Wednesday, February 18, 2009

On ASMP Elections (For General Members Only)

For those who don't know much about me..... I joined ASMP in 1972 as a Student Member. Since then I've been an Associate Member and, in 1983, I became a General Member. I've served four terms as a Director and been twice elected President of ASMP's New Jersey Chapter. I currently serve as a Director of ASMP's Chicago/Midwest Chapter and for the past nine months I've served as Vice President of ASMP Chicago/Midwest. For the record, this is not an official ASMP communication, rather my personal opinion.

Like yourself, I've been receiving e-mails from Scott Highton on various issues. Scott has a history of opposing most major initiatives of ASMP's National Board Of Directors. Most recently he's led crusades against giving the National Board control over setting ASMP member dues, the subsequent adoption of a proposed dues increase, and now he leads a crusade against the payment of speaker fees to ASMP National Directors.

Scott claims that the National Board Of Directors is engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to put large sums of money in each other's pockets... your money... and he's backed his accusations with 'facts' confirming his suspicions. The real fact is that Scott has weaved a web of half-truths and innuendo to support his allegations, and he's been doing so on a variety of issues, not limited to those mentioned above, ever since he lost his seat on the ASMP National Board.

Those he accuses in a conspiracy to defraud you are: George Anderson; Richard Anderson (2nd Vice President); Jim Cavanagh; Ben Coleman; Lynne Damianos; Blake Discher; Jim Flynn; Shawn Henry (Secretary); Todd Joyce (President); Bruce Katz (Treasurer); Richard Kelly (1st Vice President); Greg Kiger; Peter Krogh; Ed McDonald and Thomas Werner.

The conspiracy Scott alleges is that the Directors authorize ASMP to pay speaking fees to those participating in ASMP educational seminars. He claims that these ASMP members should share their specialized knowledge with the rest of us as volunteers, not paid speakers, and he further claims that your dues payments, your hard-earned money, is going into their pockets.

Of the Directors named above, only three are on the ASMP lecture circuit.....
Peter Krogh, Director, presents "Get Your DAM Stuff Together" and for this he is paid not by ASMP but by Microsoft. Blake Discher, Director, presents "I Stink At Negotiating" and "Is Your Web Site making You Money?" For the former, Blake is paid not by ASMP but by Microsoft, and for the latter he is paid not by ASMP but by Adbase & Live Books. Thomas Werner, Director, presents "The Business Of Fine Art Photography" and he is paid by ASMP. One out of three. That's some conspiracy!

Each of these seminars takes two to three days of the presenter's time (includes travel), not to mention the time it took to develop the program. Doing this for 39 chapters consumes approximately 78 days per speaker. That's 78 days away from their businesses and their families. It's worthy of compensation, regardless of who pays them.

Of the other seminars ASMP presents, Paula Lerner & Gail Mooney lead one on Multimedia & Video (paid by ASMP - neither are directors but Gail is a candidate in the current election), Susan Carr presents "What Do I Charge" (paid by Microsoft - she's not a director) and Judy Herrmann presents "Taking Control Of Your Career" (paid by Microsoft - she's not a director).

Even if all were paid by ASMP, that means that twelve board members who are not also lecturers would have to be involved in a conspiracy authorizing these payments. Well, what do they have to gain from all of this? I'll tell you: nothing!

Each of the members of the National Board, as well as your local Chapter officers, volunteer a significant amount of time to ASMP leadership. The vast majority are not only outstanding volunteers but outstanding photographers as well and some, those leading the seminars, are recognized experts in their particular area. These are precisely the people we want leading our Society.

These are tough times for photographers. Our economy is shrinking, advertisers and editorial outlets are cutting back, fees are spiraling downward. Those leading ASMP's Seminar Series are helping us stay abreast of trends, keep up with changes and teach us how to better compete in the marketplace... and because we're all competitors as well as colleagues, they're teaching us how to compete effectively with themselves. This is above and beyond the call of volunteerism, and as speaking fees and honoraria have become a normal part of their revenue streams, if we prevent them from earning a living they will have little choice but to resign their posts in favor of remaining profitable. That would only do damage to ASMP, and it's not a desirable outcome.

In addition to the speakers, Scott accuses the board of hiring each other to perform other tasks for the Society such as programming or assignment photography. This has been done in an above board and entirely proper manner, and only when the director was also the best qualified for the job. In fact, Scott Highton himself was hired to do some computer programming for ASMP when he was a national director. There was nothing sinister going on then and there's nothing sinister going on now.

Scott Highton has also served ASMP as an outstanding volunteer in the past but his recent tirades, his tactic of character assassination based on half-truths and innuendo is despicable and reeks of sour grapes, and gravely harms ASMP.

As regards the process: ASMP bylaws provide for representative governance. You choose national and local chapter leadership to represent your interests. We, in turn, are given the opportunity to declare either Pro or Con on pending referenda. Not a single National Director, not one Chapter President (after consulting the chapter directors) has declared as Pro on Scott's proposal. Not even Scott's local chapter leadership supports his proposal. Doesn't that tell you something?

I'm going to cast my vote as follows: for national director I'm supporting Chris Hollo, Todd Joyce, Kate Baldwin, Jim Cavanaugh and Gail Mooney; on the referendum I'm voting No. I urge you to do the same.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Seeing Things

In a post to this blog entitled You Don't See When You're Not Looking I wrote, Pay attention! You never know what you'll see, but you won't see unless you're looking!! The point, and I hope it was obvious, is that there's a difference between looking and seeing. The former simply requires waking-up in the morning, the latter requires vision. I try to remind myself of this simple fact every time I pick-up a camera.

Seeing comes natural to some folks, I guess, but I had to learn to do it. I always thought that it's not the kind of thing one can teach, you have to acquire it, like acquiring a taste for whiskey. Knowing this, or thinking I know this, didn't stop me from trying to teach it anyway.

A couple of weeks ago, my almost-16 year-old asked me, Dad, do you have any cameras that use film? I could tell I was in real trouble almost right away. This was worse than hearing that 15 year-olds qualify for a learner's permit in Illinois, and confirmation of my deepest fear: my first-born child, the one I swore to myself I'd protect from everything evil and dangerous in this world, wants to learn photography. Aaaaaargh!!

I'd already given him a digital SLR, my old Canon EOS-350D, now he wanted something a bit more serious for his high school photography class. Luckily I had a perfect solution... a Canon EOS-A2 camera that I hadn't touched in a couple of years, I could satisfy his need for a good film camera without sacrificing my need to retain the ability to shoot film myself (I still have two EOS-1N cameras and an EOS-1 squirreled away). Having set him up for film was going to be the easy part, the hard part was yet to come.

I really don't want to encourage him to become a photographer for the same reason my father didn't want me to become a watchmaker... advances in electronics are sure to ruin the industry and make it difficult to earn a decent living. My dad knew that the advent of the quartz-crystal movement would kill-off fine mechanical watches (well, almost) and he thought my desire to join him in a business that was in decline was not a good idea. I'm glad he lived long enough to see that after an initial shake-out where people, myself included, largely purchased electronic watches, there would still be a demand for fine watchmaking. Perhaps naively, I look forward to the return of film-based photography, but I digress.

Back to the hard part: last Thursday my son asked me to take him out shooting with me on the weekend. Now..... when I go out to make pictures I have a specific objective and a well thought-out plan. I've typically scouted my location and schlep all my gear, including a few tripods. I plant myself in a predetermined spot and make a lot of exposures, and minor variations in perspective, and come away with one image with which I'm, hopefully, satisfied. Yes, I also do some street shooting which is quite a bit more open-ended; but even then I have an objective and a plan, however loose it may be.

Sunday was cold, mostly cloudy, not really a day to be out wandering the streets with a camera, but rise to the task I did. We got in the car with our cameras and I started driving. "Where are we going," he asked?

"Highland Park," I replied.

"Dad," he said, somewhat dejectedly, "there's nothing to shoot in Highland Park. Can't we go somewhere else?"

I was thinking of a glib rejoinder, something along the line of, Where do you want me to take you, Istanbul? Rather than cracking wise, I told him, "There's lot's to shoot in Highland Park, you just have to learn to see." Then I told him a story that Jay Maisel had told me about a conversation he'd had with one of his workshop students. According to Jay, the student tells him that she's dying to go to Provence (or Tuscany, I can't remember) to photograph because the light's beautiful in Provence. Jay's reply: You don't have to go all the way to France, the light's beautiful in Brooklyn!

Amen.

So we set out for Highland Park, loaded his camera with a 36 exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X Pan film and I, thankfully, was able to point out that there is indeed quite a bit to photograph in a sterile Chicago suburb. You simply have to look... and see.
--
All above: Canon EOS-5D, 28~105/3.5~4.5 Canon EF Ultrasonic lens, ISO 400

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Yet Another C-Number Portrait

Johnny Outlaw
27 Years as a C#
Radio Host on WBGZ AM 1570
Kennedy King College Outreach Center
Chicago
--
Above: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100