# Luminous Landscapes going to a paid membership model



## SquarePeg (Nov 25, 2015)

Important News - Change At Luminous-Landscape - Luminous Landscape


$1/month billed as an annual $12 fee


----------



## tirediron (Nov 25, 2015)




----------



## Dave442 (Nov 25, 2015)

Has anybody used their training videos that were only available with a paid subscription in the past?


----------



## SquarePeg (Nov 25, 2015)

Dave442 said:


> Has anybody used their training videos that were only available with a paid subscription in the past?



No, I haven't but this change to their site is a good move for those people!


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 25, 2015)

I bought their early LR set and it was terrific and worth seeing.

L


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 25, 2015)

More than fair and worth it.

Joe


----------



## cgw (Nov 25, 2015)

What it was and what it is now? Different. Though LL helped greatly in bridging the film/digital divide a decade or so ago with articles and videos, it's been looking fusty and a bit boring lately. I've always thought Reichmann oversold himself and the site--e.g., his claims about the site's popularity in his latest subscription pitch video. The emphasis on top shelf gear and luxe photo destinations set a tone that appeals to a small audience that hopefully stays with him.

Anyone's guess how many will join Michael and Kevin on their side of the paywall.  Wondering if they have the energy and imagination to meet the paying customers' expectations beyond the first year.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 25, 2015)

cgw said:
			
		

> What it was and what it is now? Different. Though LL helped greatly in bridging the film/digital divide a decade or so ago with articles and videos, it's been looking fusty and a bit boring lately. I've always thought Reichmann oversold himself and the site--e.g., his claims about the site's popularity in his latest subscription pitch video. The emphasis on top shelf gear and luxe photo destinations set a tone that appeals to a small audience that hopefully stays with him.
> 
> Anyone's guess how many will join Michael and Kevin on their side of the paywall.  Wondering if they have the energy and imagination to meet the paying customers' expectations beyond the first year.



Agreed...the $27,000 photo expeditions...the high-end medium format digital cameras and lens systems...the wholesale jumping into entire "new,exciting,flavor-of-the-year!" camera systems,one after another after another....Sony A900, Nikon D800,Fuji-X, Sony A7R, Alpa, Phase One, Hasselblad, and so on with breakneck speed...it has become a site catering almost exclusively to wealthy, pudgy, middle-aged men. The emphasis on top-shelf gear has become very prominent in the past couple of years.

Since Kevin Raber came on board, the money-grabbing aspect of the site has grown ever more obvious; the Antarctica workshops for example...the super-expensive camera systems written up so fondly...their little video chats about $500 trinkets, one after another. *Selling videos* of two middle aged dudes yammering on about cameras? Srsly?

Agreed...what it once was and *what it has become* are two wildly different things. Since their last site redesign, finding articles there has become a major pain in the a**. The site once had a unique feel, but it has morphed into something with a much different energy, a much different feel. I lost interest about six months after Raber came on board...after he had been there a year or so, and after the site re-design...I let it slide off my radar. It just got boring. And overly commercialized. I got tired of pitches...I don't want people trying to sell me crap I'm not interested in, all the time. _Home Shopping Network_ for photography videos? No thanks, I'm not the target market.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Nov 25, 2015)

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has become a higher end PetaPixel.     I have to agree, but it seems like every site is going this way.   Granted it could just be the nature of what sells.   I follow Kirk Tuck occasionally and it's something he comments on from time to time. He says that when he talks about cameras and gear he gets tons of hits on his blog, when he talks about photography he can practically hear the cyber crickets chirping.     Meanwhile you have sites like PetaPixel that are just a National Enquirer of photography.  FStoppers is quickly going that way too.     DIYPhotography went from a great low budget lighting resource to a PetaPixel clone. DPP (Digital Photo Pro) is nothing but articles pushing sponsored gear dolled up to sound like real editorial content.   Lets face it, the majority of photographers want to read about gear, the same way most car guys want to read about cars.  Talking about gear sells. 
   The problem people like LuLa are having is that it's becoming more difficult to monetize a web site.   I'm seeing this as a general trend.  I'm seeing popular video channels on YouTube opening up websites and charging subscriptions.  I'm seeing once free sites trying to create secondary content for subscribers.  Stuff that they would have posted openly before.   Let's face it, as the web evolves marketers understanding of what generates revenue evolves too.   Before they were simply looking for clicks, but now they now which clicks echo with the sound of falling change, and which clicks ring hollow.  
   There is one economic blogger I follow who has announced that once technology to block people who use ad blocking software gets better he's going to implement it on his website.  Why, because ad blockers (which have become quite popular lately) are effecting his revenue stream  This despite a healthy volume of subscribers paying almost $200 a month for his member content.   The rise of ad blocking software not only leads to less ad revenue, but it is killing his affiliate revenue (click throughs to shopping sites like Amazon).   I can see this being an issue at LuLa and leading to the $12 a year subscription.  The only question is do I value what little I get from that site enough to pay $12.   Even I'm not sure.


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 25, 2015)

I wish everyone would go to subscriptions.  I'm spending way too much time on these sites.  Frankly, their time wasters.


----------

