Luminous Landscape’s Entire Team Out as Founder’s Son Takes Over.

Looks like whole industry in crisis, advertising revenue drying up.

Luminous Landscape's Entire Team Out as Founder's Son Takes Over

 

Hmm... here's the link...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Looks like whole industry in crisis, advertising revenue drying up.

Where is the advertising money going to instead, do you think?

gargoyle & farcebook?

Could be. Maybe they are still hopefully hiring large crowds of student workers to endlessly write and upload articles and comments to FB and LinkedIn. And nobody asks if it actually generates more turnover, oh well...

Edited December 28, 2018 by philip_carlo_jorgensen

I don't know LuLa at all - except browsing a few articles there in the past. I knew nothing about the foundation. Reading between the lines of Josh Reichmann's post at LuLa and quotes from Chris Sanderson and Kevin Raber, I personally doubt whether these changes are solely due to 'an industry in crisis'. 500px seems to be doing pretty well.

 

The LuLa founder, Michael Reichmann, formed a team that was appropriate in his day and who he respected and felt comfortable with. From what I read, the team members were broadly of 'his generation'. In any organization (even the US presidency ;)), it's not uncommon for a new CEO to choose different people who have a better 'fit' personally and with the direction he/she intends to take going forward.

 

It's clear that sponsorship for the foundation is flagging compared to its heyday. The photography market (interests, media, articles, visitors, advertising) is continually changing too. Added to that, organizations are continually changing too towards 'fluid networked organizations'. Having reviewers/publishers on the payroll has become outdated for most organizations. It's cheaper and more flexible to publish reviews/articles sourced from freelancers (not necessarily students). That's the way blogs work these days.

 

I'm not sure whether Joss Reichmann simply fired the old team (because of redundant positions, age, personalities or attitudes) or whether they simply decided that his new ideas for LuLa meant that it made it time to move on.

 

I note that the headline (and content) of 'Luminous Landscape’s Entire Team Out as Founder’s Son Takes Over' has been replicated - with no or few changes - on all the photography sites I've googled. It seems that no-one has bothered to form a different opinion.

These on line photography sites have overwhelmed us with constant pop-up ads to the point where we have no choice but to install some form of ad-block. Moderation...

I personally doubt whether these changes are solely due to 'an industry in crisis'. 500px seems to be doing pretty well.

500px was sold his year, Flickr as well, landscape changing.

Wait...there's still a Luminous Landscape?

Dunno but I read the PetaPixel piece as an ill-disguised obituary. LuLa was flagging long before Reichmann's pere's demise. It was always a rich old guys' photography site that reflected the top-shelf tastes of Reichmann and Raber. It all got stuffy and stale, the result of an apparent reluctance to admit that the old editorial course settings needed adjusting. Maybe the son can refloat the old LuLa tub but it won't happen short of huge reinvention and restaffing.

Dunno but I read the PetaPixel piece as an ill-disguised obituary. LuLa was flagging long before Reichmann's pere's demise. It was always a rich old guys' photography site that reflected the top-shelf tastes of Reichmann and Raber. It all got stuffy and stale, the result of an apparent reluctance to admit that the old editorial course settings needed adjusting. Maybe the son can refloat the old LuLa tub but it won't happen short of huge reinvention and restaffing.

Not much in LuLa to appeal to poor, young photographers striving to please themselves rather than paying customers ;)

I liked both Michael Reichmann and Kevin Raber: without them I think the site is doomed. But, of course, it was a site dedicated to people with lots of disposable income and making elaborate photos to please themselves and/or largely kidding themselves they were engaged in some great artistic enterprise. Not sure how this is/was different from most "serious" photo websites. Having an (admittedly very small) subscription probably did not help.

If John Reichmann's first article about "Video Stills" is any indication, the site is heading away from the quest for perfection in landscapes and printing, into psychobabble and oblivion.

it was a site dedicated to people with lots of disposable income and making elaborate photos to please themselves and/or largely kidding themselves they were engaged in some great artistic enterprise.

There's hopefully some middle ground that exists in which some photographers can make photography as art without kidding themselves and without necessarily thinking their work is some sort of great enterprise, which art doesn't have to be. It can actually be humble and is practiced as such in many quarters that a lot of people have never visited or even heard of. In studios in cities and towns large and small throughout the world, and in galleries as well, all kinds of people work without much heat or financial success to support them but just a desire or need to express themselves and share it with others. On the other hand, as Robin suggests, it is certainly true that some are fooled into thinking that the more they think about, research, talk about, and spend money on gear the more likely their photos are to mean something or even pass muster.

 

The Internet is not a great place for the middle ground, a ground which likely lies somewhere between false artistic ego and eternal greatness.

Just because you don’t see a use for it doesn’t mean that there isn’t an audience for a photography website that isn’t about the latest updated gear as

I am a paid-up subscriber to Luminous Landscape for at least another year (December), and will pop in from time to time just as for over 15 years. Through them I have vicariously enjoyed parts of the world I may never visit, and visited places to which they gave insight (including Iceland, and the Palouse). It is all about craftsmanship, and the use of light and patterns, and a large degree of surrealism therein.

 

LuLa has never been gear-happy, but gave reviews on the equipment they purchased to use, how and why. That's a lot different than manufacturer-sponsored reviews on most web sites. It never bothered me to read about equipment I could neither afford nor justify, although it seemed to invite a degree of reverse-snobbishness on the pages of PN. LuLa has never received much love here.

 

We'll see how it goes, and whether masters like Alain Briot will continue to grace their pages. For one, new ideas for video documentaries would be welcome, perhaps with more emphasis on the perspiration part than inspiration. That said, I'd settle for what they've done up to now.

LuLa tried indeed (quite hard) to keep away from equipment, but I suspect as is usually the case, this is actually what most readers were looking for: such is the way of the world. As to not being gear happy: both MR and certainly Kevin Raber were the first to admit to liking new toys. I think a realization and admission of this shows their good self-awareness (and humor) and they did/do at least use all their myriad systems. This is one of the reasons I liked them.

LuLa tried indeed (quite hard) to keep away from equipment, but I suspect as is usually the case, this is actually what most readers were looking for: such is the way of the world. As to not being gear happy: both MR and certainly Kevin Raber were the first to admit to liking new toys. I think a realization and admission of this shows their good self-awareness (and humor) and they did/do at least use all their myriad systems. This is one of the reasons I liked them.

We are all gear-heads more or less, photography from inception was mix of art and technology. Everybody loves new toys, just look how many vies on You Tube got some videos named "Unboxing new Canon/Nikon/Sony......you name camera". People actually waisting their time to watch somebody else unpacking new toy. Just like Xmas.

We are all gear-heads more or less

Please speak for yourself.

Please speak for yourself.

 

Hmm... I know Vincent is

one... nothing but Nikon

cameras and lenses and

film everywhere, oh my...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

LuLa tried indeed (quite hard) to keep away from equipment, but I suspect as is usually the case, this is actually what most readers were looking for: such is the way of the world. As to not being gear happy: both MR and certainly Kevin Raber were the first to admit to liking new toys. I think a realization and admission of this shows their good self-awareness (and humor) and they did/do at least use all their myriad systems. This is one of the reasons I liked them.

 

Reichmann and Raber? It was always about the gear with a generous dollop of aspirational snootiness. That along with luxe photo tours(is there a statue of Reichmann in San Miguel Allende?)was what LuLa boiled down to. Granted, he had come along from endless shots of the CBC satellite dishes in downtown Toronto for lens tests but the tone was usually off-putting throughout. So much better available elsewhere.

Please speak for yourself.

Sorry mate, even masters like Cartier-Bresson, Lartigue were paying attention to development in camera technology, and Ansel Adams is famous not only for his artistic expressions, his first book in photography series, is called "Camera".

But nothing wrong with using Brownie if you heavily invested in 117 film:)

Sorry mate, even masters like Cartier-Bresson, Lartigue were paying attention to development in camera technology, and Ansel Adams is famous not only for his artistic expressions, his first book in photography series, is called "Camera".

But nothing wrong with using Brownie if you heavily invested in 117 film:)

You, Cartier-Bresson, and Lartigue do not add up to “we all.” And, besides, there’s a difference between a gearhead, more or less, and someone who pays attention to cameras and their development.

 

From the urban dictionary ...

 

“Many people appreciate cameras, but the term "gearhead" means something more. Gearheadism is a special condition bordering on affliction.”

 

I wouldn’t put Adams or Cartier-Bresson more or less in that category. There are plenty of people I’ve read on the Internet who might be well suited to the term.

You, Cartier-Bresson, and Lartigue do not add up to “we all.” And, besides, there’s a difference between a gearhead, more or less, and someone who pays attention to cameras and their development.

 

From the urban dictionary ...

 

“Many people appreciate cameras, but the term "gearhead" means something more. Gearheadism is a special condition bordering on affliction.”

 

I wouldn’t put Adams or Cartier-Bresson more or less in that category. There are plenty of people I’ve read on the Internet who might be well suited to the term.

You know what Clint Eastwood said about opinions, "everybody has one":)

You know what Clint Eastwood said about opinions, "everybody has one":)

If you’re referring to the opinion that we’re all gearheads then, yes, the Dirty Harry quote does seem relevant.

If you’re referring to the opinion that we’re all gearheads then, yes, the Dirty Harry quote does seem relevant.

Sorry if I hurt your "artistic" feelings.

Sorry if I hurt your "artistic" feelings.

There’s a long road twixt gearhead and artist ...