More female photographers than male?

It seems like in my area anyways, that there are a lot more female photographers than male photographers. Is there

any statistics that someone can give me about national percentages of male vs female photographers?

 

If there are more female photographers, why is this so? Is it because women seem to be more creative? It seems

like every wedding I go to I see the guy in the relationship messing with the camera and showing the women how to

use it.

If you're trying to prove a point, you tend to count only the things that agree with your premise. That works for politics and clinical research* too.

 

* clinical research analyzes the results from medical records (and often hearsay). Medical records come from clinics, which is the only connection. This is why, for example, coffee is good for you one week and deadly the next.

ummm. I am not trying to prove a point. I am just asking a question.

<i>That works for politics and clinical research* too.</i>

<p>

Edward, not all science is rotten. Just like with all fields, there are people who are more insightful and honest than others. Most people in research (yes, including clinical research) do try to find out how things really work; history tends to be very ruthless to scientists who didn't get it right. I appreciate your contributions as an expert in photography - but please leave out the smug comments on fields you obviously know very little about.

in my experience with electronics

I saw only 3 female electrical engineers.

it was puzzling, especially when electrical engineers do not usually have to be 6 foot tall and 200 pounds.

 

it seemed to me that electrical enginnering and electonics design was well souted to women.

possibly, it was considered not of interest to women.

Most electical engineers were not ham radio operatore, techno geeks, which tends to be a guy thing.

 

I saw more computer types even hardware technicians who were women.

so maybe things were changing after 40 years.

 

i think it is a matter of perception by either men or women what is a suitable

profession. Not in their suitability to do a good job'

 

apparently more interest-related that ability-related.

as time passes things will change.

 

I believe it began during ww2 when women made ships, tanks, trucks and airplanes.

and ferried aircrft as far as the law would then allow.

Andrew,

 

For some strange reason I feel compelled to respond to your question. Just like many jobs that were predominately male

dominated, females are finding an interest in and working as photographers. I think you notice more females in the field of photography

because there are more. This, is in itself, is not particularly good or bad. It just is.

 

You take notice of female police officers, fire fighters and photographers just as you take notice of male nurses.

 

Lets face it. Photography is a trade. It can be learned with little or no formal education. It is not licensed, regulated or very

well policed (if at all) by its own organizations, of which membership is voluntary. Just like teacher unions, the photography

organizations are not there – like the AMA or the bar associations to help regulate their members.

 

Like any other profession (job) there are those who stand out from the crowd. The artists of their trade. Anyone can paint,

draw, sing, dance, or photograph. Only a few can do it well. Male or female, the best will be recognized as such and be

rewarded with fame and fortune.

 

Male, female or other – that is why you are part of this web site – to improve yourself and stand above the rest.

 

The few, the proud, the photographers! Well, at least the few outstanding ones.

 

Mark

>>> Edward, not all science is rotten. Just like with all fields, there are people who are more insightful and honest than

others. ...

 

I agree with Illka; and disagree with Edward. An observation was made. And then curiosity led to the OP wondering...

I wonder....is it that women actually get on and do it, while all the blokes are sitting in front of keyboards talking abotu doing it?

ha, could be.....

It just seems like with photography well into the digital age, you would see more males than females. I am not trying to be stereotypical. But seriously, us guys love electronics.

I have a feeling that there are probably more male photographers out there.

 

Most women go through a photography "phase" during which they take lots of pictures of themselves and their feet and then drop it.

 

Its kind of like cooking, which is considered effeminate, but there are most professional chefs are male.

Lance, what wonderful insight into the female mind. How did you know we all take pictures of our feet? My next phase...dropping photography - LOL<div></div>

oh my. That almost made me faint. take it away.

Lance, what wonderful insight into the female mind. How did you know we all take pictures of our feet? My next phase...dropping photography - LOL

 

Just my opinion.

In my younger days, there were few female photographers. They just didn't have the necessary mentality to understand f stops and shutter speed. Since then they appear to have evolved to a much higher level.

"In my younger days, there were few female photographers. They just didn't have the necessary mentality to understand f stops and shutter speed"

 

Just playing to be ignorant to provoke some female photographers here or are you just born obtuse? I wonder.

<i>"In my younger days, there were few female photographers. They just didn't have the necessary mentality to understand f stops and shutter speed" </i> <p>

 

Um, I think that was, like, humor? <p>

 

Can I sponsor a contest for foot photography by women?<p>

 

<i>clinical research analyzes the results from medical records (and often hearsay). Medical records come from clinics, which is the only connection. This is why, for example, coffee is good for you one week and deadly the next.</i><p>

 

Don't take that antibiotic for your infection--it could be deadly this week.

<i>Edward, not all science is rotten.</i>

<p>

True not all, but some science is rotten, and a considerable amount of it at that. Perhaps their intentions are good, but paperbound researchers tend to confuse correlation with causality, hence the ridiculous conclusions you see quoted by the news media every day. As a scientist, if you don't know the mechanism you know very little indeed.

<p>

My original statement was merely to illustrate that if you expect to see something, you generally will. If there are political implications, all the better.

<p>

As of noon today, is coffee beneficial or toxic? If you don't like the conclusion, check back in an hour.

It really depends on who's coffee it is now doesn't it? I've had coffee that was delightful and I could imagine it being a panacea for any number of aliments and I have had coffee that could strip paint from a wall or degrease a bearing.

 

I generally notice about an equal split when it comes to people using dSLRs. I generally notice most people using an SLR mostly out of curiousity for what they are using. Rare is it that I see another non-digital SLR user, but I do see them occasionally.

Geez Christine, that's like dropping roadkill on the carpet when we're sitting around discussing lenses or something. I could have done without that imagery..

 

Anyways, where were we...back to the question, male/female ratios...

 

Andrew, I have no idea of national statistics, but in our photo club (Ontario, Canada) it's about 60/40 female/male. There are only a couple of semi-professional female photographers, but a couple of professional male photographers as members, and we get a few male professional photographer speakers in throughout the year, which makes it SEEM like more male pros.

It might be useful to draw a professional and amateur distinction. I can contribute to neither, but an article in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15cameras.html" > NY Times (2007)</a> might shed some light on a contributor to women becoming more interested on photography.

'Perhaps their intentions are good, but paperbound researchers tend to confuse correlation with causality, hence

the ridiculous conclusions you see quoted by the news media every day.'

 

Actually, my conclusion is that 89.76% of this problem is due to crude distortions of the research by

ill-informed or sensationalist journalists. And I have the figures to back it up.

Mebbe it's my background in nursing and emergency health care. Or mebbe it's just my warped sense of humor. But I nearly choked laughing at Christine's photo. Sometimes the best cure for a dopey thread is a nice slap with a big wet trout.

 

But do tell, how'd you come by that slash, Christine? I'm hoping it's something exotic, like some perverse form of body modification. If you tell me you just stepped on a pop top and blew out your flip flop I'm gonna be disappointed.

 

BTW, Andrew? 33% of photographers are women. You won't be able to confirm that statistic because 75% of 'em know how to skew statistics.

In my office building of about 330 people, there are about 4 whom I see with an SLR, all are men.

 

Out on the road, sidewalk, and on the bay, I estimate 65% of SLR users are men. In watching NFL games, the sideline pro photogs are what? 90% male?

And this is important why? Personaly, I would much rather sit around and discuss all things photo with a lady

anytime.

Yeh, but if you count all cameras - P&S, cell phones, etc. - not just SLRs, in my casual observation I see a lot more women than men taking photos. Sure, they're mostly taking snapshots of their families and friends. But they're still photographers, tho' perhaps not according to photo.net's lofty standards.