Comments on: New Female-Oriented PDN Magazine Too Stereotypical?

By: billygoatkid

billygoatkid — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:38:00 +0000

I’m not a woman and I don’t see a thing wrong with this. Who cares? If a woman want to get tips on not destroying their LCD with makeup or maybe they want to look good while still doing a physically demanding job by getting good shoes and keeping their hair out of the way, what’s wrong with that? Why do any of you guys care in the first place?

Secondly, does Jezabels lens skins make her pictures better? She’s an idiot for trying to pretend she’s not sitting on the crapper right now reading this magazine. She probably put a leopard book skin on that too.

By: Giselle Natassia

Giselle Natassia — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 05:30:00 +0000

More than anyhing it’s terrifying that photography has become so popular to even generate things like this.

By: Natalie Lawrence

Natalie Lawrence — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:04:00 +0000

If a certain reader’s first priority on a photo shoot really is their mascara, then I suggest they take up another profession.

The Nielsen Photo Group claims this magazine is aimed at hobbyists, yet the quotes shown above clearly reference activities that would concern those looking to earn more money from their photography, and those headline references certainly don’t seem to emphasise technique or creative thinking.

In my (female) opinion, I don’t find it so much offensive as lazy and patronising. Looking good and being comfortable is important, even if it’s just to present a professional image on shoots, but as a working photographer, these do come second to actually producing top-quality images.

It’s incredibly annoying that a magazine like this thinks women can only photograph babies and weddings. It’s as if Annie Liebovitz, Dianne Arbus and Jane Bown were never born. I know of some phenomal female editorial and fashion photographers. Personally, I don’t go near weddings or baby shoots, I prefer corporate, fashion and editorial work.

There shouldn’t even be a need for a female-oriented magazine; the current ones should be asking (and maybe female readers should send suggestions) about articles that they would find helpful. Regardless of whether they’re about camera gear that’s more comfortable for women to wear, use or carry, kit that looks more feminine, safety when working alone, etc… I don’t mind as long as the tone is more mature and matter-of-fact, not girly.

By: Philip Garber

Philip Garber — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 05:30:00 +0000

I’m a guy, and wouldn’t call myself a feminist (is that even possible?), but this feels sexist, and wrong. Oh, and stupid too.

By: casey colomb

casey colomb — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 04:18:00 +0000

Who cares? What’s stereotypical about a women loving their makeup, shoes and how to stay pretty on the clock? That’s not stereotypical, that’s women. You should be ashamed for stretching so far to fill a spot on your site. :/

By: Darryl Delamont

Darryl Delamont — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 03:56:00 +0000

There are men who actually need someone to convince them to buy a bigger lens? What more would you need to say after, “look – it’s bigger”?

*shrugs*

By: Glenn Orion

Glenn Orion — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:55:00 +0000

I agree with Christian about it being partly ad-driven. Like one of Strobist’s posts points out, nearly 90 percent of its readers are guys! So when ad execs look at this info and apply the same metric to other “traditional” photography magazines, why would they want to advertise there if their target market are female photography enthusiasts? It also has to do with creating a niche in a time when a lot of other publications are closing shop.

Linked this story to a couple female photog friends and none found it offensive.

By: George Socka

George Socka — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:18:00 +0000

BET has an audience and appears to make money, How is this different?

By: psyrex

psyrex — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:36:00 +0000

While I can see the reason to the response towards the mascara, flats, and wraps, I’m confused as to why there’s so much backlash to the subject of weddings and babies. If any generic photography magazine has an article on weddings or babies, are you people going to jump down their throats because you don’t shoot weddings or babies? This is only the first issue!

Now, if after a few issues, and they still haven’t expanded to other photographic interests, then by all means, go savage on them. But this is only one issue. It doesn’t necessarily preclude that women have other interests; they merely haven’t covered the other interests yet.

Besides, it seems like it’s just picking-and-choosing what to get riled up about. What about the other articles in there? How about the “Road Trip” one with a photo truck? Where’s the outrage that PIX is labeling women as truck driving tech crazy photographers? Where is the backlash that since you don’t use a 3-phase generator, it is offensive to have a magazine have an article about one?

By: Tony Hoang

Tony Hoang — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:24:00 +0000

There’s an obvious audience that does fit into this stereotype and they’re making something just for that segment. I don’t see this any more offensive than import tuner magazines having almost naked women on full page spreads while the car is in the background.