Amateur female photographers

[PJPfeiffer]

Our 55+ community photo club is about 50% women --- many of them are extremely good.

 

[Rolling Estonian]

To define ourselves by our differences and attribute some special characteristic to that. We then seem to believe that those differences have some impact on our work.

I evaluate images based on the image. I have no idea about the photographer unless they decide to reveal that. The B in my name here could be Barbara or Bernhard.

I would consider anyone who felt differently about one of my image because of my gender to be a bit odd.

Thank you!

What's worse is that it's not about the photo or who took it, it's about a woman having a camera and taking a photo. That a woman with a camera is looked upon differently..... You'd think men would have gotten over this.

My mother in law is a former professional photographer (never say retired!) She has told me SO many stories about the male dominated industry back in the day, not unlike most other professions but disturbing nonetheless.

There shouldn't still be 'a ways to go' when it comes to equality in any industry or profession, very disheartening to me.

Sorry, rant over.

M

 

[jrkliny]

To define ourselves by our differences and attribute some special characteristic to that. We then seem to believe that those differences have some impact on our work.

I evaluate images based on the image. I have no idea about the photographer unless they decide to reveal that. The B in my name here could be Barbara or Bernhard.

I would consider anyone who felt differently about one of my image because of my gender to be a bit odd.

Photographs typically reveal a lot about the individual. From a single photo we can learn a lot about the photographer, how they see the world, and what they are trying to express, and that is certainly true if we look at a body of work.

Gender, background and any formal artistic training are all likely to influence what the artist conveys. The viewer may try to ignore those characteristics but they are likely to be apparent for those who understand and look beyond the surface.

The B in your name might stand for Bernhard, but it is certainly not Barbara. Without looking at your images, your writing alone reveals that.

 

[tko]

Sabine Weiss, who recently died, explained that she had long been despised by male photographers.

I recently discovered another french woman, Catherine Leroy, acclaimed in the U.S. for her coverage of the Vietnam war... I live in France, I had never heard about her: https://blog.theveteranssite.greatergood.com/cathy-leroy/

Another "famous" example is Gerda Taro who took great photos during the Spanish civil war. She is much less known than her companion, Robert Capa.

These all seems like pros and more to me. I wonder why you used the word "amateur?"

I don't come across many female amateur photographers when I travel. Photography seems to be a male activity. Can't see the reason why... What do you think?

I don't come across many male photographers when I travel. Not many photographers of any type. Almost none if you eliminate tourists on tours at famous spots.

 

[Rolling Estonian]

Gender, background and any formal artistic training are all likely to influence what the artist conveys. The viewer may try to ignore those characteristics but they are likely to be apparent for those who understand and look beyond the surface.

How can an understanding viewer know the artist's gender by their work unless it's specifically conveyed to them? And again, why would it matter? Does that help explain something to the understanding viewer who looks beyond the surface?

I get what you're saying about influences, they CAN convey many things about an artist, but gender can't be seen through a photo, painting, piece of music etc. Unless specifically conveyed by the artist for you to know, you wouldn't know. Photography even more so, her bird pics look just like mine! Actually, they're better.....

M

 

[tbcass]

Gender, background and any formal artistic training are all likely to influence what the artist conveys. The viewer may try to ignore those characteristics but they are likely to be apparent for those who understand and look beyond the surface.

How can an understanding viewer know the artist's gender by their work unless it's specifically conveyed to them? And again, why would it matter? Does that help explain something to the understanding viewer who looks beyond the surface?

I get what you're saying about influences, they CAN convey many things about an artist, but gender can't be seen through a photo, painting, piece of music etc. Unless specifically conveyed by the artist for you to know, you wouldn't know. Photography even more so, her bird pics look just like mine! Actually, they're better.....

M

Even if gender, race, nationality, age, or any other factors one can think of may not be obvious to the observer in no way negates the fact that these will influence the results. Any individual sensitive to these differences may well be able to distinguish them apart even if you cannot.

 

[larrytusaz]

I am in a rural area about 2 hours east of Dallas TX, and I mean there are NO and I mean NO male photographers in this area, at all. Zip, zero, zilch. If you want family portraits taken, it WILL be done by "another mom with a camera" outdoors no studio, jacked-up cartoonish colors and logos all over the photo.

I have nothing against female photographers, I'm against there being ONLY female photographers. The ones who are "another mom with a camera" to me have bad taste and they also make it to where if you're a male you get NOWHERE. That's been my experience at least.

 

[jrkliny]

Gender, background and any formal artistic training are all likely to influence what the artist conveys. The viewer may try to ignore those characteristics but they are likely to be apparent for those who understand and look beyond the surface.

How can an understanding viewer know the artist's gender by their work unless it's specifically conveyed to them? And again, why would it matter? Does that help explain something to the understanding viewer who looks beyond the surface?

I get what you're saying about influences, they CAN convey many things about an artist, but gender can't be seen through a photo, painting, piece of music etc. Unless specifically conveyed by the artist for you to know, you wouldn't know. Photography even more so, her bird pics look just like mine! Actually, they're better.....

M

Even if gender, race, nationality, age, or any other factors one can think of may not be obvious to the observer in no way negates the fact that these will influence the results. Any individual sensitive to these differences may well be able to distinguish them apart even if you cannot.

RE, I think Tom did a good job of explaining this. He did leave out art training. Those images from someone with an extensive training in the visual arts are often recognizable at a glance. If not apparent to the observer, that training will almost certainly leave a mark.

We are all individuals and many of us have vastly different backgrounds and interests. Even so gender tends to reveal itself in the photographs we produce. That is also true of training and other aspects of background and experience. The more time you spend critiquing and looking at photography and other visual art creations, the more likely you will be able to see these influences. Great photography is not especially about the subject of an image, but more about what the artist is trying to communicate.

 

[Cherry_F]

I see as many or even more female photographers these days and none of them are despised. I live in the US so maybe France is different.

I don't think they are despised these days, it's not at all my experience. But they are looked at in a different way. Curiosity, I would say.
I should have specified that I was referring to photographers with "real" cameras, not smartphones. Of course, plenty of women take pics with their phones, generally with kids in the frame (me too )

 

[Cherry_F]

*Gear* seems to be a male activity, for sure. I encounter plenty of female photographers, but relatively few female gear heads.

This matches my experience. The local camera clubs and photography classes are populated at least 50% by women. The male half seems to be composed of mainly gearheads and others with technical backgrounds. The women are more likely to have been drawn to photography due to the creative and aesthetic aspects. The difference is obvious in critique classes where the men's work typically will be better technically, but the women's is likely to be more expressive. Of course, that is a generalization. One of the technically strongest of the local photographers is a woman who is a master of using gear to produce exceptional photographs of birds.

I see what you mean! I've been giving photography training and I would say 75% of attendants were women looking to improve their skills in composition, framing, colour/shape analysis etc... I don't teach anything gear-related, and I accept attendants that use smartphones only. I remember one male attendant who was an expert in microscope photography, the worst pixel peeper I ever happen to meet!

 

[sybersitizen]

Sabine Weiss, who recently died, explained that she had long been despised by male photographers.

I recently discovered another french woman, Catherine Leroy, acclaimed in the U.S. for her coverage of the Vietnam war... I live in France, I had never heard about her: https://blog.theveteranssite.greatergood.com/cathy-leroy/

Another "famous" example is Gerda Taro who took great photos during the Spanish civil war. She is much less known than her companion, Robert Capa.

I don't come across many female amateur photographers when I travel. Photography seems to be a male activity. Can't see the reason why... What do you think?

I see as many or even more female photographers these days and none of them are despised. I live in the US so maybe France is different.

That's great ... but if some female photographers of a different time and place say they were 'despised' by male photographers during their careers, they probably were.

Anyway, I presume the thread is not primarily about that, but about the gender balance among photographers of today.

I'm going to also presume that some of them don't speciifically identify as male or female.

 

[jrkliny]

I see what you mean! I've been giving photography training .......

I know plenty of males, great technicians, who teach. They teach camera skills such as lens selection, aperture/depth of field, shutter speed, ISO, etc. Many also teach Photoshop. When it comes to composition, they usually talk about rules/guidelines/principles or whatever you want to call them. Rules to make photographs better such as thirds, even/odd, "balance", golden ratios, etc.

Many of them also feel they are expert in critique and judging and giving scores for competitions. There are a whole bunch of rules from the PSA and often even more extensive lists developed by the local clubs.

That is not what I am thinking about when I mention more extensive training in the visual arts. What is missing is often hard to describe but fairly easy to recognize. Those with training at BFA or MFA level typically stand out. They have moved outside of the technical aspects I mentioned above and work in the realm of creativity, expression, artistic intent and using skills mentioned as tools to achieve those goals.

All of this is about impossible for those of us, mostly males, who were born gearheads. Finding appropriate training, without going to art school for 4 or 5 years, can be tough.

 

[Cherry_F]

Because I'm an amateur myself. The professional sector is very segmented, it probably differs according to the genre (wedding, portraits, ...)
I wonder about women who make photography their hobby and use cameras, not smartphones, to take pics.

 

[BGD300V1]

Even if gender, race, nationality, age, or any other factors one can think of may not be obvious to the observer in no way negates the fact that these will influence the results. Any individual sensitive to these differences may well be able to distinguish them apart even if you cannot.

Prove it

 

[BGD300V1]

That's great ... but if some female photographers of a different time and place say they were 'despised' by male photographers during their careers, they probably were.

The question there would be why were they despised?

Despicable people are not defined by gender.

 

[Overrank]

Sabine Weiss, who recently died, explained that she had long been despised by male photographers.

I recently discovered another french woman, Catherine Leroy, acclaimed in the U.S. for her coverage of the Vietnam war... I live in France, I had never heard about her: https://blog.theveteranssite.greatergood.com/cathy-leroy/

Another "famous" example is Gerda Taro who took great photos during the Spanish civil war. She is much less known than her companion, Robert Capa.

At one time both Gerda Taro (Gerta Pohorylle) and Robert Capa (Endre Friedmann) sold photographs they had taken under the name Robert Capa ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerda_Taro#Establishing_the_Robert_Capa_alias ). It is thought that there remain photographs taken by Gerda Taro mistakenly credited to Robert Capa.

I don't come across many female amateur photographers when I travel. Photography seems to be a male activity. Can't see the reason why... What do you think?

 

[Mark_A]

Lots of female photographers in my camera club and they're very capable winning lots of competitions and prizes.

I don't know about their lack of interest in gear some of them have very up-to-date gear but the gear itself doesn't seem to correlate with success.

Mind you I'm not sure that I am very impressed with camera club successes because I think it seems to run with a fairly standard or standardized formula.

Mark_A

 

[jrkliny]

.....Mind you I'm not sure that I am very impressed with camera club successes because I think it seems to run with a fairly standard or standardized formula.

That is certainly the way it is in my area. There is a master group with about 20 clubs and a total of a thousand or so members. Each club runs monthly competitions and then submits an allotted number of images for the final judging. Both the local and regional competitions are scored by judges who have been trained and approved by the master organization. The judges score based on a set of guidelines which are heavily technically oriented. The major, non-technical criterion is "impact". Keeping the scores mostly technical helps to achieve consistently and removes much of the subjectivity.

When I first became seriously interested in photography, I joined a local club and participated in the competitions. It did not take too long to understand the scoring system and my scores improved rapidly, even if my photography did not. After a number of months, I decided to sit in on the regional judging. Three judges scored each image and the average result was the final score. The judges scored hundreds of images and typically arrived at their scores in well under 10 seconds. After watching that I lost all interest in camera club competitions. Many of my fellow photographers continue to be involved. It is a social event. It stimulates their shooting and interest in photography. Some of the clubs also have speakers and tutorials which are valuable. The club I belonged to was very lacking in that regard.

Jim, aka camperjim

Special Places Photography

This site contains fine art photographs. Most are available for sale as prints either plain, matted, or framed. Subjects include nature, flowers, and landscapes. Many of the landscapes are from the major American National Parks, including Death Valley, Yellowstone, Arches, Canyonlands...

www.specialplacesphoto.com

 

[Lensmate]

I don't come across many female amateur photographers when I travel. Photography seems to be a male activity. Can't see the reason why... What do you think?

When I'm out in the field shooting wildlife/birds, I come across plenty of female photographers. Some throw around a 500mm f4 lens like its a baby in their arms with no discomfort at all. [though some do work-outs at the gym for this...]

-M

 

[Mark_A]

That is certainly the way it is in my area. There is a master group with about 20 clubs and a total of a thousand or so members. Each club runs monthly competitions and then submits an allotted number of images for the final judging. Both the local and regional competitions are scored by judges who have been trained and approved by the master organization. The judges score based on a set of guidelines which are heavily technically oriented. The major, non-technical criterion is "impact". Keeping the scores mostly technical helps to achieve consistently and removes much of the subjectivity.

When I first became seriously interested in photography, I joined a local club and participated in the competitions. It did not take too long to understand the scoring system and my scores improved rapidly, even if my photography did not. After a number of months, I decided to sit in on the regional judging. Three judges scored each image and the average result was the final score. The judges scored hundreds of images and typically arrived at their scores in well under 10 seconds. After watching that I lost all interest in camera club competitions. Many of my fellow photographers continue to be involved. It is a social event. It stimulates their shooting and interest in photography. Some of the clubs also have speakers and tutorials which are valuable. The club I belonged to was very lacking in that regard.

Jim, aka camperjim

Yes I àm a bit dissolusioned with camera club images. I prefer the visiting speakers to the competitions.

Mark_A