Women in Photography

[david_eicher]

<blockquote>

<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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Alex for every one of you at 11, I would say there were probably 20 boys doing the same thing back then. I am not saying a women/girl is incapable of learning the technical side of photography but 25 years ago, I am sure they were quite the minority. My question was more on the Digital end and was THAT the magic door that opened up photography to a larger mass of Women who now are taking photos and wanting to be Pros? I believe it was, some have learned as much about it as they can and others still shoot in Auto. Of course, I am sure there might be some guys doing the same. Either way, I say Digital was the magic door for Women and them getting really serious about photography.</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>I worked at a photography studio back in the days of film and darkrooms run by an older man who we use to joke was as old as photography. We had 2 women photographers during the years I worked there and both were good, especially with children and brides. It's not so much women that I have been seeing a trend of over the years but I think because of the move to digital I am seeing younger photographers (some probably still in their teens.) I met someone last year who was in last year of high school and shooting their first paid wedding gig. </p>

[peter_kervarec]

<p>Over the years there has always been a scarcity of women wedding photographers in my area and David rightly points out that there are a lot more women wedding photographers around since the advent of digital. Years ago I conducted short photography courses for adults who had purchased a new SLR ( film ). There were many talented and PASSIONATE women amongst them, often outnumbering men 2 to 1. Stating the obvious here but women have a very different perspective on life to men, I think they are able to represent love and romance in an image as good as any man can. BTW most of those women were very interested in Black & White and home processing, I would say the ratio of women to men with home darkrooms was at least 2 to 1. This is my observation.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not important, but refer to two points: (i) - I positioned the example against the premise of a 'fundamental relationship', not a generalization; and (ii) I made an observation about generalizations in my final sentence. Both points are defensible.</p>

<p>Back on topic...</p>

<p>I agree with the point a few people have made that there is a relationship between digital and immediacy of results, and that many people have exploited it to reach the point of getting decent results without developing technique. Cameras with face detection, scene mode, built in stablisation and artistic filters can make it possible for anyone to produce work that appears to be of high technical quality without actually understanding what they're doing.</p>

<p>I just don't think it's a trait that has to be predominantly female by necessity. I've seen plenty of examples of men declaring themselves as expert specifically because they know how to use the features of their camera. I'd prefer just to consider a breakdown between those who understand and those who don't, and leave it at that. The whole gender issue is just a meaningless distraction.</p>

<p>How many people can meter accurately just by looking at the light, can work all day with a camera that has one shutter speed and one aperture and still get good results, can leave their flash at home and be confident they'll never need it, and can limit themselves to one frame and still get a killer picture? Because that, for me, is a decent indicator of expertise and grasp of the principles and practice of photography, and I know plenty of people who can do all of those things. I also know plenty of people who can't. Men and women fall into both groups.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>IMO, this is all relatively nonsensical, and indicative of a residual tendency toward chauvinism on both sides of the gender spectrum.</p>

<p>There is a generalization to support every argument either way depending on the bias going in. A boy reading a manual cover to cover at age 11 is countered with the generalization that men don't read manuals or road maps at all ... which is the butt of many social jokes. Neither tells the truth on an individual basis.</p>

<p>My second shooter is a woman, she also happens to be an engineer educated at U of M. I know more about the mechanics of lighting and camera operation than she does ... not because of gender aptitude, but because of much longer experience. She is good with children not because she is more sensitive than I am, but because she's a mom focused on 2 small children right now ... yet I'm just as good with kids. Brides are just as comfortable with me shooting them getting ready as they are with a woman ... which has nothing to do with gender, but because they hired ME for my eye as proved by my samples.</p>

<p>When I initially hired my second as an assistant, being a slight woman, the only question was wether she could schlep my heavy gear bags. She said yes, and that was that ... she schlepped with the best of the beefy boys I'd used in the past. So much for that generalization and bias.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_kervarec]

<p>Just to add to Marcs comment. I have used women as second shooters, they are brilliant. Focused (sorry ) and on the ball, rarely missing good candid opportunities or a feminine moment, moments which can give your coverage a distinct edge. They are also organised which helps me a lot !</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>I've had a good laugh at Ryan's comments, reminiscent of the male dinosaurs in sitcoms. I'm sure Ryan isn't like that in real life though.</p>

<p>What is being overlooked here is the fight that women are still going through in terms of equal opportunities and equal pay in the workplace. In photography at least, we have some semblence of equality. Fundamentally - you can't argue that women have been subjugated through the decades and haven't had the choices that men have always enjoyed. Throughout recent history they've been tied to the home, into domestic roles that have had little to do with free choice and everything to do with society and tradition. Consequently there is an enduring belief that we must be inherently domestic creatures who are content with a 'gentler' approach to life. What utter boll*cks. As the world has changed and opportunities for us have increased, you'll see women emerging in every profession. But don't forget we're also largely responsible for raising families, running the home, <em>taking care of men</em>, and sadly we can't manage three full time jobs at once - hence our numbers in specialist occupations remaining consistently lower than our male counterparts. And as children, we're still conditioned to play with dolls and wear dresses - folks, please understand the difference between this and Ryan's insistence that females suffer from a cerebral deficiency! I could equally assert the old chestnut that 'most men are incapable of multi-tasking and so find it hard to juggle the demands of running a home'. In reality, most men are equally capable of all of this, it's just that they have been raised to expect somebody else to do it all for them.</p>

<p>I actually remember an instance in my childhood where I was given a toy baby and a doll for Christmas. I remember asking my mother why the giver had chosen those items. And my mother said 'because little girls like dollies'. I didn't want a s*dding doll, I wanted an Action Man and a model Ferrari.</p>

<p>My female friends are the most technical people I know. Many are photographers, from varied backgrounds - including design engineers, chemists, IT specialists. I myself am from an academic background and I'm from a technical family (military pilots, engineers, IT designers). Perhaps that's my point - if we're allowed to develop freely, rather than being conditioned into one role or mindset, then arguments like Ryans become moot, and the divide between the sexes might not be as great as we think - a notion which men like Ryan might find unsettling.</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>I almost forgot .... wasn't somebody called 'Hilary Clinton' running your country for quite some time, while the 'frontman' had his 'male bits' somewhere he shouldn't have? I wonder what side of his brain was dominant? Certainly not the technical side.</p>

[drjoder]

<p>A terminology question: I notice that many men will call women "ladies", but then they will use the term "men" for their gender group. I lived many years in Texas and it seemed more common there...chivalry? Sexism? Neither? If you are going to say "ladies" shouldn't you then also say "gentlemen"...and if you say "men", you should then say "women"...right? "Lady Photographers" and "Gentlemen Photographers"...Just wondering...and does it matter? </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Sorry, what dollies verses action figures, and what men think or don't think, has to do with the photographic question at hand escapes me.</p>

<p>Women are shooting weddings. Perhaps more than in the past. Why that is, is pure conjecture. Based on enough evidence over the past years, it appears that more PEOPLE are shooting weddings, so based on the population split it seems logical that a percentage will be women.</p>

<p>What that percentage may be is also pure conjecture and antidotal. How many are full time professionals and how many are part timers is also an unknown.</p>

<p>I've personally seen no evidence that one gender is better than the other at doing this. I doubt I ever will.</p>

<p>Photography has a rich history of women in photography going all the way back to its inception ... and some of those earlier times were a lot more demanding technically than it is now ... that is for sure. The mind is overwhelmed with all the famous female talents that contributed to the advancement of photography ... but the same holds true for talented men who did the same.</p>

 

[lindsay_dobson]

<p><em>"Sorry, what dollies verses action figures, and what men think or don't think, has to do with the photographic question at hand escapes me."</em></p>

<p>Marc, it was a commentary on the (somewhat contentious) points Ryan raised regarding his views on 'the photographic question'. He gave his reasons, I responded by giving mine. My earlier response was along the same lines as yours - that I believe the talent is evenly spread and cannot be gender-dependent.</p>

<p> </p>

[nishnishant]

<p>There is a parallel in software development. Until the 80s and early 90s when programming involved learning the internal details of operating systems and having to use C and assembly language, there were very few women in the programming field.</p>

<p>Today, writing software is a lot easier, with drag/drop IDEs and easier front end languages like Visual Basic, C# and Java. And there is a much higher percentage of women software writers today, and some of them are much better than their male co-workers.</p>

<p>The male brain vs female brain differences are probably a very likely explanation for this change.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>>> that I believe the talent is evenly spread and cannot be gender-dependent. <<</p>

<p>Talent is definitely gender-independent, but brain wiring is different and dictates different approaches to photography in men and women (there are always exceptions of course).</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Nish, going back to my last-but-one post, I must disagree that there are more women in technical posts 'today' because jobs are 'technically easier now'. To re-iterate, I believe it's down to more opportunities for women to enter fields which previously were male dominated due to the relative structure of our society at that time. Women who attempted to move outside of the box were, for a time, disadvantaged both in terms of their income, and the prejudice they encountered in the workplace. Times have changed and the role of breadwinner is no longer necessarily the priority of male household members, and employers are mindful of that, so the more technical jobs are becoming available to women in the name of equal-opportunity. This fundamentally explains what you're seeing. For you to say that talent is gender-dependant really doesn't make any sense.</p>

<p>I fully appreciate that there are differences between men and women, both good and bad - but I don't think it extends to one's computational abilities.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I guess I'm thick sculled ... I still do not see what other fields and social barriers have to do with photography. The long, long history of influential women in photography is a fact. If they had to overcome the so called "hard wiring", and social barriers, etc., etc. ad nauseum .... a whole bunch of women from all sorts of backgrounds did a darned good job of it : -) </p>

[nishnishant]

<p>>> For you to say that talent is gender-dependant really doesn't make any sense. <<<br>

<br />Lindsay, I did not say that, in fact what I said above was "<em>Talent is definitely gender-independent</em>".</p>

<p>And yes, I fully appreciate the points you mention, my stance was more on the lines that it's not scientifially backed to suggest that male and female brains are identical in behavior.</p>

<p>This is so from a very early age. Even in pre-toddlers boys and girls show starkly different behavior and responses. Overall I do not intend to say that women can only do jobs because they are easier, but I still believe that women find some jobs easier to do compared to men (and the reverse holds true too) based on the nature of the task.</p>

<p>Also some of the best wedding portfolios I've seen via photo.net were from women. If I had to choose a wedding photographer, I'd probably be biased in favor of a woman photographer :-)</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p>Female and male brain function differ profoundly in all mammals. To insist that this is not the case may be understandable when most of us want equal opportunities for both sexes, but it is still wrong. Rather, the two sexes may use different strategies to master individual skills. Of course, there is considerable overlap, but it is easy to identify skills where one sex has a definitive advantage, e.g. in various medical procedures in which a video display unit guides the operator.<br>

However, the known sex differences would hardly be of importance in photography. If it were the case, we could tell from the output - the photos, and I don´t think that we can.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>This is a question and not an observation. Are women better at making women look beautiful and men better at making them look sexy? If so does this color the pictures we take at weddings?</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>I'd say that men and women are fairly equally good at making women subjects look beautiful and sexy. But men photographers in general seem to suck at taking portraits of male subjects, whereas women don't seem to have this weakness. (this is my subjective opinion of course).</p>

<p>It seems (straight) men don't really know what is "good-looking" or "appealing" in other men.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>To add an example, my wife and sister can identify beautiful men and women equally well. Whereas in my case, while I can very easily identify a good looking woman, I can never tell if a guy is attractive or not.</p>

<p>Of course I can easily tell if a guy is well-dressed or if he is over-weight, but I have never been able to apply those meta-factors that we use when judging good looks and beauty in general on male subjects! I would like to think I am not an exception here and that most men are like me in this regard.</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p>Lindsay, I did not say that, in fact what I said above was "<em>Talent is definitely gender-independent</em>".</p>

<p>Nish - sincere apologies for mis-reading that!! Crumbs, I thought it didn't make sense (-: (-:</p>

<p>Good points about how female photographers view male subjects. I certainly agree that men often don't understand what it is that women find attractive in men and, and if I can be so bold as to say this, often believe we're only interested in physical bulk. 'Appeal' for women, can be subtle and hard to define. However I can make a good guess at what 'most' men look for when they first appraise a woman. Perhaps you've taken us a little closer to the reasons why a some people might prefer female photographers, in the context of how they see and respond to their subjects. Sven's point is interesting - can we tell from a set of images if the photographer is male or female?</p>

<p>I was reading on an other forum recently that there is, apparently, an increasing demand for male boudoir photography. But the guys are requesting female photographers. My (straight) male friends say that they wouldn't want to disrobe in front of a male shooter for a whole host of reasons.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<blockquote>

<p>My (straight) male friends say that they wouldn't want to disrobe in front of a male shooter for a whole host of reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This reminds me of certain fundamentalist religious people that insist on having gynecological surgery performed by a female surgeon.</p>

[allen_r1]

<p>I think Ryan has a point. Of course it is a generalization but it is also a "generalization" to say that men are taller than women. The fact that it doesn't apply to everyone doesn't change the fact that it is still true of most.<br /> In my experience, male photographers are more interested in the technical side of photography than female photographers who seem to focus almost entirely on the artistic side of the craft. Again not everyone but on average. And if anyone doubts this, try this little exercise: ask a male and female photographer what type of camera they own. The male will probably give you a more detailed response than the female who is likely to say simply "Nikon"/"Canon". For women it isn't about the technology but the art. And digital makes it much easier for those not technically inclined to shoot a wedding. And by the way, there are HUGE differences between male and female brains both structurally and functionally. The people who deny this are the ones who are "behind the times"- fMRI research is as cutting edge as it gets...There are also huge gender differences in vocational preferences for technical vs nontechnical jobs. I am not suggesting either sex is better but we are undeniably different.</p>

<p> </p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>"we are undeniably different"</p>

<p>Thank goodness!</p>

<p><br /></p>

[gabi_bass]

<p>I just got married 2 months ago. I didn't look for my photographer based on gender. I just happened to find a guy on facebook and I liked his photography style so he is who I went with.<br>

The gender issue happens in other professions as well. I am a massage therapist, and most men and women prefer and request a female therapist. Massage therapy is a female dominated profession.<br>

My own preference is male when receiving a massage as well as my preference with my OB/GYN. </p>

<p> </p>