Reading mode: Light Dark

Interesting article on the NY Times site

Go to last post
JodieO said:
I have worked dang hard to be where I am right now...costs, etc.

Jodie
http://www.jottestudios.com
Click to expand...
Jodie, you have a wonderful site and your work is top notch. It's unfortunate the article was condescending.

The article didn't discuss how many husbands pursue their "art" while their wife is the primary breadwinner. The hard truth is very few photo businesses are actually profitable, whether the photographer is male or female.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to this post with your perspective. You were very restrained.

BTW, I checked your prices. Your prices accurately reflect your talent. You're not exactly undercutting the competition!

Best wishes,
Doug
 
JodieO said:
I was disappointed in the way that the interview turned out. When
being interviewed, I was very clear that I am a full-time
photographer/studio owner, I have worked dang hard to be where I am
right now, and I have had a lot of startup costs, etc.

Yet all my work was reduced to

a-mom-with-a-camera-that-she-had-to-ask-her-husband-for-who-has-a-baby-on-her-hip-and-is-a-bored-SAHM-with-a-wittle-mommy-hobby.
Click to expand...
Im sorry about that.

Ive worked with press and PR in the music biz, TV, and now photography.

Welcome to the wonderful world of press!

they never get it right, and the writer and/or editor provides their own "angle", which usually is a distortion.

The good news! Its actually good for your biz, although it doesnt feel that way right now.
For instance:
You may qoute the article in any manner that suits you.
Being "written up" in the NYTimes separates you from the pack.
Qoute them in your brochure & website.

Its a GREAT funny story how the great "gray lady" fudged the truth.

You can get a lot of mileage out this with clients & local press as well. Pitch a story to your papers about this whole thing, & get some really good press that brings clients.
JodieO said:
While it is really neat to say I was in the NYT, let's just say I
am not jumping up and down.

Jodie
http://www.jottestudios.com
Click to expand...
Why couldnt the NY times refer to you as a "small busness woman" ?
Well it made a "cute" story.

Best,
William

--
williamwgood dot com
 
ok, ok... now that we've gotten the insults and perceived sexism out of the way, perhaps we can get back to the original post -- an article for our review -- and consider what we might learn from it.

back when 35mm cameras were becoming more popular and affordable, there were many who bought gear and fancied themselves as photographers. it's not unique to photography: many who can buy a fancy car and consider themselves race car drivers. Some really are; some enjoy liviing the dream; some get uppity; some actually learn how to drive the thing well.

somehow, digital photography makes it easier for some people to buy a camera and consider themselves a real photographer. just like cars, some really are; others actually learn how to drive the thing well.

if some folks who wouldn't have otherwise are now making money with their cameras, then good for them -- and lessons to learn for those of us whose markets may be impacted.

lee
 
Jodie -

Wonderful site ... so sorry that your comments were taken out of context.

Nice to see such good work done by a "neighbor". I'm down in Glen Arm, have kids at St. James and Oldfields and own a couple of dressage horses.

Best of luck to you ... your work is worth every penny!!
--
Michael
 
Phileas Fogg said:
A business success is one that affords to keep itself afloat. These are > hobbiests (nothing wrong in that) who may make a buck at what they > do but likely will not have the endurance to do it for very long.
Click to expand...
I think a great many MWACs keep them selves more than afloat. Unless you didn't mean "afloat in lots of new lenses". =)
Phileas Fogg said:
It depends on what a customer wants or expects. Price is only an > indicator but not a sole arbitrator to a purchase.
Click to expand...
Point taken. You win that paragraph. One for you, One for Dale.
Phileas Fogg said:
But what makes that so special for a person to even spend a mere > pittance on photojournalistic snaps? Why should I as a client pay them say > even $50 when I can just snap the same sort of images with my camera?
Click to expand...
Can you? Can you snap the same sorts of images that I can snap with the exact same setup I have? Because I can tell you that a TON of women I know who ran out and bought my camera after seeing my "snapshots" can't come close.

But that's not really even the point. The point is that given time and a little bit of talent, anyone can learn to use a DSLR (hello, EXIF anyone? check your settings, see what was off, correct the next shot...very quick learning curve). I'm still undecided on whether or not a photographic, or photojournalistic eye, can be taught. Some rules of composition, yes. Being able to anticipate when that exact right moment is going to come into your frame, I'm not so sure. And that is why some MWACs can charge $50 for an 8x10 and some can only charge $5. But they can all charge and they are all taking their slice of the pie.
Phileas Fogg said:
Nonsense, esp. with kids, if they want to fuss they could give a rats ar$e > whether it's you snapping in the guise of a photojournalist or you setting > up a studio shot. Relaxed my ar$e a fussy kid is a fussy kid and no amount > of rhetoric trying to claim shooting photojournalist style is going to make > it easier.
Click to expand...
{Warning, sexism ahead.} Here's the thing: women can out-finesse men with kids any day of the week and twice on Sunday. =) It's just a fact. We are good with kids, whether we have them or not. We are good with kids on backdrops as well as kids in a natural environment. But I think Dale is right...kids "perform" better for the camera if you're letting them do their thing. Sitting on a backdrop is not any kids thing that I know of. I have the King of Fussiness, Fussy McFussterson himself and manage to get reams of great shots of him. Why? I'm an MWAC. Sorry, Frog, you lose this paragraph hands down. =)
Phileas Fogg said:
BROAD BRUSH STROKES!!! Comparing a school portrait or a lil league > baseball portrait to what a proper studio or professional photo shooting > setting is able to arrange is a nonstarter.
Click to expand...
Ooh, "nonstarter". Love that phrase, must find a way to work it into my next conversation. =) But you're incorrect, because this is exactly what people are comparing MWAC shots too. The really high-end artistic shots will always, always have a niche. Just like someone like me, who at the end of the day is really not that great of a programmer, will always have a nice job because I bring so much more to the table than just code-slinging. {OK, that is not meant to be as arrogant as it sounds, lol!} But Dale's comparison is spot-on: people are used to Walmart and Sears and, heaven forbid, The Picture People. What MWACs offer with their mid-range DSLR and photojournalistic style is light-years ahead of that. Gotta give the point to Dale on this one too. =)
Phileas Fogg said:
It is IMO often a disguise for poor or unimaginative photographers to try > to make a buck.
Click to expand...
It sometimes is, there's no doubt about that. Sometimes, women who hang out their shingle really, really suck. Those you don't have to worry about.
Phileas Fogg said:
There is hardly an educated mother or father who if they could have had > a chance to have Josef Karsh (for one) create a Karsh portrait session for > them would not have had such done.
Click to expand...
OK, who?
Phileas Fogg said:
But again what do they offer that warrants even these lower prices?
Click to expand...
They offer what women want. I am woman (hear me roar, again), and I can tell you that on the walls of all the homes around me are not studio portraits. There are blown-up "snapshots". It's just a sign of the changing times.
Phileas Fogg said:
Snaps, disguised as photojournalism, sorry most clients can do the same > sort of stuff with their own cameras and save even more money. A good > and imaginative professional portrait photographer offers things that > clients can't get so easy or make themselves.
Click to expand...
Didn't we just leave this party? See above where you lost paragraph three.

Gee, this is REALLY fun!! I love a good, old-fashioned debate. C'mon, PhinneasFrog, come get me!!!

-
-Steph!
http://blogs.chron.com/shutterblog
http://www.pbase.com/bunnylady
'Shine! Show 'em what you've got, let them wish that they were not
On the outside lookin' bored!'
 
Bunnylady,

Yes, you are being sexist and wrong in saying that all women are just better with kids. That is instantly sounding to me warning bells as to what you are wanting to discuss and possibly even learn here. Fact is many a male or female photographer can and succeed in making kids feel better when in front of a camera. BTW if a kid is going to fuss there is little to nothing you as woman can do to stop this than any man can. The only person who may in the end ease the fussy kid in this case is his/her mother or father got it? You see two can play the hard a$$ game of rhetoric and in your face point of view.

Fact is bunny, you are likely just creating snaps and not images that will stand a better test of time. You may be disguising such with the term photo journalistic but is it really not just snaps? On top of that I never said portraits need be cardboard cutout style in some five and dime studio like Wally World etc. Though those serve their purpose as cheap record shots too. I said that portrait artists care to create photography be it in studio, on location at a house or outdoors that tells a story about capturing the life and spirit of the subject(s) in a pleasing way. Sitting around with a camera to eye waiting for something to snap is just trial and error and I think most parents figure or will figure that they can save money by snapping for themselves than just hiring a someone who thinks they are providing something similar of a distinct value. Bunny you can believe this style of imagery is of greater value, I don't know and I don't care. You may actually make nice photographs too. I do question if you do this to not have to push yourself and your imagery? Not pushing yourself out of IMO a simplest box is telling me that maybe you and those whom you seem to want to speak for either don't care, don't need to do so out of complacency, or don't have the skills too.

I have been professionally photographing people from infants to centenarians for near 20 years in studio, and on location be they outdoors or in home and both formal and casual photography. I have photographed very nicely and successfully thousands of children from standard fare portraits to casual and/or fun ones. I consider myself competent but not one who stands inside only one box. I learned from mentors in this profession both male and female who create/created photography that would wow you in terms of quality and art, to always be prepared to challenge yourself, move out of one's comfort zone to grow and to see new ideas and try such out when photographing people. Oh with some subjects you can go out on a limb, with others you cant, it is all dependent on who the person(s) are.

So I don't care if the only photos you see/seen on peoples' walls are snaps because this is nothing new. I highly doubt you have scientific evidence supporting the concept you say about what people want in professional photographs. The concept of charging people, to take what is more or less glorified snaps of their kids or family groups, enough to fill CF cards with is a nice way to make a quick buck but do you actually know what you are doing? Do you actually see the image unfold before your eyes? Do you even envision what you want before it may happen? Do you push yourself to new limits? I say your (this) style will likely go by the wayside in a few years as most fads do... ATKINS anyone?

Look, I apologize if my candor here is in your face, but it only mirrors what your post addressed to me appears to do. I do not come here to be a jerk but I do use the style of more or less mirroring the other poster when I reply. This starts with your women can only do it (better) cr@p!

Do yourself a favour and go visit local successful photographers and you may see that they are not likely doing glorified Wally World imagery, they are pushing themselves and seeking new ways to create art and life capturing imagery. Not all are as successful as others but my advice to you upon closing this post is don't just paint yourself into being a glorified snapper, calling yourself a p.j. IMO you continue to do this only at your peril. Don't think that you know what all mothers or yes even fathers may want. Don't think that you know how all subjects want to be shot in terms of photography and that these are all just informal p.j. style snaps that they want. IMO if you stay in your current mindset of what you do as the new be all allows you to do this forever I say you will likely be out of business before you know it.

The portraitist has been around long before the camera and the portraitist will be around long after other fads go away.

--
visit my photo gallery of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
Hello Neighbor! I'm actually up in Norrisville, but my studio is right in Monkton - right at the NCR trail. I will be posting some equestrian type shots on my website soon - but more as kid/horse or teen/horse - not competition. I have a couple horses too but we are keeping them up at a barn near our house.... but they are just normal horses, we don't do dressage :)

What a small world!
 
I am not surprised with the article in the NYT, with or without veiled sexism. It appears that the journalist wants to carve a new abbreviation MWAC into the Oxford Dictionary. This "business" is no .com boom but will fade after all the mothers/fathers/parents have a camera at home and decide to point them to their children.

The view that photographers would be outraged for some MWAC charges ($10/print) against more established (read expensive) prices is at times a bit contrived. But it is all a matter of statistics...

Today the amount of "universal shutter clicks" per second is at least 500 times more than in 1996. This does not mean that there are 500 times more good pictures made than in 1996. Maybe 50, probably 10. The rest is "chewing gum".

There is a trend though... in 1996 most WACs were DWACs. There was a single camera per household. Nowadays you might find 4, 5, 10 image capturing devices if you include your webcam, your mobile/cellular phone, your camcorder... If I count I have 12 in my place. I have 2 cameras and so does my wife.

The article confuses making money with business opportuniy. There is an abysmal difference between these activities. When some people will start realising that $10 is not worth the paper the photo was printed then maybe they look somewhere else or diy it. It is a fact that children portraiture (still) is in decay as the traditional trip to the photographer studio became unecessary now that you can snap and email your family and friends with the latest "look". With this lack of activity there are not that many professionals that can tackle the issue of children portraiture. So at present there is a void. If some moms/dads/parents have a photographic eye and sensitivity to make great pictures of their children and theirs friends that is most welcome. They are not replacing anyone. They are just filling "nests" that have been empty for a long time.

Do not worry... there so many nests that can be filled. Then prices will start going up! Hopefully so will the average quality of this new venture.

--
'If your mother had a fight with your father don't let her brush your hair'
Sara 12 yrs old
'Never trust a dog to guard your food'
Gonçalo 8 yrs old
Paulo Ferreira
(equipment in profile)
http://www.pauloferreira.co.uk
http://www.azuzarte.com
http://www.pbase.com/pauloferreira
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/paulo_ferreira
 
Perhaps you missed the Texas-sized tongue in my cheek as I made those statements? Did the smilies confuse you as to my intended tone? =) In all seriousness, I do think women are more suited to this new style of portrait photography than men. That's not sexist, that's my opinion. But I suppose if someone wants to be offended by that statement then, well, I can't help that now can I?
Phileas Fogg said:
You see two can play the hard a$$ game of rhetoric and in your face point of view.
Click to expand...
I dunno. I fancy myself the Queen of Hard-a$$ Rhetoric. Ask anyone who knows me, they'll tell you. =)
Phileas Fogg said:
Bunny you can believe this style of imagery is of greater value, I don't know and I don't care. You may actually make nice photographs too. I do question if you do this to not have to push yourself and your imagery? Not pushing yourself out of IMO a simplest box is telling me that maybe you and those whom you seem to want to speak for either don't care, don't need to do so out of complacency, or don't have the skills too.
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make was that, at this point in time, that IS what many people perceive to be of greater value. The MWAC camp sees that and is capitalizing on it. Personally, I think that the photojournalistic style represents the times better than the backdrop shots. Not only do I get to see my child's smiling face in the available-light, on location images but I get to see what he likes. How he interacts with his surroundings. I have shots of my older son sitting in the proverbial tin bucket with the rubber ducky next to him. Cute, and it shows his face and features well, but as an image to remember him by it's rotten. It doesn't even look like my kid, it could be anyone's kid.
Phileas Fogg said:
I consider myself competent but not one who stands inside only one box.
Click to expand...
I get your point, I really do. In fact, only recently I rented some lights and tried to get out of my photojournalistic box. It was a HUGE success to the Mom and daughter I photographed, but was technically marginal work. It was more fun than I cared to admit to myself, actually.
Phileas Fogg said:
So I don't care if the only photos you see/seen on peoples' walls are snaps because this is nothing new. I highly doubt you have scientific evidence supporting the concept you say about what people want in professional photographs.
Click to expand...
You're right there. My evidence is empirical and geographical. But if I'm an MWAC in Houston, TX right now I better be taking on-location shots if I expect to make money.
Phileas Fogg said:
do you actually know what you are doing? Do you actually see the image unfold before your eyes? Do you even envision what you want before it may happen? Do you push yourself to new limits? I say your (this) style will likely go by the wayside in a few years as most fads do... ATKINS anyone?
Click to expand...
Well, I like to think I know what I'm doing. My photographic life is an open book. You have links to my blog and my pbase gallery...answer that one for yourself. I have no delusions of grandeur and I can take criticism. But even if you think I'm no good, I'm not shooting for you. I'm shooting for me. =) And ftr, Adkins rots. Who on earth can sustain a diet with no bread?? I wouldn't last five minutes, but that's another topic altogether...
Phileas Fogg said:
Look, I apologize if my candor here is in your face, but it only mirrors what your post addressed to me appears to do. I do not come here to be a jerk but I do use the style of more or less mirroring the other poster when I reply. This starts with your women can only do it (better) cr@p!
Click to expand...
Frog (can I call you Frog?), I am the least offendable person on the planet! If I dish it out, you have to know that I can take it. =) You don't offend me at all, I appreciate the effort you put into your reply and love that you took the time. Really all I ever wanted was a nice healthy debate. I'm not an expert and am an MWAC in name only. I have no photography business and keep saying I don't want one. I might someday change my mind on that. I am, after all, a woman. (Ooops, there I go with the sexist comments again. My bad!!) =)
Phileas Fogg said:
Don't think that you know what all mothers or yes even fathers may want. Don't think that you know how all subjects want to be shot in terms of photography and that these are all just informal p.j. style snaps that they want.
Click to expand...
Points well taken.

More than portrait styeles or timelessness of shots and all the side arguments, the real crux of the article is this: The DSLR age has brought changes to the photographic industry across the whole spectrum, from portraits to photojournalism. Barriers to entry are low, and just like Lee/PianoPix pointed out, it's all happened before and it'll all happen again. Just like that guy at the beginning of Peter Pan said. =) Moms, whether or not they stay at home, are uniquely positions in this new photographic world order. Where their intruduction to the industry will ultimately lead is anyone's guess. But as a mom and a businesswoman who has been down this road of change in another industry and survived, this new trend fascinates me. That's all. =)

--
-Steph, the BWAC!
http://commons.chron.com/bunnylady
http://www.pbase.com/bunnylady
'Shine! Show 'em what you've got, let them wish that they were not
On the outside lookin' bored!'
 
I haven't looked at the websites of all the women mentioned in the Times article, but the few I've looked at reveal seriously accomplished pros, better than many who post as pros here. The article may have it wrong in detail--the Canon 5D or 1Ds is hardly what I'd call lightweight--but it seems discerning about images.
1goodeye said:
Yes, just buy an "expensive" camera and make some business cards! ; )
Click to expand...
--
Ellen Z
 
For me the most intersting fact in the article--if it is a fact, as not everything is--is that women entering the DSLR pro trade vastly outnumber men. Is that the feminization of this profession, at a time when it is less profitable than before? Many other professions have gone this way, even the most lucrative and venerable, at a time when they're under pressure. Because, make no mistake, there's still a wage gap between the sexes. The other thing that's interesting about the gender gap among new recruits is what a tiny minority of the posters on these forums are women. Where are all these new recruits? On forums of their own?
--
Ellen Z
 
NYellenzaslaw said:
Where are all these new recruits? On forums of their own?
Click to expand...
Yes. =)

http://www.twopeasinabucket.com , photography forum.
Also, this is a big one: http://ilovephotography.com/forums/

This NYT article appeared on both forums, actually. The debate was very interesting on the I Love Photography side. On 2Peas, not as much.

I've watched two woman go from members and regular posters on the 2peas site, which is first and foremost a scrapbooking site, to full-fledged professional photographers. Here they are:

http://www.alwphotography.com/
http://www.tarawhitney.com/

They are a perfect example of lifestyle portraiture that people are lining up for these days. You could argue, though I'm not sure they would agree, that they started out as MWACs. They are both incredibly successful, and deservedly so.

I really must stop posting on this thread. Ya'll will think I've got nothing better to do...

=) =)

--
-Steph, the BWAC!
http://blogs.chron.com/shutterblog
http://www.pbase.com/bunnylady
'Shine! Show 'em what you've got, let them wish that they were not
On the outside lookin' bored!'
 
Hey BWAC! Nice tip on Audrey Woulard, She obviously has her style down pat. Big eyes, soft open lighting...

And Jodie Otte (any alliteration going on there?) good stuff! Congrats on your NYT mention (despite the inaccuracies). Clippings and references to same in your blog or any PR stuff won't hurt you.
--
jrbehm
http://homepage.mac.com/jrbehm/Scenic/
 
Thanks for the links, Steph. I'd already spotted Audrey Woulard in my wanderings, and yes, she has had my admiration. The ilovephotgraphy forum looks interesting. It seems to me a point is missed in this dialogue as to whether posed, artifically lit portraiture is "better" than naturalistic photography, and that is that there are occasions for each. Formal shots often look more appropriate in some settings (big framed blowups for example) than others (albums for example). The irony is that at least where formal child photography is concerned, the photographer situates the child and then prays for a bit of behavior or expression or tries to provoke it, when a child is all about behavior all the rest of the time.
--
Ellen Z
 
I figured either you were just trying to be insulting or that you were misreading the handle, it looks like it was the latter. So to FYI Phileas Fogg is the fictional character in Jules Verne's book, Around the World in 80 Days.
bunnylady said:
It's "Fogg'. Well now I just feel stoopid.

Sorry. I will not refer to you as Frog anymore! =)

--
-Steph!
http://blogs.chron.com/shutterblog
http://www.pbase.com/bunnylady
'Shine! Show 'em what you've got, let them wish that they were not
On the outside lookin' bored!'
Click to expand...
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
 
You have confimed I'm not out of my mind. I felt insulted on your behalf, I'm a man and I didn't even know you! Of course every happily married couple discusses finances with each other, but they didn't say the MWAC's "consulted" their husband's, but "had to ask".(!!!) Maybe you consult with family BEFORE opening the business, but it struck me as disengenuous to to call you (all MWAC's) a business owner who has to ask permission to buy what you need.

Maybe I'm just from a younger generation that to us this is painfully obvious. If a person says "I think women should be allowed to vote.", then one might think "No sh*t Sherlock, when did you figure that out?" and suspect that person of being sexist. That's how I felt about the writer of the article.

Anyway, I hope the insulting article angers and calls to action even more MWAC's to shove it in their face! But we should all lay off the sexism and realize that men & women have the best time when we consider the other feelings too. The Golden Rule is still the best rule! We need each other and anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top