Women in Photography

<p>I will try not to make this sound Chauvinistic. Actually I am pretty much retired after 35 years of Newspaper work along with 28 years of Wedding Photography. Most, probably 445 out of my 450+ weddings, were done on Film. During this time, out of say, any 10 Photographers I saw, only one was a woman, if that. Now a days it seems like it is almost all women. Of course I have since left Orlando and moved to a small country town. It seems the big influx did not start to show up until the advent of Digital Photography. Otherwise I think it might still be a male dominated business. Was wondering how it has gone with the current Wedding Environment? The Brides usually do a majority of the hiring when choosing a Wedding Photog, so have the males of the industry noticed a marked drop in their business since more and more Women have showed up? Women tend to hire women is what I have noticed more and more. Since I retired from Weddings, I've settled into shooting Little League and enjoying the little ones. Just wondering how other Photogs see it now adays in the Business world?</p>

<p>It seems like if there are more women, women will tend to get hired. I still think who is hired is more based on talent and personality, but there are more choices now. I am only 5 years in, so I'll be curious to see what people who have been around longer say..</p>

<p>I think it's wonderful to have women artists using photography to capture the world as they see it. I always have at least one lady with me at weddings and I enjoy, admire, amazed at how beautiful the photographs they make as it shows how they see the world. I think we compliment each other. I divide up what each of us will cover at a wedding and what we will work on together. I find the ladies getting ready photographs are so much better with a woman photographing them. They see many little nuisances happening at a wedding and I love what they do. They add a lot to my business.</p>

<p>Kudos to all you lady photographers! </p>

<p>cross-posting would be frowned upon David. Maybe talk to the moderators and let them know which of your posts (here or Business Forum) you want to keep.</p>

<p>Bill - what lovely words. I agree that each gender compliments the other.</p>

<p>As far as weddings go, I think it's inevitable (and understandable) that a Bride will prefer a female photographer to capture the more intimate moments of her preparations. I've noticed that a lot of male-owned photography businesses have introduced female co-workers for this reason. The same could be said of female physicians - there weren't many of those twenty years ago either. It is not simply the case that 'women hire women', as the OP has suggested. There are other occasions and many reasons why I (or a client) might sometimes prefer to work with a man. I hope this allays the OP's fears that we're putting you 'guys' out of business.</p>

<p>There is also greater financial pressure on us than ever before - households now generally need two full time workers in order to make ends meet. In that sense it's necessity which causes us to encroach upon what has previously been regarded as male territory. Photography happens to be a good outlet for many female talents, as Bill has said.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Lindsay!</p>

<p>Took a peek at your web site....lovely photographs on your slide show.</p>

<p>Just a thought to help, would it be a good idea to tell where you are located on your main page? I see from your tele # you are located? Don't think U.S.A.!</p>

<p>The lady that works with me has been doing weddings for 30 plus years! Together we bring over 50 years of experience! Do our photographs look old? We're both in our sixties and still love weddings but not as many as years ago! We've both discussed the future and we're going to work this, albeit slower, for another ten years!</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments. Smiles & Fun!</p>

<p>Hi Bill,<br>

Her initial home page (before you choose Flash of HTML) does say where she is based, Sussex, Surrey, Kent and Hampshire are all Counties in Southern England. Her target audience would have a pretty good idea I would guess. It's also stated in other bits of the site.<br>

It is a lovely website. The brides in the gallery all seem to have been touched by the beauty gene! I know it's sneaky to ask, but did you work on skin smoothing as part of your post prodcution? Do you do this level of finishing for all proofs, or just final album prints?</p>

<p>Photography is a rewarding and great profession for women.<br>

However, in nude photography, seems that the men have "more passion" doing this. :)</p>

<p>Duncan,</p>

<p>Thanks for pointing that out! I didn't notice it. Would other prospects click to flash or html and not notice? Just a thought.</p>

<p>Have a nice weekend!</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, in nude photography, seems that the men have "more passion" doing this. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dunno about that. I prefer to be clothed when I take pictures. :-)</p>

<p>In respect of the original post, I work as a male/female duo and can vouch that there's a lot of benefit. Women can be very instinctive and produce emotionally textured images that have a real subtlety to them. They can also go some places that men can't (obviously vice versa, too), and can have a different dynamic with people.</p>

<p>And if I think about my favourite wedding photographers -- people whose sites I've bookmarked because I love their work -- by far the largest part of them are women. I've got a critical eye and don't impress easily. But it seems I have a strong, if unconscious, preference for certain types of work. I'm not surprised if that's reflected in the trends of the wider market.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As far as weddings go, I think it's inevitable (and understandable) that a Bride will prefer a female photographer to capture the more intimate moments of her preparations. I've noticed that a lot of male-owned photography businesses have introduced female co-workers for this reason. The same could be said of female physicians - there weren't many of those twenty years ago either. It is not simply the case that 'women hire women', as the OP has suggested. There are other occasions and many reasons why I (or a client) might sometimes prefer to work with a man. I hope this allays the OP's fears that we're putting you 'guys' out of business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No fears Lindsey, as I said I am pretty much retired. Just query those still having to work ;-)<br>

I do remember seeing husband/wife teams of varying degrees back when I was working and agree that a woman would have better access during certain parts of the wedding days. Portrait Photography, especially Kids seems to be another area where they are making very strong gains. Part-timers in particular. Being they have their own children and can use them as models, it is easy via sites like Facebook, to show off their talents to other women. Since women do a majority of the hiring, I still tend to think they will look at more women to consider, than men, unless the man gets good referrals from others. I have no qualms about them being in the business, as they do bring a different point of view. It would have been nice if my wife (girlfriend at the time) would have been interested in joining me for some of my gigs, but she was not.</p>

 

<p>I've been thinking about this too, and I'd say my favourite photographers are 50/50 male and female, with an age spread from about 35 to lates sixties.</p>

<p>Thank you Bill and Duncan for the kind words. I hope I'm not intruding on David's post by answering, but the brides are indeed beautiful, some of the shots are editorial so the girls are well-known professional models. There's no direct skin smoothing on any of them, although the lady looking out of the wood-store has a general diffuse glow applied to the whole picture. I don't have time to do too much work on individual pictures (I batch with my own finishing actions) - I find that if the lighting is right (soft, diffuse 'beauty light') then that in itself gives the skin a flawless and creamy appearance. If I remember correctly, they were all shot with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L . I've never been big on sharpening.</p>

<p>Duncan - all proof images are fully finished - the extra effort really does get you more sales. I've just finished a set from a portrait shoot - 100 proofs. 98 going into a panoramic Jorgensen book.</p>

 

<p>David, there are certainly some talented female child photographers around, and I'd agree that they out-number the guys. Perhaps parents feel that their children will be more relaxed when in front of a lady photographer. All that said, most of the commercial/advertising photographers I know are male, and they're extremely good. If you look at the different genres across the industry, there are probably more men overall. I was at a large wedding and portrait convention earlier this year and I think almost half were female. The year before, I'd guess around 30% were ladies.</p>

<p>Both men and women are generally comfortable with women photographers. But not many women are comfortable with men photographers. This probably explains why people prefer women photographers.<br>

<br />Also, in many cases the photographer is the lower-earning member in a family. Since on average there are more cases where the husband has a higher paying job than the wife having it, chances are higher that the under-earning wife would opt for part time photography as an extra supplementary income (as opposed to an under-earning husband doing it).</p>

<p>I learned with film. I think it has instilled a sense of perfectionism in me that would have been harder to adhere to had I learned on digital.<br>

If anything, I think Wedding Photography has opened up to be more artistic, and I think that appeals to more people in general. I think there are just more varied types of people who want to get into Wedding Photography with the advent of digital, so it may just seem like there's an influx of Women specifically.</p>

<p>Perhaps this opinion could be attributed to the nature of men and women in general. Please don't take this to offense, ladies, as if you have read any proven data on gender differences, you'll see more than stereotypes.<br>

For the very same reasons that women are better at using visual landmarks for directions while men are better at using cardinal directions and distance, women are finding photography more appealing with the shift to digital.<br>

While the best photographers, regardless of gender, do not rely on automation alone, the ease of digital photography has taken the diligence and technical precision required to master the art away. No longer must we spend hours in a chemical darkroom, but instead place our files onto our desktop without total fear of not getting it right the first time. Instead of actually learning guide number charts and using distance calculations, we can place a flash on auto and let it meter for us. <br>

The female brain just isn't always wired to think about the hassles that usually accompany film. Male brains are prone to this technical diligence. <br>

Another example of this is how many men seek the most complex and up-to-date photographic gear they can to achieve technical superiority, while women are usually content with their kit lenses on an entry-level body.</p>

<p>Now, I'm not criticising the skill or artistic nature of either gender. I'm simply making observations as to how each of us operate. Annie Leibowitz is a wonderful photographer, as was Ansel. </p>

<p>Take from that what you will.</p>

<p>Ryan - total nonsense.</p>

<p>I'm amazed that thinking still pervades. I can point you at women who are combat fighter pilots and men who can't figure out how to tune their TV set. Seriously, let's get a bit more enlightened, please.</p>

<p>At best, you could perhaps say there are people who mistake the process for the goal, and sometimes they are men. But it's nothing to be proud of, and (as a man) I certainly don't count myself among them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The female brain just isn't always wired to think about the hassles that usually accompany film. Male brains are prone to this technical diligence.</p>

<p>I'm amazed that thinking still pervades.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Neil. As am I. A gross generalization to say the least.</p>

 

With the male female split it's also interesting that a smaller proportion of women get into using off camera lighting in a big way - on strobist.com for example the readership is reckoned to be 94% male.

<p>Ryan - total nonsense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm amazed that thinking still pervades. I can point you at women who are combat fighter pilots and men who can't figure out how to tune their TV set. Seriously, let's get a bit more enlightened, please.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A combat pilot has been Professionally trained to fly and to do a specific job by the Military. Far different than someone who picks up a DSLR and then calls themselves a Pro Photographer.<br>

Some of what Ryan states I can see when talking to some of the Female photogs I have met. Their way of analyzing their photos is pretty much by looking at the LCD. Apertures and F Stops have little to no meaning to them. Of course this is not all of them, but alot of these Part-timers fall into this way of thinking. Still it is fun to help educate them some as a few of them have quite a good eye for a photo, but then some rush right out and buy the biggest megapixel camera they can afford and then stick it in Auto mode. Of course I am sure there are some males doing the same thing. I think anyone, Male or Female, that were lucky enough to learn Photography with Film first, will do much better when learning Digital than someone who starts out with just Digital.</p>

<p>Let's be careful, folks. Generalizations are generalizations because there are usually some kernels of truth to each of them. I am female, and I can see Ryan's viewpoint. When I've trained new wedding photographers, most of the young males were really into the technical side and most of the young females weren't. When I was learning photography, I had to fight to learn the technical side, but I did. But there is that word, 'most'. Not all. Specific individuals will vary from 'most'. I guess I am an example, since I am into off camera lighting in a big way. What does that say about women in wedding photography? Not a lot, except that one can generalize but then, must leave room for individual characteristics.</p>

<p>Selection for flight training depends on a complex set of aptitude test. You only get in if you've got the skills and the personality before hand. Training isn't what makes some people suited to it, since its purpose is to develop the innate characteristics that exist already.</p>

<p>If there were some fundamental relationship between gender and aptitude for technology there would be no female pilots, physicists, doctors, engineers or scientists. And yet, since there are hundreds of thousands of women in all of these jobs, we can safely assume the premise is flawed.</p>

<p>Some people care about the picture and the result. Some people care about the camera and the process. Gender is immaterial, since there are men and women in both groups.</p>

<p>If someone wanted to generalize they could say that in their experience they'd encountered more weighting one way than the other. Which may be correct, but not significant, since it also says as much about that person's experience, education and social circle as it does about stereotyping.</p>

<p>"The female brain just isn't always wired to think about the hassles that usually accompany film. Male brains are prone to this technical diligence.<br /> Another example of this is how many men seek the most complex and up-to-date photographic gear they can to achieve technical superiority, while women are usually content with their kit lenses on an entry-level body."<br /> <br /> Ryan, I know you don't mean to be insulting, but this is ridiculous. I'm a woman. I enjoy film. Actually I prefer it. I'm also very interested in gear, both film and digital, read equipment reviews, and develop my own bw film at home. While I no longer have access to a darkroom, I enjoyed printing in the darkroom very much. Either I'm some kind of freak, and so are the other women I took photo classes with, or these are misguided generalizations.<br /> <br /> I am far from content with a kit lens on an entry level body. :)<br /> <br /> I think there are probably men who are content with kit lenses on entry level bodies, just as there are women who are. But I don't think that preference one way or the other relates to gender.<br /> <br /> As time goes by hopefully these kinds of well meaning but misguided views will fade away and we'll all just be individuals - some who enjoy film, some digital, some using both, some more technically minded, some more intuitive, some both, some more interested in gear, some less, etc.</p>

<p>When I was a kid, I was given a camera. I took it apart to see how the aperture and shutter worked. When my father got a top-of-the-line AF SLR (one of the first made), I read the manual cover-to-cover and taught <em>him</em> how to use it (and he's an engineer). I was an 11 year old GIRL!<br>

I read Strobist. I have a four-year degree in photography from RIT. I have spent more time in darkroooms--my hands immersed in fixer-- than is probably healthy. I don't use auto anything, I light off camera, I own more bodies and lenses than I can count. Oh, and I HATE generalizations. Except perhaps that one above about men and nude photography ;)</p>

 

<p>Sorry, Neil, but your basic premise is flawed. You can't say that because there are some examples of individuals who don't match a generalization, the generalization must necessarily be false. Completely aside from the original question of whether men or women are more or less technical than the other group, I think Ryan's original comment was clearly expressing a generalization and not a hard and fast rule. The only way to prove or disprove such a generalization is with statistics. As Nadine said, people are individuals, and I agree with you too, that individuals should be treated as such, and not as faceless representatives of some statistical generalization or stereotype, but that doesn't mean that generalizations aren't sometimes interesting or useful.</p>

<p>Regarding the original question of whether men or women are more or less technical, personally, I really couldn't care less. Living in San Francisco, the distinctions between male and female are sometimes distorted beyond recognition anyway. Isn't the whole point to find something interesting and unique from each voice, regardless of what bits happen to belong to the photographer?</p>

<p>I'd bet that Vanessa and Alex would both agree that their interest in photography really has very little to do with their lady bits, and much more to do with who they are and how they relate to the world around them. I mean really, who takes a photo thinking, "hrm, how do my bits feel about this shot?" Well... maybe those nude photographers...</p>

<p>I'm with Neil. I like to wear clothes when I shoot.</p>

<p>Most of the time. :)</p>