For Men Only

[Newt_on_Swings]

I don't know why there aren't more women in photography. Things like street photography seem much more accessible to women in many situations, where men are automatically labeled a creep or subjects who naturally go on the defensive and shy away or confront you. Also children, men can't point a camera at or near kids these days without being their immediate family.

 

[BrianShaw]

My wife is a wonderful photographer but she couldn't be bothered yackking about it with folks like us. She only yackks about gear when she wrecks another camera. (Purses are hostile environments for camera gear!) She just shoots and shares and haves a good time... with friends and family, not with strangers on the internet. (She thinks we who spend time on "chat rooms", as she calls these forums, are creepy losers who don't have a real life -- me included!)

 

[winger]

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).

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.

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.

 

[tkamiya]

I recently took an advanced film photography class at a local community college. This was in 2012. I'd say 70% of students in the class were females. They were all getting "dirty" in darkroom elbow deep in wash waters. There were two classes offered at this level. One of the instructor was a male, the other was a female.

 

[Sirius Glass]

About half the people actively working in the Photoworks dark room are women. All the people running it are women. http://www.glenechophotoworks.org/

 

[zsas]

Historically women have taken more pictures than men (see below quote), and I would hazard a guess that it still continues. I do know that at almost all the family parties I show up to that "Aunt Mildred" or "Aunt Bernice" tries to round us all up for a photograph and rarely is there "Uncle Bernie" or "Uncle Earl" with the camera...

Below per WSJ. An article about Kodak....

As a result of Kodak’s 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 Kodak’s 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.

http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2012/02/26/the-demise-of-kodak-five-reasons/

 

[removed account4]

i apprenticed with a woman portrait photographer who herself was trained in the 20s/30s ..
at the time that was not the norm but i think nowadays woman photographer outnumber the men
by at least 2x if not 3x...
gear conventions, websites *c that is just a guy thing, the women are doing everything else.

 

[Alan W]

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

 

[zsas]

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...

 

[removed account4]

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...

+ 1

 

[AndreasT]

In the darkroom where I was I survived about 60-70 students. Less than 15 were male. I think a lot of the men embrassed digital quicker being gear-heads. I do think it is that photographing film is well a bit more romantic. I also tend to agree that they tend to be rather artistic. I also found they got a bit how should I say nervous when it got technical but in general men and women were very eager to learn which was refreshing. Most have a sparkle in their eyes.
They are doing it because they want to and not because they have to. With digital it may sometimes be a bit different.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

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.

Agreed.

 

[henry finley]

Because all the women are at home cooking dinner and doing housework.

 

[shutterlight]

In my photo program, a strong majority of students are female and have been for many years now. As mentioned above, I think most women aren't gearheads and don't care all that much about or for equipment. Instead, making pictures is the person/student's primary focus. I've often been the only male in the room, surrounded by several female students. In my Portraiture class, I was one of just three male students, with the rest being female (about 13 women and three men).

I'm unaware of any female students that I know of that have mentioned forums like this one. I think part of their absence is due to not knowing about places like this, and also partly just from a lack of interest.

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.

This is total nonsense. Some of the best silver printers I know are women, and virtually all the good C-Printers I know are women. The first photo BFA show of this past semester at my school was entirely made up of women, and there was some terrific work in there.

 

[F/1.4]

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.

 

[shutterlight]

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.

You just take pictures with what you have .

Most of the best work I've seen has been done with equipment that was available many years ago.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Because all the women are at home cooking dinner and doing housework.

I really sincerely hope this was said with a heavy sense of irony and sarcasm.

If not, this is one reason why you don't see nearly as many women here as there ought to be - it's very much a guys club atmosphere, which is also the case with the camera swap meets and stores. If it were the 1960s, I'd expect to walk into a lot of camera stores to find swirling cigar smoke slightly obscuring the Playboy centerfold on the counter in the middle of a cluster of guys. I can remember when I was working at the camera store in the 1990s we had a customer come in and start showing some of his handiwork to the salesmen. Perhaps the best way to describe his photography would be to say it was gynecological, but without the scientific interest. The salesmen were nonchalant about it and a few of the older ones were positively interested. With that kind of behavior, it's not a surprise you don't see many women in the average camera store. Go to B&H, though, and there are not only plenty of women customers, but they even have a fair number of women salespeople.

 

[SuzanneR]

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.

 

[shutterlight]

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.

Quite so, and I'm fortunate to have benefitted from their real world presence.

 

[henry finley]

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.

 

[mooseontheloose]

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.

+1

I've been on APUG for some time now, and I joined specifically because I needed to know more about the technical side of things, especially in the darkroom. I also like to collect cameras, having more than 25 already, covering multiple formats. I don't think of this site (or any other photo site) as being an old boys club until threads like this get started, or when men start to bicker and fight online. As others have mentioned, I've taken part in many photo classes and workshops, and with the exception of one, they've all been mostly women participating (or teaching). What happens online is not a reflection of what happens in the real world.

Also, I think it's important not to let your "impressions" become facts. The gender ratio on APUG is not 95% male. I'm sure Sean could provide the real stats, but this (there was a url link here which no longer exists) has generally shown a 80/20 split over the years. That being said, I know that in the past there seemed to be more women participating in the forums, and it seems less now. And if you'll permit me a generalization -- a lot of women work, take care of the kids, their parents, housework, etc. (more than most men) -- if they do have time to pursue their hobbies, they're actually doing it and not sitting in front of a computer talking about it. I can because I am single and I don't have to worry about anyone other than myself, which gives me time to spend online and in other places.

 

[SuzanneR]

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.

Oh, that was a joke??? Very funny....

 

[Helinophoto]

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?

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.

 

[shutterlight]

Surprise: A lot of of men give up on learning more when faced with various aspects of photography.

Also, it is not "chickening out" to choose to use only natural light. I use only natural light for the vast majority of my images, and I choose to use it because it creates a look that I want for my photographs. Flash has its place, and more so than in the past, but it's still unusual for me to use it. I have friends who use flash a lot and it suits their work well.

Everything you said applies as much to men as it does to women. That you are unaware of your own condescension is both unsurprising and revealing.

 

[mooseontheloose]

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.

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.