I'll give some credit if English isn't the first language of the poster, but this sounds EXTREMELY condescending to me. Yeah, I do like technical stuff and I know women are not usually encouraged to do so and to enjoy science, but it has much more of a cultural basis than anything related to true intelligence or the ability to do any of these things.But in all seriousness, I think the reason why there are generally fewer women doing photography on a "hard core" basis, is that; While it is a typically creative and artistic profession, you need to master a certain amount of logic and technique.
Photography can be very technical, especially when you get past the "pretty flowers and dogs" stage, when you start mixing in ligh theory, chemical theory, zone system and (dare I say) technical gadgets, women are put off.
It's not that they are less intelligent, it's just that IMO, they want to focus on the art aspect, that may also be why pottery, painting and drawing, and sculpturing, is more popular as art directions.
As a result of Kodaks efforts [to market to the Kodak girl, who symbolized the modern, adventurous female], women went on to become the most lucrative market segment for photography. It was that loyal contingent of soccer moms that funded Kodaks inexorable rise: they took more pictures than everyone else, printed them, shared them at coffee mornings, saved them in albums and displayed them in the living room.
Allan, women are very much into photography, see my above proof, the diversity of Apug does not prove anything. How one spends his/her time on the Internet is little proof of the gender make up of photography. I don't remember David's question being medium specific...
Most female photographers I know are not gear-heads, and don't worry about different films, cameras, and lenses and such. Most of them are almost entirely focused on the pictures themselves, and simply just DO.
I admire that a lot and wish I could dial back my own approach to that level of 'matter of fact' photography.
Photography can be very technical, especially when you get past the "pretty flowers and dogs" stage, when you start mixing in ligh theory, chemical theory, zone system and (dare I say) technical gadgets, women are put off.
Most female photographers I know are not gear-heads, and don't worry about different films, cameras, and lenses and such. Most of them are almost entirely focused on the pictures themselves, and simply just DO.
I admire that a lot and wish I could dial back my own approach to that level of 'matter of fact' photography.
You have no idea how much I wish I could do that. Seriously, being a gearhead is an albatross around the neck most of the time.
Because all the women are at home cooking dinner and doing housework.
Because all the women are at home cooking dinner and doing housework.
Hmmm...I've just read through this (annoying) thread (including the above idiotic comment), and I marvel that all the guys here are scratching their heads wondering why more women don't participate in photography forums. Plenty of women participate in photography with depth and commitment, many skip the inane forums.
Hmmm...I've just read through this (annoying) thread (including the above idiotic comment), and I marvel that all the guys here are scratching their heads wondering why more women don't participate in photography forums. Plenty of women participate in photography with depth and commitment, many skip the inane forums.
Relax with the militant political correctness. It was just a joke. I pictured June Cleaver in a camera or ham operators store. Oh, I see you're from Massachusetts. Jeez.
In the darkroom classes I took at the Danforth Museum School in Framingham, MA in the late 90s/early '00s, the women outnumbered the men in every class (I think I took about 10-12 sessions). In a couple of sessions, the only male was the instructor. In some, there were no males. In a class I took at RISD (also darkroom), there was one guy and 4 women, taught by a woman.
I can't say I'm completely not into gear, but the end result of the photo is not as dependent on the nitty gritty details of the film/developer combo to me. I see a large number of posts on every photo forum discussing little tiny differences between images that the VAST majority of observers would never notice or care about. I sorta see these things as the "guy" things of photography (I'll admit, I could be wrong).
I'll give some credit if English isn't the first language of the poster, but this sounds EXTREMELY condescending to me. Yeah, I do like technical stuff and I know women are not usually encouraged to do so and to enjoy science, but it has much more of a cultural basis than anything related to true intelligence or the ability to do any of these things.
BS biology, MS forensic science, 14 years in a casework crime lab (7 in charge of the trace analysis unit) - I am a woman and I like science. I also scored perfect on the GRE logic section.
Well, you are hardly representing all women are you?
Women are (and please read this) IMO just as capable as men in the technical areas, but they have rarely that interest, their interest (my experience) lies in the creative aspect and they are put off by the logical and theoretical aspects of photography.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?