Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mars Banned  (Read 14488 times)
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2533


« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2010, 07:05:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Would it not have been better to speak your mind rather than pussy footing around?  All this nonsense just to attack poor old Ken? A fellow countryman of Mars, I hope the two of you enjoy your banishment together. BTW despite stating that you won't be back - I certainly hope not - I see you are still lurking in the member's list at the bottom of the screen.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 07:08:29 AM by stamper » Logged

cgf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2010, 07:10:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
Would it not have been better to speak your mind rather than pussy footing around?  All this nonsense just to attack poor old Ken? A fellow countryman of Mars, I hope the two of you enjoy your banishment together.

I don't see how I will be 'banished' when I was not rude, just direct, and my post was point at no-one except for Michael.

I will watch the responses with amusement, but will stop reading the site. Given a day or two for the predictable responses the fun will be over and I will be gone, no loss to the site for sure, except financially, and perhaps a few will realise I am in the right.

I don't know who 'mars' is but perhaps we share a similar thought pattern.

Best wishes (yours was not rude nor confrontational in anyway, I don't want you to think I am firing at all and sundry).

Chris.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 07:12:36 AM by cgf » Logged
cgf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2010, 07:12:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
BTW despite stating that you won't be back - I certainly hope not - I see you are still lurking in the member's list at the bottom of the screen.

Purely an oversight I had the tag closed (Opera) yet was still logged in apparently.

You have a keen eye for detail!
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 07:12:24 AM by cgf » Logged
cgf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2010, 07:15:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stamper
A fellow countryman of Mars, I hope the two of you enjoy your banishment together.

Funny thing I went to the member list and looked under "warren" to find there is no "Warren Mars". Perhaps I searched poorly. Or, perhaps he is truly banished!

Perhaps for my honesty I shall suffer the same fate?

However given this predicament I don't know if Warren and myself share the same location. I never read his posts, perhaps he was not as direct/honest/polite as I was?

Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2533


« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2010, 07:19:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cgf
Funny thing I went to the member list and looked under "warren" to find there is no "Warren Mars". Perhaps I searched poorly. Or, perhaps he is truly banished!

Perhaps for my honesty I shall suffer the same fate?

However given this predicament I don't know if Warren and myself share the same location. I never read his posts, perhaps he was not as direct/honest/polite as I was?

Did you not read the first post in the thread? He was barred for being rude among other things and you chose to launch your "appraisal" in the same thread. A coincidence?

Quote

Actually, I think you pulled a Ken Rockwell and deliberately wrote a bunch of BS just to get your site ratings up.

Unquote

I think that many will regard this as being rude? Possibly not in Australia but elsewhere in the world?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 07:24:21 AM by stamper » Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2010, 07:20:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Hmmm...

For leaving and never coming back, you're sure hanging around an awful lot. Don't go away mad, just go away.

Troll.
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2010, 10:16:02 AM »
ReplyReply

No need to ban you. You haven't been rude. Simply poorly informed.

If you don't want to come back, that's just fine with me.

Michael
Logged
JimU
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2010, 11:30:01 AM »
ReplyReply

i think cgf just needs a hug.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2010, 02:14:26 PM »
ReplyReply

A lot of what CGF said is bullshit, but some isn't. I also perceive a lack of intensity that we used to have, not on Michael's part, but in the forum as a whole, and think perhaps that has to do with the slowing of the digital revolution. A few years ago, something revolutionary was popping up every five minutes, it seemed -- but now, we're back in the days when an F5 was a revolution, and yet many people stuck with their F4s. How many people really dumped their D300's to get a D300s? I think we may see the same lack of zeal when the Canon 1DsIV replaces the III.

This lack of intrinsic excitement may mean that this site -- the most valuable of the web's technical sites, IMHO - may need a tune up, and perhaps even a restructuring. For example, we have separate forums for Lightroom and Aperture, because even though they are conceptually similar, the details of operation are significantly different. The same now applies to cameras, and I think it might now be useful to have separate forums for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, m4/3, and Pentax, and, perhaps, "others." And though the site calls itself "Luminous Landscape," it has been a long time since it has been only about landscape, and perhaps forums on Portraiture and Street would be interesting.

On the other hand, people talk about the problems of watering down brands, so these changes may not be desirable. I don't know -- but something to think about.

The "stopped clock" comment made me realize that  stopped clock is more accurate, in some sense, (right on twice a day) than my very expensive Rolex, which is almost never right on...8-)

Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2010, 05:15:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Camp
The "stopped clock" comment made me realize that  stopped clock is more accurate, in some sense, (right on twice a day) than my very expensive Rolex, which is almost never right on...8-)


John, I set mine at midnight on New Year's Eve. In 12 days it managed to lose 20 minutes. It has been serviced maybe three times since '72 when I think I remember buying it, has only lost time but never gone fast, and is obviously badly in need of further attention. (Is it a watch I speak of or myself?) Trouble is, each time it goes off to the Rolex dealer to get fixed it remains lost for months on end. I sometimes hope it will remain lost and they will replace it with a new one...

Having said all that I still believe the Submariner to be the most beautiful bit of watch design ever - the Leica of the time world. Shame a cheap alarm clock keeps better time. But at least it may not drown where an electric alarm clock might and I certainly would.

Regarding LuLa - I have no idea about the other guy's points, but I think that what happens has little to do with Michael or anything in the system. I think what happens is that we regulars just get too regular - and old. We seem to have written most of what we had inside us, and in the end, I don't come here for the tech, though I have had much help on that; rather I find pleasure in the sparring and chat. I enjoy reading about other photographers' lives, work and problems - our buddy in Detroit and the other one in three cities at once all provide great work and comment. Unfortunately, the demands of making a living must surely get in the way of their posting much more than they do, but perhaps that even adds to their appeal. Some others are great writers and I enjoy them too because of it.

But perhaps you are right regarding the lack of freshness in the digital impact or perhaps even more people are starting to see it all as a bit of a con where tiny changes are dropped into new models, yet still cutting the feet and monetary value of the last one. This was brought into very sharp focus for me the other day when I was doing my latest insurance policy info. How can it be that an immaculate D200 can't even be traded in? So now there it lies, beside a new D700 and as likely ever to get used again as, well, let's not go there!

Maybe the magic is no longer doing its stuff; perhaps we take it all as a given now - we can all produce an image without knowing very much about photography any more. What's to rave about any longer?

Rob C
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2010, 08:31:48 PM »
ReplyReply

John,

I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I fact I have been concerned about the state of the site and especially the forum for the past couple of years.

Therefore, about 8 months ago we hired a senior system developer to create a new site which will be dramatically enhanced over what we have had here till now. Not just cosmetic changes, but structural ones. More community involvement, more authors, and many others things which I won't go into now, but which will, I believe, bring LuLa into its second decade.

No speculation please, because I won't respond to questions yet. But folks can expect to see the beginnings of the changes that we'll be making within the next couple of months. We will at that time be polling forum members and others for input and feedback. The full evolution will take about a year after that till completion, with new features added over the months, and scope for lots of community feedback.

Michael
Logged
LoisWakeman
Guest
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2010, 03:54:57 AM »
ReplyReply

That's good to hear Michael.

Further to the "where are the women" thread elsewhere (where I mentioned that all the long drawn-out discussions about gear are, to me, of relatively little interest), anything that promotes the composition/art/subject matter of photography would be welcomed by me. The articles you publish do a sterling job on that front, but seem to evoke relatively little interest in the forum.
Logged
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2010, 04:42:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I fact I have been concerned about the state of the site and especially the forum for the past couple of years.

One option that could be interesting for forums (and I am speaking in general, not specifically about here) would be to limit member's posts to something like 3 per day or so. After all, not many of us can come up with more than a few genuinely interesting contributions in a single day. Knowing that we are limited would encourage us to make better points. Disputes about details would not degenerate into rhetorical duels, etc... Such a limit would still allow the occasional congratulatory messages, digressions or puns that make human communications lively, but in a more reasonable way.

In the age of twitter, this is probably wishful thinking. But on sites that do not depend on click-through-rates, the model could be viable.
Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2010, 06:55:55 AM »
ReplyReply

one feature that might be of interest is to solicit more articles from forum members. Some of the people here provide virtual 'reviews' and essays. They are difficult to follow and yet are quite thoughtful.
Obviously that puts an editorial burden on Michael and staff..but one alternative is 'peer review' (NOT an editorial board) The forum members could volunteer to write or just be peer reviewers as in scientific journals (works well, and I have seen it for over 40 years--for all the negatives it is the best at homing in on good stuff.

A thought anyway...

regards
Victor
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2010, 08:03:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
No speculation please, because I won't respond to questions yet. But folks can expect to see the beginnings of the changes that we'll be making within the next couple of months. We will at that time be polling forum members and others for input and feedback. The full evolution will take about a year after that till completion, with new features added over the months, and scope for lots of community feedback.

Michael
Michael,

Thanks for the update.  I find the site invaluable for many reasons.  As you move closer to implementing changes I would suggest a separate section of the website where we can post suggestions regarding content, etc.  If that's what you mean by polling I support it.
Logged

Sharon Van Lieu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 376


Nantucket Landscape and Architectural Photographer


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2010, 10:00:23 AM »
ReplyReply

That is exciting news, Michael!  

Sharon
Logged

wtlloyd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2010, 10:52:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The early excitement of digital process is gone, and art rather than technology is back in it's rightful place. After a time, the whizz-bang toys don't impress, and the creative results are what are left to consider.  

I think this site has and continues to be a terrific educational and informative resource. There certainly is room and a need for the gear to be discussed....I would only say that in one area where this site is weak is in photo review/critique. I would like to see a monthly article (at least) working through the creative editing choices, the artistic directions one pushes a photograph toward.  A lot of us never learned in a classroom or workplace environment with critique (criticism!) readily available.

I'd also like to see more frequent guest portfolios of, say, 10 photos with discussion of composition in capture and processing...
Logged
rogermorris
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2010, 12:00:06 PM »
ReplyReply

As a very long time reader of the site, but not feeling the need to engage in the forum, this thread ultimately had me submit my forum application to the mods in order to render a personal opinion.

Some of the comments made in this thread as they relate to Michael as a person, as  host of this site and forum, and further of Michael as a photographer are frankly over the top and blatantly disgusting.

Some folks feel that internet forums are somehow bastions of free speech.
They're not, nor were they ever designed or intended to be.

Visitors to LL for example essentially visit for free, on Michaels buck as it were........they have in effect been invited by Michael to spend some time in  his living room/studio with others interested in similar topics as they are.
Much of what's been posted in this thread would never have been spoken directly to Michaels face, especially sitting in his own living room as one of his guests. (and if you were inclined to speak out loud to Michaels face what some have written about him in this thread, society generally would consider you a troubled, angry and somewhat anti-social person.......certainly never to be invited back for tea).

Veiled attacks on Michael as a person deserve nothing less than a permanent banning from the forums.......there's no room for it and there's certainly no need for it.
Declaring your post "honest" rather than an open attack doesn't mask the fact that it is, in fact, nothing more than an open and highly personal attack on the owner of the forum/web site.

I've had this site bookmarked, and I've visited every couple of days for many years now, and have seen changes in the site........although nothing near as drastic as some here would declare.

Note to Michael:
It's always a good idea to stand back and look at what your original mission was when the site first went live.
I got hooked on this site as a result of the premise of Landscape Photography, and the fact that LL was the most well presented of any site proposing to discuss landscape photography.
I'd love to see the focus shifted back to landscapes of the world, something that LL has done better than any other photo web site available.
The Video Magazines have been routinely excellent, but should remain focused on Landscapes, and not get too wound up in equipment and software reviews, or interviews with people too far removed from the world of Landscape Photography.

I have no issue with all the training videos related to software and workflow instruction, but suggest that they go to a dedicated area of the site.
These videos are a welcome addition to the outstanding LL Video Magazine, and having recently downloaded the brilliant Seth Resnick video on workflow, they're videos that continue to inspire and instruct as well, or better than any other photography video instruction DVD's I've yet discovered.

And so:
Banning those who seek to harass, insult, attack, and essentially poke a pencil in the eye of the host and the his efforts to run a free website combined with the need to also run a business and make a profit..........well banning those folks serves and benefits all users of the Luminous Landscape.
I have no desire or interest in anything posted (or deleted) by miscreants who declare their "honesty", all the while laying out highly structured and planned attacked on the forum host/owner (or any other member of the forum).
There are posts in this thread (still) that have absolutely nothing to do with "honesty", and everything to do with little more than nasty attacks on the forums host, and the guy who makes all this tick.................for free.
Logged
Rajan Parrikar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 779



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2010, 12:15:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rogermorris
Visitors to LL for example essentially visit for free, on Michaels buck as it were........they have in effect been invited by Michael to spend some time in  his living room/studio with others interested in similar topics as they are.


Rem acu tetigisti.


Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5536



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2010, 12:52:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Could't help noticing how "rogermorris" post sounds a lot like the Cerberus-in-Chief's alter ego (i.e., when he occasionally gets up on the right side of the bed)  . Also, funny how those "long-time lurkers, first-time posters" tend to introduce themselves through a verbal diarrhea. Let the witch burning (i.e., banning) begin!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad