For Men Only

[SuzanneR]

Using natural light is chickening out? What kind of light did that big chicken HCB use, or Winnogrand or Helen Levitt?


You all need to brush up on the history of the medium, here's a 416 page book that doesn't even cover it all, but it's a great reference.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Women...=8-1&keywords=History+of+women+in+photography

 

[MattKing]

And yet all but 2 or 3 comments on this thread are from men.David's original question hasn't been fully answered.

Could this have something to do with the title of the thread?

 

[shutterlight]

Using natural light is chickening out? What kind of light did that big chicken HCB use, or Winnogrand or Helen Levitt?


You all need to brush up on the history of the medium, here's a 416 page book that doesn't even cover it all, but it's a great reference.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Women...=8-1&keywords=History+of+women+in+photography

Better get word to Sally Mann as well. She'll be interested in hearing that she chickened out while creating the work for Immediate Family.

 

[Helinophoto]

Well, go ahead and call it what you want over there.

Over here we call it "debating the subject".

Use your grey matter, I'm talking about education.
What kind of photography school would NOT teach these subjects?

Arts and crafts, where everyone sits in a ring and do a sing-a-long?
Hardly a school that would teach you how to work as a photographer.

So, if "just as many men as women" give up, why are there more men working as photographers?
Explain that, without stepping over some political correctness border people try to apply to just about everything these days.

Last place in a race? You are the last winner.
Women and men are different? You are condescending towards women.
Most suicide bombers come from the middle east? You are a racist.

etc etc....no wonder there is war in this world.

 

[SuzanneR]

So, if "just as many men as women" give up, why are there more men working as photographers?
Explain that, without stepping over some political correctness border people try to apply to just about everything these days.

.

I'm not sure that's true... do you have a source for that statistic?

 

[shutterlight]

Well, go ahead and call it what you want over there.

Over here we call it "debating the subject".

Use your grey matter, I'm talking about education.
What kind of photography school would NOT teach these subjects?

Arts and crafts, where everyone sits in a ring and do a sing-a-long?
Hardly a school that would teach you how to work as a photographer.

So, if "just as many men as women" give up, why are there more men working as photographers?
Explain that, without stepping over some political correctness border people try to apply to just about everything these days.

Last place in a race? You are the last winner.
Women and men are different? You are condescending towards women.
Most suicide bombers come from the middle east? You are a racist.

etc etc....no wonder there is war in this world.

There's no class on lighting or just about anything you mentioned in my photo program. If there's a class that touches on it, it's probably View Camera. Most instruction we get is based on the work we do and various approaches and ways to understand photography.

When people mention "political correctness," what they're really saying is that they want to be sexist or otherwise socially inappropriate, but know that they cannot because they'll be called out for it.

 

[Helinophoto]

Men too. Because you cannot claim that ALL men who claim to be photographers are interested in the technical or theoretical aspects of photography either -- I'm sure the majority of amateur photographers out there, regardless of gender, focus on the "taking pictures" part (along with (online) sharing and possibly (digital) printing), but not any other aspect of the process.

You can, based on research, say that men have a larger interest in technical aspects, gadges, cars, football, whatever than women.

Political incorrect?

I care....

 

[shutterlight]

You can, based on research, say that men have a larger interest in technical aspects, gadges, cars, football, whatever than women.

Political incorrect?

I care....

You must care, because this is the third or fourth time you've used that term.

 

[Helinophoto]

There's no class on lighting or just about anything you mentioned in my photo program. If there's a class that touches on it, it's probably View Camera. Most instruction we get is based on the work we do and various approaches and ways to understand photography.

When people mention "political correctness," what they're really saying is that they want to be sexist or otherwise socially inappropriate, but know that they cannot because they'll be called out for it.

No, I'm putting it out there, because these days, you cannot voice your opinion without offending someone, I'm actually surprised no one has put fourth a lawsuit against me at this point.

Anyway, sounds like art school to me.

Every school I've researched that claim to have a real photography program, have covered light use, studio, ambience etc.
If the school is any good, is should also cover stuff like Business economy, branding, how to run as a business, creating contacts, contracts and legal aspects etc.

Being a working photographer is 20% shooting and 80% trying to survive as a business.

 

[Helinophoto]

I'm not sure that's true... do you have a source for that statistic?

It was a response to shutterlight, who claimed it to be so.

 

[shutterlight]

Sounds like art school to me.

Every school I've researched that claim to have a real photography program, have covered light use, studio, ambience etc.
If the school is any good, is should also cover stuff like Business economy, branding, how to run as a business, creating contacts, contracts and legal aspects etc.

Being a working photographer is 20% shooting and 80% trying to survive as a business.

I have no interest in going into the business side of photography, so I don't feel like that applies to me. I'll be glad to take a non-photo job to make ends meet. It seems to come as a great surprise to many people (read: men) that many art photo people don't really have much interest in doing commercial work. Certainly there are business aspects to making it in the art world as well, but experience is the best teacher there, along with fellow photographers that you get to know and learn from.

I definitely do attend an art school and I wouldn't have it any other way. The work I've seen around me in just the past year has been outstanding.

 

[MattKing]

Ah, statistics and percentages .....

I expect there are some useful conclusions to be gathered about the relationship between gender and participation in the world of photography - whether it is photographic businesses, art photography, participation in forums, or whatever.

But they would be statistical conclusions, not particularly applicable to any single photographer.

Over the years here on APUG some of the most welcome and interesting posts have come from women, including some who aren't necessarily easily "identified" as women unless they have chosen to be so identified.

Some still post, while others aren't here very often. Too bad, as far as I'm concerned.

And when it comes to having a thorough technical knowledge, there is no doubt in my mind that gender is in no way a predictor of that.

I wonder how Helen Bach (Helen B) is doing?

Nor is gender a predictor of the depth and breadth of those mixed technical/artistic skills that we as photographers tend to value.

I type this while looking at a very fine print I have from BWKate - I hope she is doing well?

Nor is gender a predictor of willingness to become involved with more difficult and tactile alternative processes - I wonder when I'll get to see more of sly's wonderful work in large format alternative processes?

 

[winger]

Well, you are hardly representing all women are you?

I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was pointing out that the interest in logical and technical aspects DID NOT have anything to do with intelligence, how on earth can that be condescending??

I know loads of young women, in all ages, that started/starts out "shooting" but gives up the whole thing when they need to learn how to use a flash and balance it to ambient light, using theoretical principles we all use, like shutter-speed, aperture, ISO and light metering.

They give up, or they shoot "only using natural light", which is chickening out in my book.
I've held courses for 40-50 year old professional female photographers who didn't even know how to use a flash, some bought one for the course, professionals.

Sure, there are lots of female professional photographers who know everything there is to know about photography, great!
I'm saying that a lot of women give it up when it's time to actually focus and learn the gadgets and theory.

Women working in photo-related jobs, like running studios, running a store etc are also not photographers, now are they, they are basically store clerks and managers who deals with totally different areas.

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.

I started out my post, as you might recall, with the info that the photo classes I've taken have had more women than men. None of these classes shied away from technical info either. In fact, the one instructor I had who didn't even get most of the technical info right and printed his example for the class on the back of a sheet of paper was a guy. And I don't know any female photographer on here who doesn't have a good grasp of the technical aspects. I also know more women than men working as photographers outside of APUG.

Maybe you're not trying to be condescending, but the sound of your posts very much fits the bill.

I'm deleting the rest of what I was going to post to save Suzanne the trouble. (Go Suzanne, btw)

 

[dpurdy]

I agree with those saying that women tend not to be so interested in these forums but here in my rather large photographic circle I would say at least half are women if not more than half. The curator of photography at the Portland Art Museum is a woman. I used to have a lot more custom lab clients than I have now. Now my last 2 main clients are women.
My question is why don't women drink single malt scotch and why do they have so many book clubs.
Dennis

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I started out my post, as you might recall, with the info that the photo classes I've taken have had more women than men. None of these classes shied away from technical info either. In fact, the one instructor I had who didn't even get most of the technical info right and printed his example for the class on the back of a sheet of paper was a guy. And I don't know any female photographer on here who doesn't have a good grasp of the technical aspects. I also know more women than men working as photographers outside of APUG.

How many of those students stayed involved in photography after graduating or leaving school? As I mentioned, exactly ONE of the women in my college photo classes stuck with it after graduating. ONE. Out of 14 or 15. Out of the 10 men in the program, 6 are still doing photography. Four of us are fulltime pros. So is the one woman.

Women are absolutely capable of mastering the technical aspects of it. My former classmate did, and she is a very creative artist whose work I love. I respect her as a person and an artist. There are several women here on APUG and on the Leica users group and Rangefinderforum (other places I talk photography online) who also create magnificent work and have mastered the technical stuff too. Still, based on what I have seen, I think most women do not have the desire to do so or the drive to succeed as professionals. If that upsets women, they alone have the power to change it. Shooting the messenger might make you feel good, but it changes nothing.

 

[shutterlight]

Still, based on what I have seen, I think most women do not have the desire to do so or the drive to succeed as professionals. If that upsets women, they alone have the power to change it.

I think you're just ignorant, and basing your judgments only on your personal experience. I don't mean "ignorant" in a pejorative sense, but just a matter of fact one.

Also, what is a "professional" to you? Someone who does commercial work? What about photographers who make bodies of work of their own design and don't do anything else? I know plenty of women doing just that.

Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.


Surely someone's told you that there's no such place?

 

[tkamiya]

Women are.... Men are....

Aren't we making pretty BIG generalizations? Most of what are being said in this thread do not apply to men and women in my immediate social circles - photographers and non-photographers.

Personally (and I am a male), I do not go to photography shows or shows of most kinds in other areas of interest. My local camera store actually has a female staff. Some of the topic on photo forums do not interest me where as some do. I have no idea why these things seems to be dominated by men. Oh, yeah, I LOVE equipment... (as I look through KEH for third time today...)

 

[johnielvis]

female staff at camera stores makes perfect sense--the customers are mostly dudes and pretty chicks can sell dudes a lot better than other dork dudes that will bicker about what is superior like the comic book guy....

hot chicks sell the high end cars (also a product that targets men) and houses too, boy! You should see how perfect these supersaleswomen look!!! in the bugatti dealership and the high end downtown real estate--always PERFECT and dressed to the nines...nicer than moviestars and smell intoxicating....they can $ell a dude for sure.

 

[sly]

Well, I knew with a header like that, the misogynists would be coming out of the wood work.

I appreciate APUG a lot for its scope, and the fact that it is not hip deep in sexism, as some other forums are. Thanks to all the outstanding men and women on this forum who have made it such a friendly and exciting place to visit. And a thank you and a hug to Matt King - see you later this year, I hope.

Women and men do live in different worlds, to some extent. World wide women carry the lions share of the work of caring for babies, children, the disabled and the elderly. More women live in poverty than men. More women are victims of domestic violence than men. Brains, ability, creativity, guts, tenacity are not exclusive to either gender, but the chance to use them for more than keeping yourself and your children alive is not always evenly distributed.

Chris - you comment on women not being serious enough for the tough work of photography. I don't know how long ago you studied, but I wonder if you have actually asked any of your previous female classmates why they are not working as professional photographers.

I studied photography decades ago. I dropped out because of the relentless sexual harassment of one teacher - the BIG NAME at the school. When I tried to report his actions I was told I should be flattered (!!) Obviously I wasn't tough enough for the manly profession of photography. I worked in a camera store (the owner was a woman) for awhile, then I had my first child, my second...... And my life became centred on parenting. My experiences as a mother led to new interests and passions, a return to study and a career. Photography was in eclipse for many years, because there just wasn't time for it. I returned to it as my kids got into their teen years. It has been a important stress breaker and creative outlet for me. Am I a professional? No. Am I serious about photography? Can't imagine life without it.

Again a big thanks to the majority here on APUG, for welcoming everyone, and being such a terrific source of information, support, humour and wisdom.

 

[mr rusty]

A thought occurs. On forums, not just this one, I wonder if there is any percentage of men who pretend to be women and women who pretend to be men - it's all virtually anonymous (OK I know a few people know each other personally). I have no idea, but could be an interesting statistic. It is unlikely to be zero - or is it? discuss!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

female staff at camera stores makes perfect sense--the customers are mostly dudes and pretty chicks can sell dudes a lot better than other dork dudes that will bicker about what is superior like the comic book guy....

hot chicks sell the high end cars (also a product that targets men) and houses too, boy! You should see how perfect these supersaleswomen look!!! in the bugatti dealership and the high end downtown real estate--always PERFECT and dressed to the nines...nicer than moviestars and smell intoxicating....they can $ell a dude for sure.

Well now that's about as sensible as a tutu on an elephant. What porn flick have you been watching where all the high-end saleswomen are pretty and young? I'll give you the impeccably dressed bit, but most of the salespeople I know who handle exotic cars or high-end real estate are older, be they men or women, and they exude professionalism, not sex.

There used to be one woman at my local camera store who was my favorite salesperson there. She has since left, but in talking to her, she explained that she encountered frequent sexism from male customers who would ask for and wait for a male salesman because they felt she couldn't know enough to wait on them. She was actually one of the most technically accomplished photographers in the store. She helped me once, and was so good with her answer and her advice that I kept coming back, and we became friends. And she certainly wasn't going to be using her sexual wiles to seduce customers into buying gear by flirting with them- she's a flannel-and-hiking-boots wearing, hasnt-used-lipstick-since-junior-prom, mullet-sporting lesbian. She had no interest in flirting with the customers, male or female, as she was also happily partnered. And as I already mentioned, a damn fine photographer.

 

[SuzanneR]

How many of those students stayed involved in photography after graduating or leaving school? As I mentioned, exactly ONE of the women in my college photo classes stuck with it after graduating. ONE. Out of 14 or 15. Out of the 10 men in the program, 6 are still doing photography. Four of us are fulltime pros. So is the one woman.

Women are absolutely capable of mastering the technical aspects of it. My former classmate did, and she is a very creative artist whose work I love. I respect her as a person and an artist. There are several women here on APUG and on the Leica users group and Rangefinderforum (other places I talk photography online) who also create magnificent work and have mastered the technical stuff too. Still, based on what I have seen, I think most women do not have the desire to do so or the drive to succeed as professionals. If that upsets women, they alone have the power to change it. Shooting the messenger might make you feel good, but it changes nothing.

I'm not interested in shooting the messenger, but I think the message is flawed. You're making some sweeping generalizations about women based on rather narrow anecdotal evidence, I'd say. So, I'll offer my own anecdotal evidence, and broad sweeping conclusion: I can't speak to my classmates from art school as I've lost touch with many of them, but if my experience as a photography editor at a national news magazine in the 90's is any guide, there were more men on staff, but an equal number of women working freelance. I hired, I'd say, about half the freelance assignments to women and about half to men. I expected professional and consistent results, and never found the women photographers I worked with to be less driven or ambitious than the men. And there are a lot of women photographers working today. Further, I think the reason more men had those coveted staff positions had a lot to do with the kind of institutional misogyny that pervades so many companies (and online forums) displayed here. I mean, look at this thread, we've had bad jokes, and people demeaning the type of photography that many women choose to do as being some kind of "chickening" out. These attitudes pervade almost every aspect in the field of photography.

In the years since I was working at a magazine, things have become harder for anyone (men and women) to make a living at photography. I don't think it's a lack of drive or discipline, but the economics of the marketplace being flooded with photographs, and I'm sure there are still many editors and curators whose dim (though misguided) views of women make it harder for women to succeed in this field. And of course, we all have our own personal choices to make regarding our responsibilities with our families... I'd think just as many men would give up the stress of the freelance life for a steady paycheck when he's responsible for a couple of kids... it's not an easy road for a photographer to support a family, and that's not just a problem for women.

and to the OP, I'd suggest he start going to photography shows as opposed to camera shows, then he'll see a lot of women who are actively engaged in the field of photography.

 

[himself]

Each camera show I have ever attended [...]

Why?

observer bias?

 

[Diapositivo]

My general experience and sensation is very much aligned with what Helinophoto says. That is naturally based on personal experience and general, broad sensations. It's all too natural none of us have any scientific studies regarding the difference between men and woman in approaching things.

I'm very sorry to see that a very normal and legitimate opinion is taken as a pretext for the old same accusation of sexism. We'll end up we will not be able to say we don't like Chinese restaurants to avoid being politically incorrect toward the Chinese

I think, and again it is my sensation and my generalization, that really men have a more algorithmic, logic and punctual attitude toward things in normal day life matters (that exclude professional matters, of course).

What David says is, I think, perfectly adherent to my experience because it involves a hobby, not-professional attitude toward photography. Male non-professional photographers tend to obsess with gear much more than females, and in general much more than necessary.

When one starts talking about professional activity, behaviour between men and woman tends toward uniformity*. And that implies that professional woman will care more than non-professional woman about the technical aspect, the gear etc. and professional men will tend to obsess less about gear than non-professional men. In business you have to know the gear and you don't have to obsess about it either. Business is where male mentality and woman mentality meet half way.

That said, I don't have any scientific evidence for this, I don't consider what I wrote above "sexist", and I don't care if anybody considers it "sexist", either.

* That applies to school courses as well, if and when there is a professional interest. If a photography course is chosen just because it's an easy way to get "points" and avoid more difficult subjects, then we have a different situation.

 

[Helinophoto]

<snip>
and people demeaning the type of photography that many women choose to do as being some kind of "chickening" out. These attitudes pervade almost every aspect in the field of photography.

You are totally missing the point I was making.
If you pass on something because it is hard, even if you are able to do it, it's chickening out (or even lazy).
It goes for both sexes, just for clarifying that. (this thread was concerning women, sorry if I don't have a disclaimer before every statement)
- I've NEVER once hinted that using natural light for photography is anything less than using flash-based light, where do you guys come up with these claims?

I use it all the time myself, jeez....

"Misogynistic", "demeaning to women", what the...

Whatever, I'm done with this thread, you're not even reading the text, you are reading between the lines (surprise, there isn't anything there).