Is Luminious-Land for total beginners?

[PhotoSnoob]

I used to read LL for many years, and it seems like the quality has been going downhill for a while. Has anybody else noticed this?

Most of the articles lately have titles like "Digicams vs. DSLRs — which is the right format for you?", extoll the virtues of megazoom lenses and ink-jet printers, or provide meaningless reviews. ( "This camera is nice, it isn't meaningfully different from any other camera." )

And (this is a lot more subjective but) the quality of the photography showcased on LL has been disappointing. MR seems to be doing the same basic types of exploration a first-year photography student would.

All in all it's a nice site, and I'm grateful he puts work into maintaining it, bt I don't think Luminous landscape offers anything to the serious photographer or artist. The site seems to be intended as more like one of those "quick lessons in digital photography" e-books.

 

[RickS]

The site has changed, no question. Previously, as now, there were many feature departments, and at that time a significant body of images submitted by amateurs for MR's critique. I enjoyed that and I miss it not being there, now.

But, I think the Iceland pictures, both by MR and the workshop participants, now being displayed are extraordinarily good. To me they really captured a lot of the emotion and character of the country, not to mention its beauty. They were well conceived, composed, exposed and presented. It is apparent that a lot was accomplished on the trip and the members really benefitted from the experience.

And the current feature image of the field of sunflowers (not Iceland!) is very striking. And I say this as someone who hopes to never see another macro snapshot of a flower bloom, ever.

With regard to his reviews and opinions, I find them very complementary to the technical dissertations on most review sites. This site and others do an excellent job of presenting in-depth technical aspects of the cameras they review. With Michael, I enjoy his comments about how a camera handles under real demand conditions. If you keep in mind where his interest is (landscape photography) then anyone can benefit from a working/teaching pro's real world needs, whether you agree with his comments or not.

I think Luminous Landscape is a very professional site that provides a real service to folks who really want to improve their photography skills and not just discuss a camera's spec sheet.

I'm glad it's there.

Rick

 

[aar]

I used to read LL for many years,

As a loyal reader you dully subscribe to their DVD as I do. Right?
Actually I am lying: I don't.

So we are getting a free access to a mag,expecting always increasing quality, and unbiased, in-depth, hands-on reviews of the products bought for the full price in the store and no advertising at all. Frankly we need clear, clean and honest CIA briefing for free.
(aar)

 

[OzRay]

I haven't been a long-term reader of LL, but I do find it a very refreshing change from the usual technophile sites that generally don't extol much in the way of photography in the real world. I think LL is a great foil to say DPReview/Steve's Digicams. DPReview/Steve's Digicams are engineer's sites, LL is an artist's/practitioner's site (in a manner of speaking). That's the way I see it anyway.

Cheers

Ray

I used to read LL for many years, and it seems like the quality has
been going downhill for a while. Has anybody else noticed this?

Most of the articles lately have titles like "Digicams vs. DSLRs —
which is the right format for you?", extoll the virtues of megazoom
lenses and ink-jet printers, or provide meaningless reviews. (
"This camera is nice, it isn't meaningfully different from any
other camera." )

And (this is a lot more subjective but) the quality of the
photography showcased on LL has been disappointing. MR seems to be
doing the same basic types of exploration a first-year photography
student would.

All in all it's a nice site, and I'm grateful he puts work into
maintaining it, bt I don't think Luminous landscape offers anything
to the serious photographer or artist. The site seems to be
intended as more like one of those "quick lessons in digital
photography" e-books.

--

There are no limitations, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[DavidMillier]

I consider many of MR's images to be quite striking. He has a style whereby he oftens combines traditional landscape images with a strong graphical element - which perfectly suits my taste.

If you want to find fault, I would point the finger at his tendency to court controversy, his increasingly hectoring and pervasive advertisements for his video journal (and as I have just discovered), his willingness to quote private emails on his website, then ask permission afterwards!

As for his editorial policy, it is quite clear that he now considers digital cameras to have reached a stage in their image quality development whereby they are good enough to make further endless discussion on the minutae uninteresting (to him) and secondary to the business of taking pictures...

Not a bad attitude in many ways.

I used to read LL for many years, and it seems like the quality has
been going downhill for a while. Has anybody else noticed this?

Most of the articles lately have titles like "Digicams vs. DSLRs —
which is the right format for you?", extoll the virtues of megazoom
lenses and ink-jet printers, or provide meaningless reviews. (
"This camera is nice, it isn't meaningfully different from any
other camera." )

And (this is a lot more subjective but) the quality of the
photography showcased on LL has been disappointing. MR seems to be
doing the same basic types of exploration a first-year photography
student would.

All in all it's a nice site, and I'm grateful he puts work into
maintaining it, bt I don't think Luminous landscape offers anything
to the serious photographer or artist. The site seems to be
intended as more like one of those "quick lessons in digital
photography" e-books.

 

[Dennis]

I haven't been a long-term reader of LL, but I do find it a very
refreshing change from the usual technophile sites that generally
don't extol much in the way of photography in the real world. I
think LL is a great foil to say DPReview/Steve's Digicams.
DPReview/Steve's Digicams are engineer's sites, LL is an
artist's/practitioner's site (in a manner of speaking). That's the
way I see it anyway.

I find LL refreshing because it's a photographers site, not a pixel-peepers site, though MR has gotten himself in trouble by crossing that boundary In some video segments on the DVD Journal, it seems as though he's trying to talk authoratatively about something he doesn't know that terribly much about, and the impression I walk away with is that a lot of the techie details that are debated endlessly on various forums are really irrelevant to the working pro.

The most interesting parts of the site/Journal are the examples of how working pros go out and practice the craft on a day-by-day basis. I like some of MR's images, but on the whole, they don't strike me nearly as much as other photographers - that's just personal preference. But articles, video segments about going out and making images are very useful, IMO.

Finally, as evidenced by dead forums dedicated to the art/craft of photography (as opposed to those dedicated to gear) and the inane content of the various popular photo magazines, I think there's really only so much to say about taking pictures ! Then you start regurgitating old material or finding new little tidbits that may not have a lot of substance ...

When it comes to tutorials for processing workflow & that kind of thing, again, it's interesting to see how one working pro does it, but his contribution is minor in that regard. His equipment reviews are very interesting, though, and as someone else said, a great complement to other reviews. When dpreview says the A2 produces xx% less sharp images than the competition, people quote it as gospel, but when MR says it's the best tool for daily use and produces sellable NxM prints, people laugh at him.

I guess the best thing about his site is that he's doing it and nobody else is !

• Dennis

 

[lulalake]

I'm sure that over the years your knowledge and experience has grown perhaps geometrically. LL served you well until perhaps your knowledge was on a par to LL's which as it should be. You might rethink your own relationship to the site, otherwise you're living up to your true name:

photosnob.

I used to read LL for many years, and it seems like the quality has
been going downhill for a while. Has anybody else noticed this?

Most of the articles lately have titles like "Digicams vs. DSLRs —
which is the right format for you?", extoll the virtues of megazoom
lenses and ink-jet printers, or provide meaningless reviews. (
"This camera is nice, it isn't meaningfully different from any
other camera." )

And (this is a lot more subjective but) the quality of the
photography showcased on LL has been disappointing. MR seems to be
doing the same basic types of exploration a first-year photography
student would.

All in all it's a nice site, and I'm grateful he puts work into
maintaining it, bt I don't think Luminous landscape offers anything
to the serious photographer or artist. The site seems to be
intended as more like one of those "quick lessons in digital
photography" e-books.

 

[PhotoSnoob]

I find LL refreshing because it's a photographers site, not a
pixel-peepers site, though MR has gotten himself in trouble by
crossing that boundary In some video segments on the DVD

I would agree about MR crossing that boundry, on a very regular basis now. Actually this is part of what prompted my posting.

When MR told us the D30 was better than film up to 11x14 inches, or that the D60 was almost as good as film at any size, well, this was based on prints and images on screen. On actual photography. But it seems lately LL has descended into, well, what you described with Phil and how many percents of sharpness one camera has over another. Except that MR makes these judgements on the basis of a software program, even.

 

[OzRay]

There's probably some truth in what you say, it does become very difficult to keep introducing new subject matter based purely on photographs, and to pad out a site you inevitably get drawn into doing other things. But as I think I read somewhere, MR does in fact produce technical reports for some other magazines, so perhaps doing this in LL is not completely out of place.

I'm not really fussed in any case, as I always have a look at his site because it gives what I think is a working photographers view of equipment and techniques, their use and the evolving world of digital photography. I also agree that many of his photos aren't the most striking (but that's a matter of taste really), but they do show the technical capabilities of the cameras he uses to back up his words. And what I like most of all, is that the photos are not always the same garden gnome or whatever that others tend to use.

At the end of the day, I guess I can relate more to Michael, than Phil or Steve (Steve's Digicams), which is why I enjoy looking at his site.

Cheers

Ray

I haven't been a long-term reader of LL, but I do find it a very
refreshing change from the usual technophile sites that generally
don't extol much in the way of photography in the real world. I
think LL is a great foil to say DPReview/Steve's Digicams.
DPReview/Steve's Digicams are engineer's sites, LL is an
artist's/practitioner's site (in a manner of speaking). That's the
way I see it anyway.

I find LL refreshing because it's a photographers site, not a
pixel-peepers site, though MR has gotten himself in trouble by
crossing that boundary In some video segments on the DVD
Journal, it seems as though he's trying to talk authoratatively
about something he doesn't know that terribly much about, and the
impression I walk away with is that a lot of the techie details
that are debated endlessly on various forums are really irrelevant
to the working pro.

The most interesting parts of the site/Journal are the examples of
how working pros go out and practice the craft on a day-by-day
basis. I like some of MR's images, but on the whole, they don't
strike me nearly as much as other photographers - that's just
personal preference. But articles, video segments about going out
and making images are very useful, IMO.

Finally, as evidenced by dead forums dedicated to the art/craft of
photography (as opposed to those dedicated to gear) and the inane
content of the various popular photo magazines, I think there's
really only so much to say about taking pictures ! Then you start
regurgitating old material or finding new little tidbits that may
not have a lot of substance ...

When it comes to tutorials for processing workflow & that kind of
thing, again, it's interesting to see how one working pro does it,
but his contribution is minor in that regard. His equipment
reviews are very interesting, though, and as someone else said, a
great complement to other reviews. When dpreview says the A2
produces xx% less sharp images than the competition, people quote
it as gospel, but when MR says it's the best tool for daily use and
produces sellable NxM prints, people laugh at him.

I guess the best thing about his site is that he's doing it and
nobody else is !

• Dennis

--

There are no limitations, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[mgottlieb]

Attention all detractors:

Look, you're getting a magazine, updated daily, for free.

If you read LL, DP Review, Steve's, Vivid Light, Zone Zero, and all the good print magazines, you're getting the NYIP course for FREE!.

And what he writes about camera tests, is not influenced by advertiser considerations. If you read PC Photo, the magazine sounds like one big advertisement, which is why I stopped subscribing.

Don't be snobbish.