Are men better photographers than women?
DD
quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
in this field.
Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
men dominate this field?
--
DD (everything is temporary)
www.dallasdahms.com
Charles
wrote:
>I don't know many female photographers, so I can't comment fully on the
>quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
>photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
>but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
>in this field.
>
>Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
>men dominate this field?
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that commercial sucess in
photography hinges on the ability to promote yourself as much as the
ability to make atractive images. At least at first, when a person is
getting started.
Eugene
> I don't know many female photographers, so I can't comment fully on the
> quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
> photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
> but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
> in this field.
>
> Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
> men dominate this field?
>
You could make the same observation about most other fields as well. I'm
certainly not going to suggest that men are more competent than women,
but it seems that at the top of virtually every profession you'll find
lots of men, but few women. I have a theory that in general men are more
ambitious and competitive than women (I think it's a testosterone thing)
and perhaps place a higher priority on career advancement (please note,
I said "in general", I'm not trying to offend anyone here). There's
obviously also the family thing. In general starting a family for most
women means that their careers take a back seat (at least for a while)
whereas this is not generally the case for men.
Interestingly in the photography program at my university there's only 2
guys in final year (including me), compared to about 10 girls, not that
I'm complaining ;-) Perhaps things are going to change a bit in the future.
Charles Schuler
"DD (Rox)" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dcae000b...@news.mweb.co.za...
>I don't know many female photographers, so I can't comment fully on the
> quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
> photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
> but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
> in this field.
>
> Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
> men dominate this field?
Check out http://www.pbase.com/zylen
This gal is very good. To answer your question, men will continue to become
less dominant in every field as cultures evolve. The major reason that gals
have been "limited" in what they can do is a cultural bias that is rapidly
crumbling in some nations and that trend is spreading to others. The human
race cannot afford to ignore half of its talent.
jean
"Charles Schuler" <charle...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:qdKdnWyAqZX...@comcast.com...
The muslims are doing their best to prevent that from happening. How on
earth can you take pictures with a burka?
Jean
Charles Schuler
> The muslims are doing their best to prevent that from happening. How on
> earth can you take pictures with a burka?
The Muslims will eventually lose their shaky advantage. They currently have
enough clout to cause a lot of misery for some time to come ... but their
time is finite. Unfortunately, the end game is going to be ugly as they are
"die hards." But, die they will in terms of their untenable cultural
attitudes. This is the information age and the truth spreads rapidly.
Eugene
> The Muslims will eventually lose their shaky advantage. They currently have
> enough clout to cause a lot of misery for some time to come ... but their
> time is finite. Unfortunately, the end game is going to be ugly as they are
> "die hards." But, die they will in terms of their untenable cultural
> attitudes. This is the information age and the truth spreads rapidly.
>
I don't really agree with you here. I think their grip is getting
stronger, and remember that in general they're multiplying faster than
the rest of us. I just saw a documentary about Islam in Malaysia. This
was a fairly progressive country, but gradually civil liberties are
being eroded and the strict muslim code of behaviour is coming into
force. If you are a muslim there you can be arrested now for things that
a few years ago wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. The moral dress code
police raided a nightclub that had been operating without any concerns
for many years and arrested anyone who they deemed to be dressed
indecently according to their laws.
Paul H.
> quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
> photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
> but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
> in this field.
>
> Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
> men dominate this field?
Men are better at just about everything. In fact, women are so blitheringly
incompetent at tasks other than darning men's socks that it almost seems as
if they belong to a separate species, one astonishingly close to chimps and
bonobos. Most women can't even screw on bottlecaps without getting so
confused they break down in tears, waiting for some man, any man, to come
along and properly finish the job. Why aren't there more women
photographers? Ha! Because they can't figure out how to remove the damn
lens caps on their cameras, that's why! Don't you know anything? You must
be a woman yourself to ask such a blindingly stupid question.
Hope this helps further understanding between the sexes. Why can't we all
just get along?
G.T.
"Charles Schuler" <charle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qdKdnWyAqZX...@comcast.com...
>
> "DD (Rox)" <ro...@empirerods.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1dcae000b...@news.mweb.co.za...
> >I don't know many female photographers, so I can't comment fully on the
> > quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
> > photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
> > but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
> > in this field.
> >
> > Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
> > men dominate this field?
>
> Check out http://www.pbase.com/zylen
>
> This gal is very good.
Great composition but I find the overly-processed photos fairly obnoxious.
I much prefer her simpler shots.
Greg
eawck...@yahoo.com
> Hope this helps further understanding between the sexes. Why can't we all
> just get along?
Sir! You appear to be calling this "DD (Rox)" a troll!
In accordance to the "USENET Equality and Good Faith Assumption Act of
2005", you can expect the arrival of the agents from the Ministry of
Love very soon. Do not resist. They are their for your protection,
and a quick, safe, transport to the re-education facility. These
latent urges to speak the truth are very, very, hurtful to yourself.
You'll come back filled with love, completely refreshed! You may even
be able to listen to a speech from George Bush (The Lesser) and not
even flinch at the inanities! Something to look forward to!
Skip M
Around here, (San Diego) women are about a 50/50 split, especially in the
wedding photography business. My wife and I were shooting a wedding at the
Hotel del Coronado on Saturday. There were three other weddings going on at
the same time (bit of a wedding factory, there!) There were two women
shooting one of them, one woman shooting another, alone, and a man shooting
the fourth, also alone. So the gender count is four women, two men, four
weddings...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Bob Harrington
news:7sedneSbMqE...@comcast.com:
>
> Men are better at just about everything. In fact, women are so
> blitheringly incompetent at tasks other than darning men's socks that
> it almost seems as if they belong to a separate species, one
> astonishingly close to chimps and bonobos. Most women can't even
> screw on bottlecaps without getting so confused they break down in
> tears, waiting for some man, any man, to come along and properly
> finish the job. Why aren't there more women photographers? Ha!
> Because they can't figure out how to remove the damn lens caps on
> their cameras, that's why! Don't you know anything? You must be a
> woman yourself to ask such a blindingly stupid question.
>
> Hope this helps further understanding between the sexes. Why can't we
> all just get along?
Can I have your stereo?
Anabella M.
You haven't used your peepee in a while, haven't you?
Anabella M.
imo...@tpg.com.au
processing is way way over the top....if she cut it down by 75% it
would look great....
Eugene
>
> I don't really agree with you here. I think their grip is getting
> stronger, and remember that in general they're multiplying faster than
> the rest of us. I just saw a documentary about Islam in Malaysia. This
> was a fairly progressive country, but gradually civil liberties are
> being eroded and the strict muslim code of behaviour is coming into
> force. If you are a muslim there you can be arrested now for things that
> a few years ago wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. The moral dress code
> police raided a nightclub that had been operating without any concerns
> for many years and arrested anyone who they deemed to be dressed
> indecently according to their laws.
I should just add here, that I am not trying to disrespect good decent
tolerant Muslim people, and I know there are many of those. My comments
are directed at the extremist element, which exists in all religions,
those that don't believe that religion and state should be separate and
feel that they have a God given duty to force others conform to their
ideals.
DD
charle...@comcast.net says...
I think its a bit tough to tar all Muslims with the same brush. We have
a lot of them where I live and amongst themselves the degree of
staunchness varies tremendously.
When I was studying for my marketing diploma I had an excellent
statistics lecturer who was a Muslim female. Talking to her about her
culture opened my eyes to the way that they approach western life. For
instance, she still wears a scarf around her head, but her female
children don't. They have the choice.
But yes, you are right in that the times are a-changing...
DD
imo...@tpg.com.au says...
> indeed......she has a good eye and good technique...but the post
> processing is way way over the top....if she cut it down by 75% it
> would look great....
>
>
post processing - that is). Nowhere near the level that we see in that
Cambridge guy's work...
DD
xxpau...@zzcomcast.yynet says...
I can relate to the bottlecap thing. My wife doesn't know how to screw
anything correctly...
DD
johnas...@earthlink.net says...
> >quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
> >photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
> >but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
> >in this field.
> >
> >Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
> >men dominate this field?
>
> Cunningham, Margaret Bourke-White ring any bells?
>
> http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues97/mar97/femphoto.html
>
> http://www.womenphotographers.com/
>
> http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/women.htm
>
> http://www.womeninphotography.org/
>
> Women have been very successful in Photography.
> **********************************************************
But for every woman that makes it as a photographer there are 100 males
doing better. Why?
Eugene
> I can relate to the bottlecap thing. My wife doesn't know how to screw
> anything correctly...
>
You know that could very easily be misinterpreted ;-)
DD
says...
> >
> > I can relate to the bottlecap thing. My wife doesn't know how to screw
> > anything correctly...
> >
>
> You know that could very easily be misinterpreted ;-)
Leonard Lehew
wrote:
>I don't know many female photographers, so I can't comment fully on the
>quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
>photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
>but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
>in this field.
>
>Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
>men dominate this field?
There _may_ be an explanation for this other than "social" factors.
There is considerable evidence that there are difference in the
"wiring" of the brains of men and women, and there are differences in
visual perception.
From an evolutionary standpoint, men evolved as hunters. Our visual
system is optimized to spot their quarry at a distance. One of the
consequences of this is that men tend to have a sort of "tunnel
vision" compared to women, but men do tend to have better depth
perception.
Women, on the other hand filled the role of tending and protecting the
home. For this purpose, visual perception more oriented to observing
many things at once is better suited. Women, in general, have better
peripheral vision than do men..
As a bit of a silly example, if I am looking for a particular object
in a cluttered area, my wife will often hear me muttering and ask me
what I am looking for. I'll tell her. She'll take a quick glance and
say something like, "here it is, right in front of you." Indeed, the
ability to "see" using the entire visual field is generally more well
developed in women than in men.
These differences in visual perception may in part explain why men are
more attracted to certain visually-oriented activities than are women.
wilt
It is known that men generally have better ability for spatial
relationships than women, validated widely with tests like asking
college men and women to draw a bicycle from memory. Women are more
aurally oriented (genetic selection to hear the sound of crying baby)
in general. Female children as young as 4 have been found to use 1/3
more words in a day than male children the same age.
>>One of the consequences of this is that men tend to have a sort of "tunnel
vision" compared to women, but men do tend to have better depth
perception. <<
"Tunnel vision" is more concentration on one important task (find and
kill this week's protein for dinner) than on multiple tasks (husk the
corn, feed the children, change the dirty diaper on the baby, talk to
the other ladies in the village and form interdependent relations in
case I die in childbirth). Less related to visual skills. After all,
scanning the entire horizon to spot one small trace of movement so I
can go kill it for dinner is not 'tunnel vision'
>> She'll take a quick glance and say something like, "here it is, right in front of you." Indeed, the
ability to "see" using the entire visual field is generally more well
developed in women than in men. <<
Hmmm...I have seen the female members of my family (no males except for
me) totally fail to see the obvious. A couple of examples...
Front porch light left on an ENTIRE WEEKEND, seen by me as turned on
when my wife and I departed on Friday evening for a weekend away, then
still turned on Sunday afternoon when my wife and I returned! They
appear to be blind to any artificial light source being on, not sure
why this is because they are so quick to turn them on but NEVER turn
them off! I can tell every room in the house my youngest (college age)
daugther has been in, simply by the lights left on.
My wife can walk right by something day after day, and not even notice
that I had placed it there! My guess is that genetic selection for
gathering skills ignores inanimate objects because you don't spot them
to harvest and eat! <grin>
On the other hand, both of us have suffered equally the "where is..."
syndrome where the other one points out "in front of you!"
Charlie Self
wilt wrote:
>
> >> She'll take a quick glance and say something like, "here it is, right in front of you." Indeed, the
> ability to "see" using the entire visual field is generally more well
> developed in women than in men. <<
>
> Hmmm...I have seen the female members of my family (no males except for
> me) totally fail to see the obvious. A couple of examples...
> Front porch light left on an ENTIRE WEEKEND, seen by me as turned on
> when my wife and I departed on Friday evening for a weekend away, then
> still turned on Sunday afternoon when my wife and I returned! They
> appear to be blind to any artificial light source being on, not sure
> why this is because they are so quick to turn them on but NEVER turn
> them off! I can tell every room in the house my youngest (college age)
> daugther has been in, simply by the lights left on.
> My wife can walk right by something day after day, and not even notice
> that I had placed it there! My guess is that genetic selection for
> gathering skills ignores inanimate objects because you don't spot them
> to harvest and eat! <grin>
>
> On the other hand, both of us have suffered equally the "where is..."
> syndrome where the other one points out "in front of you!"
Buddy's wife gets out of the car in the evening, goes in the house, and
I come over to vist about 8 a.m, to find the car sitting there idling.
My wife "loses" her keys almost daily, as well as her glasses.
She'll walk by things that trip me, without noticing they're there or
that they are obstructions for others. Avoidance radar?
If I throw out something, she notices very quickly, and I catch hell.
About 5 more years to total inundation or whatever you call being
buried under crap that no longer fits, works or is useful.
If I buy something she thinks is not desirable, I can hide it in the
depths of my shop, inside a box inside a cabinet, and she finds it in a
day. Normally, she stays out of the shop.
Good luck figuring it out.
Paul J Gans
>I don't know many female photographers, so I can't comment fully on the
>quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
>photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
>but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
>in this field.
>Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
>men dominate this field?
Ha.
Social values does it. Do you want *your* wife running
around in strange places taking pictures? Many men don't.
---- Paul J. Gans
burns...@yahoo.com
misogynism. But then again I'm a fairly optmistic person so I'm
probably cutting him too much slack...
burns...@yahoo.com
burns...@yahoo.com
technology geek factor. The best photographer I personally know is a
woman (graduate of the Ryerson University)... whenever I met her in
social gatherings all us amateur simpletons would get to talking about
the gear, latest Canon vs Nikon vs Minolta releases, etc... she
couldn't care less; the equipment bored her. All she did was take great
pictures.
I think men have a double draw to photography. Competitive nature (who
can take the best pictures) plus the technology side -- photography
gear is the same as cars, computers, model trainsets,etc. These aspects
keep men interested longer, and investing further.
To a lesser extent, at least in my experience, the women in photography
just want to caputre a moment or express a visual ideal...they learn
about the equipment only as a necessary evil to achieve a goal. In this
sense I suspect the women in photography have a more mature approach.
David Dyer-Bennet
> I don't know many female photographers, so I can't comment fully on the
> quality of their output. I have seen some stunning work in many areas of
> photography by the likes of Annie Lebowitz, EJ Camp and a few others,
> but I remain puzzled by the fact that so few women seem to be successful
> in this field.
>
> Usually women have a better sense of aesthetics than men, so how come
> men dominate this field?
Because men dominate all professional fields requiring total
dedication and a lot of time away from home.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Eugene
Like with cars. Most women I know absolutely hate all the mechanical
aspects of owning a car, and only fill up the gas tank because that
can't really be avoided, unlike checking tyre pressure etc ;-)
Actually not all women have an aversion to technology. My sister is
studying computing and owns a desktop PC, a notebook with portable
scanner, a digital camera and an IPaq handheld PC. She owns more gadgets
than I do. Although even in this case I think it's more about being able
to achieve a particular task more so than technology for it's own sake.
I don't know about this idea that it's immature to be into the
technology side. There's this stigma associated with being a gear wanker
(not sure who originally phrased it that way), but I don't think there's
anything wrong with being into the technology as well as the final
visual results.
cjcampbell
women pilots.
I don't think men are better photographers, or pilots either, but we
are definitely different in how we approach things. In general, I think
society encourages us men to experiment more, to try things without
really thinking them all the way through. We take more of a shotgun
approach to problem solving and are likely to make decisions more
quickly.
Accident statistics, for example, show that men and women are about
equally likely to cause fatal accidents in airplanes, but the way those
accidents occur is very different, suggesting that there should be
different methods for training male and female pilots.
Similarly, men are more likely to take 1000 pictures to get one good
one. Women are more likely to spend considerable time planning a shot.
Not that there are no good male still life photographers or women
photojournalists, but that is just sort of a trend that I have
personally observed. Of course, the people I know are probably
different than the people you know. :-)
Charlie Self
cjcampbell wrote:
> Similarly, men are more likely to take 1000 pictures to get one good
> one. Women are more likely to spend considerable time planning a shot.
> Not that there are no good male still life photographers or women
> photojournalists, but that is just sort of a trend that I have
> personally observed. Of course, the people I know are probably
> different than the people you know. :-)
Or similar. Oldest daughter will take forever lining up a shot, and, on
film, turns out excellent photos. She has a good eye, lots of point and
shoot experience, and no patience at all with post processing. Thus, so
far, she has not managed to dial in her upper mid-range P&S and is not
at all happy with the photos it creates as they come out of the camera.
She's not even vaguely interested in the tech side, nor does PS or PSP
hold any allure. She wants the photos on-screen looking as her shots
looked coming from the photo processor with film.
Some day, we'll both have some time and I'll see what can be done with
the camera. Right now, I don't even know what brand it is. Whenkids get
over 40, they don't often hold still long enough to present details.
David Littlewood
<shadow...@cox.net> writes
--
David Littlewood
Gregory Blank
David Littlewood <da...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <rkd8f.3551$UF4.1134@fed1read02>, Skip M
> <shadow...@cox.net> writes
> >Around here, (San Diego) women are about a 50/50 split, especially in the
> >wedding photography business. My wife and I were shooting a wedding at the
> >Hotel del Coronado on Saturday. There were three other weddings going on at
> >the same time (bit of a wedding factory, there!) There were two women
> >shooting one of them, one woman shooting another, alone, and a man shooting
> >the fourth, also alone. So the gender count is four women, two men, four
> >weddings...
> >
> No funerals?
I know I wouldn't want to be caught dead at one.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Skip M
news:JDQ4OKro...@dlittlewood.co.uk...
LOL!