ASMP Launches New Web Site

New look, new navigation and new resources! Check it out at www.asmp.org.

3 Responses to 'ASMP Launches New Web Site'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'ASMP Launches New Web Site'.

1. I like the new site but using a list serve instead of forum will take a little getting used to. I suppose the forum had gotten a little less use the last year or two.

   Nice, clean job on the re-design.

   Bill

   By Bill Koechling | Jun 30, 2009

    

2. To Whom It May Concern, Is it just me OR?

   Myself and other members of the Colorado chapter have had serious concerns about the new FAP search engine and will try to reiterate our points now, after trying out the new search engine. We never received any feedback and have been emailing the National Chapter for months. I tried FAP with the following criteria: Denver, Portraiture, Within 50 miles. There were 56 so-called “matches”. These included senior portrait photographers and photographers based 75 plus miles away in Greeley, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs and Eagle.

   Point One: (And the biggest problem)
   Photographers need more “specialties” to choose from. When art buyers are looking for a portrait photographer, it would be much more efficient to be able to search in “editorial” or “executive portraiture” or “environmental portraiture.” Many of the “specialties” are much too general and aren’t helping potential clients who need to be able to narrow their search to get returns of 10+ choices, not 50+. If it stays as it is, they will go elsewhere for better search capabilities and members will eventually go too.

   Point Two:
   Not to be rude and I appreciate all forms of photography but I thought this was American Society of MEDIA Photographers. Why are wedding shooters and senior portrait shooters now appearing in our midst?

   Point Three:
   Photographers should be penalized somehow for listing themselves in portraiture if all they have on their site is architecture. Maybe when you engage in checking appropriate images for the profile page, you should also check their site for appropriate content. This isn’t helping members get work and it’s not helping art buyers who look for portrait photographers and are finding architecture in the mix. It makes no sense.

   By Susan Goddard | Jul 1, 2009

    

3. Hi Susan,

   I chair the committee overseeing FAP and I’d like to address some of your concerns.

   When we reviewed the prior Specialty list, it was our goal to simplify it for clients as well as photographers. Previously there were six categories dealing with portraiture, four categories dealing with architecture, and multiple categories for which either there were no photographers returned or no photographers with supporting work for the selected Specialty. The list had become so fractured with overly specific specialties, that one would be forced to use 10 listings to simply state that she shoots portraits of people and architecture.

   Additionally, the list was populated with several specialties which are really markets not photographic specialties such as Advertising and Editorial. We’ve long preached that while photographers may specialize in shooting particular subject matter, the resulting photographs may be licensed for many uses including Advertising, Editorial, or Annual Reports. A talented portrait photographer can shoot for any of these markets; it’s the subject matter which describes her specialty, not the market, thus these were removed from the list.

   With the new search engine, it’s more important than ever for photographers to have portfolios supporting their chosen specialties. The search results are weighted to return those photographers with a portfolio in the selected Specialty first, followed by photographers who’ve declared the Specialty but without the specific Specialty Portfolio, followed lastly by photographers who’ve declared the Specialty but lack any portfolio.

   As more photographers modify their portfolios to support their selected Specialties, they’ll benefit greatly from the new search scheme. Meanwhile, the fact that the list of Specialties has been simplified means that photographers can realize these benefits without the need to have multiple portfolios for essentially the same subject matter (six different portrait portfolios, for example, or four architecture portfolios). Should one need both an “executive portrait” portfolio and an “environmental portrait” portfolio simply to illustrate that she can shoot an executive on location?

   The ASMP board and staff can not act as portfolio or Specialty police.

   We can not penalize members for not supporting their Specialty selections with appropriate images in their portfolios nor can we force members to do so? You yourself list several Specialties in your profile for which you have no supporting images. Would you ask that we somehow block your appearance in those searches until such time you’ve added “appropriate content”? That’s a road down which we won’t travel.

   We members are all professionals and are responsible for our own member profiles and portfolios, and if we want to insure our success with FAP — both individually and collectively — we must use the system thoughtfully.

   Finally, FAP is open to all General Members of the Society and those members have all been deemed qualified for membership through endorsements on the local Chapter level. Changes in our industry and the tight economy have forced many of our members to explore multiple markets. I don’t believe that that should exclude them from participation in FAP, though I don’t believe FAP is the best vehicle to market one’s wedding services. Again, smart use of FAP is an individual responsibility.

   The most important thing to keep in mind is that improvements to FAP do not stop here. We’re already at work planning for future modifications. As always, we welcome all input and ideas.

   Anyone interested in contributing should feel free to contact me directly at shawn@shawnhenry.com.

   best wishes,
   Shawn

   Shawn G. Henry • ASMP National Board Member
   shawn@shawnhenry.com • 978.590.4869

   By Shawn G. Henry | Jul 2, 2009

    

Leave a Reply