topics you mentioned, write an article and submit it to Michael.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2008, 11:38:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I believe that LuLa is whatever Michael chooses it to be, but within the limits of his control, which because of the public participation cannot be total. Unless, of course, he introduces some censorship device - surely, not Schewe?

I also believe that it is a genuine resource for those of us interested in photography beyond a very basic level. There is much advice/information available here if you choose to search it out.

However, I wonder if that was part of the meaning within OPīs post; if he is referring to the conversational side of LuLa, the exchange of ideas amongst fellow photographers, then he might just have a point. My own experience here over recent years has not always been smooth, and any farting within the hostīs domain has, unfortunartely, been inhaled by yours truly too. I have found myself victim of several instances of idiot-posting, where my statements have either been wilfully misunderstood or, worse, they have not even been fully read before the attacking reply leaps into print. I have not noticed any censorship coming into play at such times, though I would have welcomed it. However, the lack of it there has not prevented it (censorship) from cutting dead other threads which were possibly heading towards bitter confrontation - a futile stance vis a vis a computer at the best of times: itīs only a bloody machine with God alone knows who tickling the keys.

Boring. Well, thatīs really up to the people who post here: some people have much of value to say whilst others do not, but say it anyway. Perhaps the problem is a lack of humour? There are precious few literary gems floating about the place - there is sometimes a lot of anger; there are many who are delighted to fill the various picture areas of the site with pictures, some good and others, frankly, awful; but is that just opinion saying they are awful or is it a basic truth obvious to all but their author and the blind? From that, can we deduce that LuLa needs a picture editor? I would imaging so, but who would that be and how would he be paid?

Some respected professionals post here and some show pictures. Others reserve that pleasure to their site, a wiser choice, I would say. The feeling sometimes comes over me that LuLa is being used, probably unoffically, by some of these pros - mainly those engaged in what I suppose is the teaching side of being a pro (a paradox?) - as a personal advertising space. Not sure I like that a whole lot...

I donīt really see that Michael can be expected to contribute more material of his own in the way of written reports and so forth: writing may be one of oneīs skills, but it still consumes a lot of time and his calendar is already pretty full, as has been outlined in this thread. So what is expected of him? I, for one, am not in the slightest bit interested in following the latest equipment trail; I have a reasonable camera (D200) and for my needs as a retired pro, it serves perfectly well. I have an F3 which is looked at every now and again as is the freezer full of transparency films, but each time I look within the frozen wastes I think in terms of €8 a pop to get the damn things processed, if anyone can still do that for me now. I close the freezer. I take another digital photograph. Nothing in life is ever perfect because perfection means something different for every individual; I think LuLa is as good as it gets for a site not exclusively loaded towards pro photographers. Such a site might be desirable, but do they work? There is confusion in thinking that pros are more interesting than amateurs or, for that matter, always better. Some very talented amateurs are already posting here, their work amateur simply because they choose not to be dependent on photography for a living. (Wise choice!)

How to sum it up?

Enjoy it for what it is and be grateful that it exists.

Rob C

Logged

ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2008, 12:26:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Naw, the OP was just trying to stir things up and unfortunately he's getting far more attention than he deserves...

Well, I think you only have yourself to blame for that one.

Rob, really liked your last post. Well said.

Chuck
Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
Jay Kaplan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2008, 01:03:23 PM »
ReplyReply

All you have had to do is look on the first page of the site under either Product Reveiws or Essays and click on the N -

2 product reviews on the D3/D300 along with 1 Essay on the D3

Jay
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5257


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2008, 01:19:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
I donīt really see that Michael can be expected to contribute more material of his own in the way of written reports and so forth: writing may be one of oneīs skills, but it still consumes a lot of time and his calendar is already pretty full, as has been outlined in this thread. So what is expected of him?


See, that's EXACTLY what pissed me off regarding the OP's message...here he has been hanging around the LuLa site (I like that abbreviation BTW) and at the time of the original post had contributed exactly 17 posts to the forums over the years and he's bitching about the lack of output on Michael's behalf and complaining that the site has become "boring". Not to mention the fact he's lifted his fingers 17 whole times over the years to make any sort of contribution mind you...he's looking into the gist horse's mouth and claiming the horse suffers from bad teeth (and bad breath).

He didn't offer any solutions, he didn't offer any help or contributions...he just Pissed&Moaned™ and was "surprised" that he raised some shackles and some people took umbrage? Seriously, talk about a "taker" not a giver...

You all can keep harping on this subject if ya want. But do yourself (and the community) a service and at least offer suggestions or changes/improvements (hopefully that do not require loads of additional time from Michael) that can improve the site, not denigrate it. If you think you can do better, do so...otherwise, move on.
Logged
T-1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 579


« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2008, 04:29:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I have always known this website as the place for exciting reviews and articles about the Canon D30 vs film, Canon 1Ds, the beginning of digital backs, the kodak proback, first look at the mighty P25, comparisons of this and that, 1ds vs 645, 1ds vs 6x7, P45, then the ultimate comparison of digital backs and DSLRs and drum scanned film, and more this vs. that... it was exciting to read and I enjoyed it, and I still enjoy reading this site.  There's just a bit of a slowdown, because we see these "new" products and we think, "eh, more of the same, so who the hell cares?"  

Who cares about the D3?  Speaking of the D3, ever read this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d3.shtml or this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...n-d3-d300.shtml .  What the hell more do you want?  Go to dpreview.

I'm sure the upcoming reviews will probably include the P65+, new Leaf products, and look at the new announced products by RED.  I have no doubt whatever RED puts out, Michael will get his hands on one configuration, or two, or three...  There are so many damn things to write about in the upcoming weeks/months/year, perhaps you won't be so "bored" anymore.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1254


« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2008, 04:45:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I also know what the OP means. At one time, there was much more emotion on the site, with Nikon vs. Canon vs. Kodak, with worried early-adapters spending large amounts of money (or preparing to) on products that didn't work very well, when every judgment by Michael and his minion (or cohorts) carried a lot of weight. You just don't get that when people are trying to decide whether to upgrade from 4.1 to 4.2, or whether the DxO numbers are valid. And now, if you can pay the money, the camera you get most likely will be excellent, because the technology has matured, and the software is so much better as to seem to be from a different world of even 2005.

So, less excitement, but the information is still there, and can be very subtle and helpful.

Also, Rob is right.

I think Schewe's response was both colorful and uncalled for, but, what the hell, that's just Schewe and long-time users are pretty used to it, and it's worth putting up with it for the information he provides in other posts. OTOH, I'd like to be around when he finally tries Xanax, just to see what parts fall off. 8-P

JC
Logged
ecemfjm
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2008, 06:04:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
See, that's EXACTLY what pissed me off regarding the OP's message...here he has been hanging around the LuLa site (I like that abbreviation BTW) and at the time of the original post had contributed exactly 17 posts to the forums over the years and he's bitching about the lack of output on Michael's behalf and complaining that the site has become "boring". Not to mention the fact he's lifted his fingers 17 whole times over the years to make any sort of contribution mind you...he's looking into the gist horse's mouth and claiming the horse suffers from bad teeth (and bad breath).

He didn't offer any solutions, he didn't offer any help or contributions...he just Pissed&Moaned™ and was "surprised" that he raised some shackles and some people took umbrage? Seriously, talk about a "taker" not a giver...

You all can keep harping on this subject if ya want. But do yourself (and the community) a service and at least offer suggestions or changes/improvements (hopefully that do not require loads of additional time from Michael) that can improve the site, not denigrate it. If you think you can do better, do so...otherwise, move on.

Using statistics to support opinions tend to backfire because they can be interpreted the other way round. Having posted 17 (21 times in my case) times means that the OP have posted more messages that 94% percent of the LuLa’s forums member list, i.e. he (as me) are in the top 5% or 6% of the most active forum members.

I mean that, in my opinion, the number of posts should not be used against the OP (or any). On the opposite, when a normal person that usually does not post opinions or contributes regularly to the forums takes the effort to contribute with an opinion about the site, it is my experience as Quality Manager (at least in other fields) that generally it is to complain about something, and that this kind of complains should be taken seriously and respectfully, regardless how infuriating  or destructive it may appear. When a person has been annoyed enough to take the effort to write a complain, usually there are real issues behind this annoyance, you like it or not.

It may perfectly be that these issues are deliberate changes on the site, or not, but that is another issue that only the site owner knows.

Manuel
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5257


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2008, 09:43:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ecemfjm
...when a normal person that usually does not post opinions or contributes regularly to the forums takes the effort to contribute with an opinion about the site, it is my experience as Quality Manager (at least in other fields) that generally it is to complain about something, and that this kind of complains should be taken seriously and respectfully, regardless how infuriating  or destructive it may appear.


Or not...A lot of the usefulness of customer feedback depends on the approach and the person's agenda. I would guess that the normal costumer relations model pretty much goes out the window when it comes to free web sites, don't ya think? Free is, well, free and while the OP apparently has subscribed to the Video Journal (which he seems predisposed to fast forward through) I'm not sure Michael or Chris are gonna loose sleep over the whole thing. Pretty sure Michael has other fish to fry and Chris never has any free time anyway. So, what's the point in taking the approach he took if not to stir things up (for whatever reasons he has)?

Fact is, if you want to bring about positive change, that ain't the way to go about it.
Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 363



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 26, 2008, 10:50:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Fact is, if you want to bring about positive change, that ain't the way to go about it.

How else do you go about making that sort of comment ?

The original post seems honest and straight forward to me and far from nasty, while all your responses have been very defensive and IMHO a bit thin skinned.
Do we have to agree with everything written here ?

I think it shows a lot of backbone on the part of the forum that the original post is left up for debate, it's like the letters column in a good magazine where they have the guts to let people air negative views about content without the knives coming out.

It's very grown up..
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 10:53:44 PM by David Anderson » Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2008, 10:55:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Boring thread.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5257


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 26, 2008, 11:05:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Anderson
I think it shows a lot of backbone on the part of the forum that the original post is left up for debate


It's because Michael is off shooting in Arizona for the week and doesn't have cell or internet access...otherwise I suspect he would have closed the thread since not much of any value has come out. And while Chris is lurking in the background (prolly chuckling over my responses) he's not inclined to get into thread moderation. So, I wouldn't get all fired up about the "backbone" of the forum, it's just evidence that Michael has better things to do (so do I, but I like to play as I'm taking breaks from writing Book II).

Sorry to bust your bubble bud :~)
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 11:06:01 PM by Schewe » Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 363



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 26, 2008, 11:15:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I rest my case..
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2399


« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2008, 01:55:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Anderson
I rest my case..

I nominate Schewe as the thread moderator......... and soon we all will be posting on the DP review site?  
Logged

Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 27, 2008, 02:13:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Schewe as a moderator is an awesome idea!!    

All comments must be intelligent, witty and as abrasive as possible. Measured or boring comments will be ridiculed or deleted as he sees fit.

I see this place as an interesting diary of Michael's photographic meanderings. Why didn't he do a full review of the D3 or D90? Probably because there was little to say beyond "very nice, about what you'd expect for the price". The prospect of writing all that up into an article put the fear into him and he charged off to take some photographs somewhere.

Heck, most of us would love to swap our working lives for his. I would.

I never really though of LuLa as exciting in the first place, more contemplative. I think it's just as contemplative as it's always been.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 02:13:52 AM by peripatetic » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad