FIAP Distinctions – Changes in requirements

Comments

1. Lorraine Gilligan says

   June 24, 2012 at 9:55 pm

   As much as I am pleased to see the open publication of the FIAP guidelines which were published by them in March 2012, I am disappointed by the lack of clarity in relation to the requirement for National Distinctions. Particularly as an advanced worker who will have no opportunity to acheive National Distinctions before the FIAP distinctions deadline in 2013 and therefore am left , once again, with no idea whatsoever as to what is required of me in working toward these distinctions.
   I trust this is considered by the IPF and will be part of the update on National Disticntion requirements tot follow very soon indeed
   Regards
   Lorraine

2. stephen crozier says

   June 24, 2012 at 10:10 pm

   what is the council’s reasoning for the additional requirements
   all of the fiap salon entries etc and under the individuals control, yet the IPF comps, at least 2 of them are dependent or your image being chosen by your club first, seems a little like extra work for no gain
   As an IPF club chairman, should we be shown or given these kind of changes?,
   there is a fundemental issue with communication in general and this is another example. as the firt i heard of this was on facebook!!!!!!

3. msedgwick says

   June 25, 2012 at 8:34 am

   Hi Lorraine,
   Thanks for your comment. The IPF was trying to be as informative as possible by giving a heads up that there will be national requirements in the future. It is not intended that these will be onorous or difficult for our workers to achieve, and indeed any such requirements will be phased in over a reasonable period. We are mindful that people work on these distinctions over a long period of time ( indeed there are number of Council members actively pursuing their own distinction!) so please note that there will be no national requirements until 2014 at the earliest. I hope that helps.
   Best regards,
   Mark

4. msedgwick says

   June 25, 2012 at 8:54 am

   Hi Stephen,
   Thank you for your comment. It is the intention of Council to encourage further participation in IPF events through this requirement. We have worked very hard over the last number of years to promote participation at national level, thus improving the pool of images and workers we have to select from and indeed we must be doing something right as Ireland is now world champion in both Monochrome and Colour print , something that was unthinkable just a few short years ago.
   Please note that the change was first published on the IPF website as are all of our communications and that any Facebook comments were based on that publication. Might I suggest that you RSS the IPF website so that you get the latest information from us directly. We absolutely agree regarding the selection of images etc and will be taking this into consideration and indeed would welcome any feedback that you or others might have in this respect. As per the response to Lorraine’s comment below, it is not intended that these requirements will be in any way onorous or difficult to achieve and that any changes will be phased in.
   Regarding notifications please note that this will be circulated directly to Clubs shortly.
   Best regards,
   Mark

5. Brian Hopper says

   June 25, 2012 at 9:18 am

   What annoys most here is the inclusion of the phrase “a number of acceptances at IPF events” to be appended to the requirements for FIAP distinctions from 2014. You have to look at these “events” : the National Shield – as soon as you gain any award or international acceptances you’re out – this event does not cater for those on the FIAP distinctions path. The Rosebowl – how can anyone amass acceptances on a panel which represents a club (with the restrictions on individual entries) – this event does not really cater for those on the FIAP distinctions path. Then we have the Print & Projected Images – this is the ONLY event run by the IPF which caters for those on the FIAP distinctions path because it is an individual entry competition – unfortunately it is not run under the auspices of FIAP – a basic requirement. So, by now, we begin to get the picture – the inclusion of this requirement is ill thought-out and unworkable – plain and simple. So whether it’s inserted under rule 8.8 or any other rule it’s unfair to most and any “rule” not properly thought through should not be considered. It does indicate to all involved the way those who considered this phrase really think – it is a very negative step and one which should be scrapped.

6. stephen crozier says

   June 25, 2012 at 9:47 am

   thanks mark for the reply.
   and yes i could RSS feed the IPF site, BUT
   i feel this is fundementally wrong that i need to. the IPF is to serve its member clubs and club members surely. should we not have direct and 2 way communication between these member clubs and the IPF
   wouldnt it make sense that the member clubs are informed of changes like the above, before they appear on the ipf website, so club committees can ready themselves for any questions etc from members. I just feel this kind of communication is fundmental to an voulantary organisation like the IPF growing and prospering
   as the chairman of one of the member clubs it just feels wrong that we dont get informed before things are public etc. maybe a club newsletter would work. We do it weekly within our club from a joomla template with nice graphics links etc.
   its not time consuming, or anything. I just feel it would help member clubs feel included, rather than the select few knowing in advance and then everyone else later!!!!

7. Shay Farrelly says

   June 25, 2012 at 11:20 am

   Hi Mark,
   Thank you for the information, but I am somewhat disappointed with FIAP introducnig new rules half way through the year. I narrowly missed out on having enough acceptances for the next level in February. Given the substantial increase in requirements (67%) I will not now bother entering any more salons. It is expensive enough to enter, particularly in these times, and had I known about this at the start of the year I would have saved myself a considerable amount of money this year. It is becoming elitist.
   Regards: Shay

8. Ciaran Whyte says

   June 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm

   I’m both bewildered and bemused.
   There are literally a handful of photographers in Ireland actively chasing FIAP distinctions. Surely the focus of the IPF should be to promote this process, not hinder it even further?
   It is also bewildering that given the new updated and far more onerous requirements from FIAP, the IPF chooses to add to these at this time?
   It’s quite astonishing that the first apparent change of the FIAP process in Ireland for a number of years, is the introduction of new hurdles, regardless of how onerous (or not) that they believe these unknown mystery requirements will be.
   I can see no logic for these new hurdles? Sadly, Council don’t see it fit to publish minutes, so I’m sure the reason for them will most likely never be made clear? I would have thought, at the very least, photographers would have been consulted for opinion and input rather than steam rolling a change through?
   The only thing that seems to have been done sensibly is introducing these changes quite a bit down the road. Assuming the new rules are made available in the short term (weeks.. Not months or years), it gives people the opportunity to work towards these mystery requirements.

9. Lorraine Gilligan says

   June 27, 2012 at 2:19 pm

   Thanks for the reply Mark,
   I would feel confident that the decision is not intended to cause ire or speculation, and is intended to improve submissions in National Events by making it a pre-requisite to Submitting for FIAP Distinctions seems to be counter productive. This seems counter productive. If the FIAP distinctions process is attractive and working for club photographers and National IPF events are not, surely the best way to address this is to identify what attracts photographers to these FIAP distinctions and salons and see if there is a way to change the National Competitions to be more attractive. (Perhaps make the National Print and projected competitions into a salon of sorts / or exhibit the works , or poduce a catalogue). My point being use a carrot / not a stick !
   I appreciate your assurance the new requirements will not be onourous , but any additional and as yet unepseicified requirements should be carefully thought through before implementing changes in 2014.
   regards
   Lorraine .