Posted by Gary Crabbe on January 29, 2007 at 5:12 AM
For anyone that might be interested; this was my first year joining NANPA (North American Nature Photographers Assoc.) and attending one of their summit conferences. I've posted a bit of a review of this year's conference on my weblog. I'd be interested to get feedback from any former and current members, and most especially from anyone else who is either a pro or aspiring pro that has considered joining. I still feel very much like the outsider looking in. But I'll also be happy to answer any questions related to my experience as well.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 29, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Gary, thanks for the link to the review!
Though I have never attended a "summit" - and probably never will - your comments seem to echo the others that I have heard before; the short break-out sessions are nice and it's a good opportunity to network with others, but's it's really nothing more than just a large social event. I have also come to the conclusion that from an administrative standpoint, NANPA struggles with getting much accomplished due to a very wide (and sometimes conflicting) variety of priorities and personal agendas by those who serve in leadership roles. This is not intended to be an indictment, but rather an observation of the typical problems such organizations struggle with.
Personally, I believe that the education you refer to will come from other sources, in a more timely, efficient and comprehensive manner. For example, I think this is a great but under-used resource.
Posted by Jess Lee on January 29, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Gary,
I think that is an excellent summation. It was good to meet you there and have someone else help with the evolution of NANPA. The change has been slow during the past 5 years I have been a member but I think the momentum is growing.
The way I see it we can try to make at least part of organization meet our needs and or form a orginization that does.
Posted by Richard Wong on January 29, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Thanks for the post Gary. I doubt I'll ever join NANPA, but if the disposable income allows for it I may consider going to a confernece somewhere down the road. the ASPP or ASMP seem more beneficial to join in my opinion.
What's worse, wine in a plastic cup or asking for english muffins four times and not getting it?
I was an early member of NANPA, but was never able to attend the summits. I also had the opportunity to work with their staff a couple of times along the way. From those standpoints along with lengthy membership in other pro photo organizations, I have to say that the latest summit was the first to really tempt me to invest the big bucks to attend.
I'm glad to hear that some of the elements went so well, and especially that there's motivation and enthusiasm for continuing change. From the "outside looking in" perspective, it seems they continue a growing and evolving process, with membership slowly but surely changing NANPA in the ways it needs to be changed. It may not be "there" yet for pros, but it sure looks like it's headed in the right direction.
Two things need to happen I think, based upon my experience in the other orgs. First, the members need to continue to help it evolve while staff and leadership need to encourage and accomodate the process. Second, it's gotta have the money to do it.
In the latter case I'm not talking about the summit fees, rather I mean sufficient membership income to cover and expand the operations in between the summits. It's kind of a double edged sword, wherein they either need more paying members or they need to charge more for membership. In truth it will likely be a bit of both, but there's a tradeoff between charging more, not discouraging recruitment, and fostering the feeling that members are getting good return on their investment. If there was an increase in membership fess without an immediate and tangible increase in benefits and services, membership would fall faster than the ratings of an unpopular politician. NANPA is still young and growing, and needs to continue maturing.
I'm basing that on our experience with more mature photo orgs. WPPI charges a similar membership fee, but is able to provide lots of services because it has grown large enough to generate lots of money. It's services outside the substantial annual conference aren't all that diverse, but they sure make up for it once a year at their conference. In comparison, PPA is an order of magnitude better in terms of its educational, political activities and services to pro photographers, but their annual membership fee is more than three times as much ($300) and membership is HUGE. The extra cost seems to be well directed to all those activities that occur between annual conferences- the educational, political and professional services- that everyone craves for both NANPA and for WPPI. Kind of a case of put up or shut up for both NANPA and WPPI members, but it will only work if the extra income really does result in lots more benefits. On the education side alone, PPA holds pro workshops and short course all over the country, all year long, plus they have an actual campus for long term classes. They have a formal degree program with degree credits awarded for participation in workshops and classes, but earning one of their highly-desireable degrees also requires earning credits for teaching workshops and classes. BTW- I bet more than half of their classes are business and marketing classes rather than "this is a camera and this is a lens" classes.
Boiling down the differences (and thankfully ending my ramble), from a pro's perspective NANPA is "handicapped" for pro services compared to WPPI and especially PPA because it is not aimed specifically at pros. The bulk of their membership and income is not pro, and the organization has to work for them, too. I'd almost bet that based on the number of actual pros paying NANPA membership fees compared to the number or non-pros, the pros are putting a bigger demand on NANPA staff time and money. NANPA needs the pros as an inducement for lots of non-pros to join, but at the same time they can't go off an leave the needs of non-pro membership in order to make the pros happier.
Is that a helpful analysis?
Posted by Jim Goldstein on January 29, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Great read Gary. I have a friend who is pushing me to join and I've been considering it. I'll have to weigh the pros and cons of each organization a little more carefully this year. Your blog entry gives me some thoughts to ponder as I evaluate my short list of organizations.
I never really thought of NANPA as a social club but more as a name-dropping, shoulder-rubbing club that's squarely aimed at promoting the business of nature photography. It's interesting that you had the exact opposite reaction (vocal advocacy for conservation? really?).
I have no issue with professional photographers needing a lobby. What I have said for a while now is that they don't really do anything to promote my personal interests:
1) Their weak record on conservation and staunch resistance to political lobbying (really the only way to influence major change) is dismal compared to "real" conservation organizations.
2) Their mission claims to represent the "art and science of nature photography". Where exactly is the art part?
I see 48 people holding official titles, committees dedicated to bureaucracy, etc. and still the mission statements is missed. Why would I want to help fund the overhead?
Jess said we can "make at least part of organization meet our needs and or form a organization that does". I think there's a 3rd option here: there already are other organizations that do their own thing well. My conservation dollar goes a lot farther with organizations like UEC or SUWA. My art dollar goes much farther with local grassroots art organizations like Artists of Utah etc.
Why would I give either dollar to NANPA where it will not promote my personal goals and may pay for an expensive party instead?
Guy
Posted by Garth McElroy on January 29, 2007 at 7:24 PM
I used to be a NANPA member but have since let my membership lapse. Aside from the insurance I wasn't getting much of anything for being a member. I totally agree with Guy's first paragraph. What really got me was when they had a photo contest but it cost a certain amount of money to submit images! And this was for members only! Guess my $90 membership fee wasn't enough!
I think Guy brings up a interesting perception of NANPA. They are not a world class conservation organization. Even though there is a environment committee of sincere people I don't feel it is or should be a central issue. They do lend support to many organization that do have the environment as there main concern.
What I do see is NANPA becoming an advocate for NATURE photographers. This is one of the places I would like to see major improvement.
The steps are coming slowly but I will say I have been involved in a couple of things that are opening the door to more progress in NANPA.
Most recent was the controlled burns that have been taking place in the Tetons during the fall color season. I put together a letter of protest asking the agencies involved to wait until after the 10th of October to begin their controlled burns as much as possible.
The board of directors approved the letter and it was sent to the Chief Ranger of Grand Teton Park. The short of the reply was that they would now recognize the impact on nature photographers before they did there planning in the future.
It is a small thing but it does represent that the NPS will listen and NANPA is becoming a photographer advocate.
If anyone else runs across such issues we on the resource relations committee would love to hear about it, member or not.
BTW all of the committees and 90% of the listed titles are volunteer positions with no pay.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 29, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Excellent review Gary, you summed up my thoughts well.
I have only used NAPA for the insurance, this was my first conference. I agree, the business coverage wasn’t too strong, but then again there are excellent business photography organizations. Likewise, the conservation message isn’t strong, but I must say many of the presenters, and even some of the break out sessions focused heavily on conservation issues, with a nature photography emphasis. Again, there are other organizations that are much better at conservation. It is hard to be all things to all people.
I was impressed by the large number of photo editors who attended. The likes of NG, Nature’s Best, OP, Birding World, Texas Highways along with others; even a few book publishers were represented. For the most part these folks were very approachable. I was able to drink a (expensive) beer with some of the same editors who normally hardly have time to return an email. There were also about a half dozen nature related stock agencies in attendance – another bonus for me anyway.
I found many of the presentations inspiring. Of course the likes of Frans Lanting were outstanding, but so were many of the little known member showcases.
I thought the trade show was valuable as well. It was nice to be able to talk directly to the principals of Really Right Stuff, Digital Railroad and a long list of other vendors.
For me I must admit the social aspect was probably the most enjoyable. I almost always shoot alone, and living in a small town in Alaska, I rarely meet fellow shooters. I really enjoyed meeting and spending time with the likes of Gary, Jess and literally hundred of other like minded photographers. I will definitely be returning.
Discussion
9 repliesThough I have never attended a "summit" - and probably never will - your comments seem to echo the others that I have heard before; the short break-out sessions are nice and it's a good opportunity to network with others, but's it's really nothing more than just a large social event. I have also come to the conclusion that from an administrative standpoint, NANPA struggles with getting much accomplished due to a very wide (and sometimes conflicting) variety of priorities and personal agendas by those who serve in leadership roles. This is not intended to be an indictment, but rather an observation of the typical problems such organizations struggle with.
Personally, I believe that the education you refer to will come from other sources, in a more timely, efficient and comprehensive manner. For example, I think this is a great but under-used resource.
I think that is an excellent summation. It was good to meet you there and have someone else help with the evolution of NANPA. The change has been slow during the past 5 years I have been a member but I think the momentum is growing.
The way I see it we can try to make at least part of organization meet our needs and or form a orginization that does.
What's worse, wine in a plastic cup or asking for english muffins four times and not getting it?
I'm glad to hear that some of the elements went so well, and especially that there's motivation and enthusiasm for continuing change. From the "outside looking in" perspective, it seems they continue a growing and evolving process, with membership slowly but surely changing NANPA in the ways it needs to be changed. It may not be "there" yet for pros, but it sure looks like it's headed in the right direction.
Two things need to happen I think, based upon my experience in the other orgs. First, the members need to continue to help it evolve while staff and leadership need to encourage and accomodate the process. Second, it's gotta have the money to do it.
In the latter case I'm not talking about the summit fees, rather I mean sufficient membership income to cover and expand the operations in between the summits. It's kind of a double edged sword, wherein they either need more paying members or they need to charge more for membership. In truth it will likely be a bit of both, but there's a tradeoff between charging more, not discouraging recruitment, and fostering the feeling that members are getting good return on their investment. If there was an increase in membership fess without an immediate and tangible increase in benefits and services, membership would fall faster than the ratings of an unpopular politician. NANPA is still young and growing, and needs to continue maturing.
I'm basing that on our experience with more mature photo orgs. WPPI charges a similar membership fee, but is able to provide lots of services because it has grown large enough to generate lots of money. It's services outside the substantial annual conference aren't all that diverse, but they sure make up for it once a year at their conference. In comparison, PPA is an order of magnitude better in terms of its educational, political activities and services to pro photographers, but their annual membership fee is more than three times as much ($300) and membership is HUGE. The extra cost seems to be well directed to all those activities that occur between annual conferences- the educational, political and professional services- that everyone craves for both NANPA and for WPPI. Kind of a case of put up or shut up for both NANPA and WPPI members, but it will only work if the extra income really does result in lots more benefits. On the education side alone, PPA holds pro workshops and short course all over the country, all year long, plus they have an actual campus for long term classes. They have a formal degree program with degree credits awarded for participation in workshops and classes, but earning one of their highly-desireable degrees also requires earning credits for teaching workshops and classes. BTW- I bet more than half of their classes are business and marketing classes rather than "this is a camera and this is a lens" classes.
Boiling down the differences (and thankfully ending my ramble), from a pro's perspective NANPA is "handicapped" for pro services compared to WPPI and especially PPA because it is not aimed specifically at pros. The bulk of their membership and income is not pro, and the organization has to work for them, too. I'd almost bet that based on the number of actual pros paying NANPA membership fees compared to the number or non-pros, the pros are putting a bigger demand on NANPA staff time and money. NANPA needs the pros as an inducement for lots of non-pros to join, but at the same time they can't go off an leave the needs of non-pro membership in order to make the pros happier.
Is that a helpful analysis?
Thanks
I have no issue with professional photographers needing a lobby. What I have said for a while now is that they don't really do anything to promote my personal interests:
1) Their weak record on conservation and staunch resistance to political lobbying (really the only way to influence major change) is dismal compared to "real" conservation organizations.
2) Their mission claims to represent the "art and science of nature photography". Where exactly is the art part?
I see 48 people holding official titles, committees dedicated to bureaucracy, etc. and still the mission statements is missed. Why would I want to help fund the overhead?
Jess said we can "make at least part of organization meet our needs and or form a organization that does". I think there's a 3rd option here: there already are other organizations that do their own thing well. My conservation dollar goes a lot farther with organizations like UEC or SUWA. My art dollar goes much farther with local grassroots art organizations like Artists of Utah etc.
Why would I give either dollar to NANPA where it will not promote my personal goals and may pay for an expensive party instead?
Guy
What I do see is NANPA becoming an advocate for NATURE photographers. This is one of the places I would like to see major improvement.
The steps are coming slowly but I will say I have been involved in a couple of things that are opening the door to more progress in NANPA.
Most recent was the controlled burns that have been taking place in the Tetons during the fall color season. I put together a letter of protest asking the agencies involved to wait until after the 10th of October to begin their controlled burns as much as possible.
The board of directors approved the letter and it was sent to the Chief Ranger of Grand Teton Park. The short of the reply was that they would now recognize the impact on nature photographers before they did there planning in the future.
It is a small thing but it does represent that the NPS will listen and NANPA is becoming a photographer advocate.
If anyone else runs across such issues we on the resource relations committee would love to hear about it, member or not.
BTW all of the committees and 90% of the listed titles are volunteer positions with no pay.
I have only used NAPA for the insurance, this was my first conference. I agree, the business coverage wasn’t too strong, but then again there are excellent business photography organizations. Likewise, the conservation message isn’t strong, but I must say many of the presenters, and even some of the break out sessions focused heavily on conservation issues, with a nature photography emphasis. Again, there are other organizations that are much better at conservation. It is hard to be all things to all people.
I was impressed by the large number of photo editors who attended. The likes of NG, Nature’s Best, OP, Birding World, Texas Highways along with others; even a few book publishers were represented. For the most part these folks were very approachable. I was able to drink a (expensive) beer with some of the same editors who normally hardly have time to return an email. There were also about a half dozen nature related stock agencies in attendance – another bonus for me anyway.
I found many of the presentations inspiring. Of course the likes of Frans Lanting were outstanding, but so were many of the little known member showcases.
I thought the trade show was valuable as well. It was nice to be able to talk directly to the principals of Really Right Stuff, Digital Railroad and a long list of other vendors.
For me I must admit the social aspect was probably the most enjoyable. I almost always shoot alone, and living in a small town in Alaska, I rarely meet fellow shooters. I really enjoyed meeting and spending time with the likes of Gary, Jess and literally hundred of other like minded photographers. I will definitely be returning.