Anyone can pick up a camera and learn how to shoot, regardless of sex or race. However, if you examine the top tiers of the genre, that basic tenet seems to be less assured. Why is photography seemingly dominated by white males?
The Facts
Both Canon and Nikon have ambassador programs, whose primary focus is representing the brand and furthering photography education. Part of educating is passive; that is, educating is not just the act of passing forth information. It's also a matter of representation — the role model. Like it or not, we learn, both on a conscious and subconscious level, partly through mimicry and a constant feedback loop of comparison. This is particularly important for younger people and children, who lack some of the finer nuances of critical thinking necessary to separate ability, character, identity, and biology. Adults aren't particularly proficient at that either.
Let's look at the actual discrepancy first. Canon's Explorers of Light contains 41 ambassadors:
- Men: 34 (83 percent)
- Women: 7 (17 percent)
- White: 38 (93 percent)
- Black: 0 (0 percent)
- Asian: 2 (5 percent)
- Hispanic: 1 (2 percent)
Nikon's program contains 24 ambassadors:
- Men: 17 (71 percent)
- Women: 7 (29 percent)
- White: 23 (96 percent)
- Black: 1 (4 percent)
- Asian: 0 (0 percent)
- Hispanic: 0 (0 percent)
On the other hand, let's look at the U.S. population:
- Men: 49 percent
- Women: 51 percent
- White: 64 percent
- Black: 13 percent
- Asian: 5 percent
- Hispanic: 16 percent
A quick comparison of the ambassador program numbers to the U.S. population makes it immediately clear that white males are disproportionately over-represented, while women and minorities are underrepresented.
First off, the photographers who are represented by Canon and Nikon are all highly skilled and creative people and deserve the accolades bestowed upon them. That said, why are so many of them white males? Is it a top-down or bottom-up issue? Why does it matter?
Photo by Chelsey Rogers
Why It Matters
You might make the argument that when we look at photos, we're not looking at the photographer. We don't see the sex or race of the person who created that photo. That's true, but if you give 100 chefs the keys to a grocery store and tell them to prepare any dish and 95 of those chefs are Italian, do you think you'll get more pasta dishes or Pot-au-feu?
Photography is an art, and just like any other art, its individual instances of expression are subject to the eye of the creator, who carries with them the collective sum of their cultural experiences, along with other things. For example, my musical compositions are clearly derivative of the Western classical tradition as opposed to Eastern, African, or other music. That's because I was raised in an environment and culture where that was the music I was predominantly exposed to. I am a product of that culture and I exhibit that in the music I produce.
And thus, when we represent photography mostly by white males, we get mostly white male photography. That's not to say that the individuals within that group are inherently flawed, but rather that by over-representing that group, its collective culture becomes over-represented in its artistic output, which in turn perpetuates the illusion of said culture's prominence, which in turn influences the next generation of creators. In turn, other cultures and collective experiences become othered, and the idea of photography itself, the very intrinsic idea of the act, becomes misrepresented via disproportionate representation of its constituents. In photography's specific case, this has very real consequences beyond the idea of the photograph, the photographer, and the act of photographing.
Indeed, I simply Googled, "photographer," and the first six image results were white males. But photography is, like any other art, not self-contained; it is produced (for the most part) for consumption by those beyond its own practitioners. And while the misguided image of the photographer as white male is problematic enough in itself, the effects are far more reaching and influential when we consider the vehicle of photography itself: the photograph.
When photographs disproportionately carry the collective consciousness and culture of a specific group, they in turn disproportionately bias their consumers toward that group's ideas on anything from sexuality to social habits. Culture feeds into art feeds into culture. Culture feeds into advertising feeds into culture. Culture feeds into journalism feeds into culture.
This not only affects the outflux of culture, but also the influx. How can a company reasonably market the (what should be self-evident) idea that photography is as much for women as it for men when men represent their brand over women by a ratio of five to one? There's a critical mass – a bifurcation at which the cycle becomes self-sustaining.
To that point, I recently posed a question in a similar vein in another article, and literally every comment was from a male, most of whom said there was no problem. While they're certainly entitled to their opinions, it's tough to take any denial of any problem's existence as gospel when it comes from the mouth of those who benefit from or are at the very least unaffected by the imbalance, particularly when the imbalance is so severe as to effectively silence the other voice in many circumstances — a mathematical overwhelming. And while I can't claim to have conducted my own rigorous statistical studies, I can say anecdotally that I know more women with a legitimate interest in photography than I do men.
Photo by Paige Rosemond
Top Down or Bottom Up
So now, the question becomes: is it an issue perpetuated by a top-down approach or bottom-up? That is, are those who are the "gatekeepers" responsible for perpetuating this representation of photography, the photographer, and the photograph via their choices of whom to put in those positions? Or is it that the subset of the population that has cameras and then proceeds to achieve an elite status through their work with them is somehow skewed? Certainly, minorities and women are not less creative than white males. Furthermore, while racial and gender income gaps are statistically well documented, capable photography gear is more attainable than ever. Simply put, I don't buy the bottom-up reasoning.
Rather, I think what we're seeing is a third mechanism: top-down by proxy. The lack of diversity in professional fields and representation in culture is well documented in the United States. Simply put, women and minorities are often not represented at a proportion equal to that of their proportion of the total population. For many, it is normalized, and because of that, they may operate with the sense that the skewed proportions are actually representative.
I'm treading dangerously close to claiming to know individual intentions of those who appoint the likes of camera ambassadors, which I obviously don't; so I'll take this chance to mention that this again harkens to the idea of the collective consciousness. And because of that collective consciousness, we experience a diffusion of responsibility, a sort of unconscious meta-bystander effect within the collective consciousness — social inertia, if you will.
Conclusion
A disproportionate representation of a group in an artistic realm results in a cultural deficit of expression, and when that art form often informs, shapes, and literally is popular culture and journalistic dissemination, that deficit in turn skews the culture itself and rewires the collective consciousness of its members. Skewed becomes normalized, and the art form becomes culturally insular, while that which it outputs becomes single-minded by inclusion and othering by exclusion.
Even if the art form itself experiences this phenomenon not as an internal event so much as the projection of a wider culture onto its existence, that does not prevent those who participate in it from working to correct disproportionate representation; indeed, if that art form can be insular in its cultural expression, surely it can be insular (with respect to the wider culture) in its rebuttal of said insularity.
Thanks, Mateusz; I'm just glad we were able to have discussion about it!
It's my bias that was shown. I should have studied what other meanings word has, and finally I should be more careful with my harsh language. I am not a bad person, nor am I easily offended, but I just reacted on impulse. Feel free to label me as unstable or something, but I am trying to improve as days go by, and analyze everything without my biases interfering with actual text/data.
90% stemmed from that one word, when I think now, my brain still translates it as a bad word, but it doesn't matter, I owed you an apology I am happy that you replied.
Also, the reason the large telephotos lenses are white is to reflect heat and mitigate element expansion and contraction.
And also, that was a joke. And a stupid way someone might write an article title, assuming that Canon had some intentions behind coloring the lenses.
The real reason is obvious, and while I thank you for clarity in an answer, it wasn't necessary.
Yes, and my response to your sardonic joke was an equally (though factual) sardonic joke.
Whenever race issues come up, we can easily dismiss or belittle the next person's point of view, because it is not our own reality. There are major racial divides in all fields across the board, but it is disheartening for others of different racial, political, socioeconomic, gender, etc. to dismiss the next person's point of view, merely because it is not their own.
A simple analogy: I grow orchids. I do well with orchids. I have a lot of people say "Oh my God, I love orchids, but they are soooooooo difficult to grow."
"No they're not." Can easily be my reply. Why? Because I haven't had any problems growing them. That's MY reality as it pertains to orchids, just like THEIR reality is they had difficulties. Doesn't make their issue with the plant any less their truth.
When Alex Cooke penned this article, he searched out his information, wrote his article (from his point of view) and here we are. Women chimed in and most agreed with it, African-Americans chimed in and most agreed with it. Caucasian men chimed in and most did not agree with it. So who's to say which group is "wrong" with their assessment due to THEIR realities?
Just a little food for thought.
While I perfectly understand what you are saying, I wasn't talking about that. You can post statistics, and comment them, no harm there, numbers aren't racist. It's just the way title is presented to reader. You got a straight rhetorical question. Is majority white male? Yes. But by inserting words like overrun - a pejorative it saturates the title with bias. White males aren't the gatekeepers of the photography, there is no selection, and no rules. Saying that makes it, that white males are somehow responsible for this state of things, which is absurd. And this is what I meant. I didn't belittle anyone's point of view, just saw the way he showed us the information, as if blaming white males. From any perspective I find that racist. It really shouldn't be even a topic of discussion in comments, because there is no way one group can influence the other in good or bad way.
And above else in a hobby and profession we all love why spark these thoughts? I just don't understand and if I would to write a piece [I'm bad at writing], I would at least present the data and let the reader decide what is going on. Why, how etc. This is the first time in my life, when something like photography - having no identity whatsoever becomes saturated with issues of equality and whatnot. It isn't, it shouldn't. It's just photography.
This is Magnum. See the line up?
This is a group. We have no way of knowing if it's objective or subjective. I can do the same, just use aaaaa, I don't know a basketball team photo for example, it does not make me any less skilled as a basketball player, even if top groups are black for example. In fact it doesn't say anything, it doesn't do anything on it's own. I could go and make a racist statement that: 'basketball players are black in a majority, because they run faster' and dozens of others statements. But there is zero statements like that when it comes to photography. And I will stand by that,as there are no facts to prove either women nor of other races are worse at photography. Zero. It is equality and boils down only to an individual, not country, not race, not gender, not age, nothing.
This is FStoppers. See the line up?
In total between the two groups, I will be generous (without really looking). I will say 5 black photographers.
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/upload/The%20State%2...
If you would like to browse thru, although the gender % are kinda similar, at an individual level we see way more people from around the globe. I do not think we should survey small groups, but large bits of data, where you see each person as-is.
I am thinking this whole time, and I cannot find even one argument, why the data shows this discrepancy.
They may be some in the contributors section, Dallas. LoL, they might be on some you can contribute but we do not need anymore editors or staff writers. Earlier, when I visited their Meet The Writers page, I was like, "come on now." Which is why I wrote that it is a reflection of the article in itself. The Huffington Post are no better, once you step away from the specific Voices sections that they have.
There may be some there, but it's the "GateKeepers" that let them in.
As for Magnum, you already know, Dallas. Even though, I expected a more diverse lineup from them, due to Henri being the type to go against the grain. Yet, Eli Reed (who is a great photographer) tends to be most prolific Black photographer to be a part of such a powerful agency.
So there IS a gatekeeper in some way, shape or form.
I refuse to accept that, there could be thousands of variables. What really defines the 'top'? Top selling, top popular? Or just picked by one, or by group. I see zero difference in any group 'being able to be top'. I can only see and point when I stand near any given individual, and for example Person A will not be top photographer, because he has better hobby, person B cannot be photographer because of disability for example, like blindness, although there are blind photographers too. But I hope you get my point. When you stand as an individual, nothing is different between any of groups described in article.
Okay. I went to three major photographic institutions. You refuse to accept that. Then there is nothing I can say. I say the sky is blue, I show you the sky is blue, you say you refuse to see that the sky is blue, hence, this is where we are with this discussion.
This issue has permeated all walks of life in America. I say we still suffer from many forms of racisim, you say that isn't true (not YOU per se, the collective "you"). So as I said before, our realities are completely different and since you are unable (or unwilling) to see that fact means we can no longer further have this discussion.
How to rephrase what I have in mind... Maybe I just don't accept photographic institutions as a measure of someones skill? I am really not in position to KNOW what it is like to suffer from racism, nor am saying that you aren't prosecuted by others. I never meant to go this way, because your skill-set is something that cannot be taken from you. The fact that white people gather and form groups that have more white people means nothing to me. Maybe I am being ignorant, or just I'd rather see the pictures. I really mean it, skills are universal as laws of nature, and with skills you can produce great photos, and for me, this is the top. Not arbitrary groups, but skilled individuals. I hope I said this as I see it in my mind. [kinda language barrier, even if I am good at english, there are some things that just cannot be translated at 100%]
Can I ask you if you agree with me on this topic, that if you have skills you are 'at the top'? The creative mind, the idea.
And finally, I hope I wasn't understood in a wrong way. And if you feel offended I can assure you I am not trying to, I just wanted you to see my way thinking on this matter.
That is a different discussion entirely. No outside entity can take away your skill set or artistry, but this isn't this argument.
All of us have some type of photographic goals in our lives (however small or large they may be). We have our own personal pinnacle of what we may deem as success (be it shooting for Vogue Magazine, maybe Victoria's Secret. For some it may be National Geographics or even creating a Pirelli Magazine. For some it may be major commercial campaigns. It is being acknowledged by your photographic peers and superiors as a job well done.
I agree with you wholeheartedly with the aspect of if you have the "skill set" are you "at the top"? For some that is okay, others seek recognition. Every actor would love to receive an Academy Award (they may not say it, but trust me, they do).
So when you approach an establishment where your skill set is on par with everyone else there and they cannot give you a "viable" reason for their exclusion of people in their line up that looks like you, you begin to wonder.
I understand, now I seem like a dick reading my previous posts. I didn't take any of that into account, because for me, having skills is the same as having someone's recognition. They look, they like, they buy. Damn, ok, so it changes everything about the topic then. So... you probably gonna hate me for asking this, but aren't there any big black photography societies and groups? If the problem were so apparent, I would try to make my own 'top', and really stop all actions when it comes contributing to people who will block you. I am sorry, I live in central Europe, racism is very foreign and I see that now, I was ignorant as fuck.
Mateusz, there are black photographic institutes. They HAD to be created for us by us.
Racism is woven into the fabric of American Society.
Isn't that partially at least a good thing? [to create your own things, not racism] You aren't bound by anyone and can progress within your society. Truth be told, if someone would hate me for who I am, I wouldn't even acknowledge their existence. But it may be naive talking. Fuck, no, this is beyond sad and cruel. I will just shut up, nothing good will come out of it. Thanks for giving me and insight.
You have said the most HONEST thing any white person can say. LOL. You are ABSOLUTELY right. LOL. Prior to this article I have always been on the fringes of FStoppers merely because of this type of energy. When you don't see your representation in a line up of the "powers that be", you become discouraged.
This is Canon:
This is Nikon. See the line up?
It would have been nice to perhaps suggest a list of minority photographers who are doing amazing work across the industry. There are so many amazing photographers that aren't getting those opportunities.
Also I didn't see any African Americans in your staff photo.
You made a visit over to there Meet the Writers' area as well. I mentioned this point earlier. It is not just here. If you ever have some free time, check out the Staff section of Hot New Hip Hop dot com.
A great suggestion in reference to naming some minority photographers.
No one cares. Sorry.
Just for the record & this is not to promote visiting another website; however, it is about extending some names & the works of Black photographers from the 20th century. I wrote these essays which are below, & they are about Black photographers beyond Gordon Parks (whom I wrote about as well). This would not fill up half of a room in a massive mansion with many rooms, when it comes down to Blacks being involved in Photography during its 190 years, ever since a camera was aimed for a successful latent image. So many Black photographers, who were professional, good, great, dedicated, & intelligent, did not get to the levels of praising success & it may not have had everything to do with racism, but it sure had something to do with racism.
Gordon Parks & Roy DeCarava: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/feature-gordon-parks-roy-decarava...
The Exhibition of American Negroes in France, 1900: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/feature-the-year-was-1900-there-w...
Jamel Shabazz: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/feature-jamel-shabazz-the-clarifi...
James Van Der Zee: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/photography-james-van-der-zee-188...
Peter Magubane: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/op-ed-peter-magubane-a-fortitude-...
Jeanne Moutoussamy-Ashe: http://www.afropunk.com/profiles/blogs/feature-jeanne-moutoussamy-ashe-t...
Malick Sidibé: http://www.loeildelaphotographie.com/en/2016/12/29/article/159923960/mal...
Canon and Nikon Ambassador program is just behind the times. In my area, its over 80% white female photographers.
Time to unfollow on Facebook.
Fact: Nikon Ambassador and Canon Explorer programs are heavily weighted towards white and male-identifying photographers.
Fact: Zero percent of Nikon Corporate Directors and Officers are white males, and 4% of Canon Directors, Audit & Supervisory Board Members, and Executive Officers are white males.
Conclusion: White male photographers are 0% at fault for these circumstances.
Why does this not have a million upvotes?
Fascinating article Alex! I understand the discomfort this topic might bring, esp. with the wave of political nonsense that is sweeping across the nation. Yet its an interesting topic that not many seem to think about, yet if you're a minority, its something you constantly have to deal with.
I'm a black photographer, who has won several major awards through Canon, specifically Canon Project Imagination. Ive been shooting my entire life, but I didnt take it serious until 2004 when I landed a magazine job. Growing up we all look for inspiration in those before us, who typically share the same ethnic background. I of course looked for black artist, but lets face it, 80s-90s pre-internet researching restricted me to books I found in the library. And of course there were few if any, books on contemporary artist that had an ethnic background. I honestly grew up (in the South) believing that the only form of black art was folk art. It wasn’t until I reached college and took contemporary art courses that I learned about Basquiat. Yet the topic of black photographers was still a limited avenue and the only known personalty I was able to reflect on was Gordon Parks whom is known specifically for documenting civil rights in the USA, and shooting some fashion photography. My point being is, there are few famous black artist paving the way for us to be inspired by. Secondly, art is expensive. A majority of my schools, mostly black, didn’t have well funded art programs, and of course photography wasn’t even an option. I didn’t consider art as a career until my art teacher surprised me with an art scholarship. Finally, after shooting for the magazine in my hometown for so many years I had developed a following, yet not many people knew what I looked like because I didn’t like being photographed. There are few images of me on my social media profiles. With my last name, Saxon, it came as a slight shock to early clients when I showed up to some local shoots not being white. It became an inside joke between me and my team, yet Ive noticed that people simply associate photographers race and gender based on their subject matter (especially in fashion) . If you fill your book with black models, you are assumed to be a black photographer and, and likewise with white models. Ive faced some racism as well after meeting with some clients to plan the initial photoshoots. Despite them praising my work when they reach out to me through email, and my services being a fraction of the cost as others in my area, …BFA…MFA…I didn’t get call backs from these particular individuals once they realize I’m brown. Through gossip it became evident that it boiled down to the color of my skin. So to avoid that, I simply engaged in posting images of myself. People can yell as much as they want about how there is no need to push for equality, and that minorities have the same opportunities as the majority, but its easy to make statements like that when you’re on the outside looking in.
Great work, Sammie.
Well, so much for enjoying photography for what it is. It's not about color, race or gender. It's expression... that's it. Sure if you dig deep enough you can reason your way into anything, but why? To counter the 'angle' addressed in this post, I would get on Instagram and see the wealth of female and non-white male photographers out there and realize that maybe it all depends on where you're looking for your data. We all know there's some 'elitism' in the world of high performing photographers, and that's the only place your numbers might stand true. But in the real world of collaboration, social media and artistry I'm encouraged by the cross gender and cultural sharing.
In short, there are different ways to present findings and this post was a negative spin. How about a post about the emergence of people cross-collaborating now from different parts of the globe, connecting and encouraging each other in their photography quests!? A title more like, "Transitions in Photography; New Gender and Cultural Perspectives" would have been a more productive approach. Check Instagram... that's your new world of imagery. A diverse one.
If you've ever watched any of the fstoppers videos you'll find they are predominately white males, interestingly enough. Their series on 'critique the community' demonstrates a kind of elitism towards their perceptions of how others' photos should look or whether or not they're a 2,3, or 4 (since 5 is the white unicorn). So to their point in the article... we're only getting a white male take on their perceptions of what photography should be. Interesting they chose to publish this article. Again, check Instagram and you'll see a significant movement away from white males as photographers. I see a vast array of women and cross-cultural publishers and that's what I love about that platform. Photographers of all colors, races and backgrounds can now 'self-publish' without having to be judged or critiqued by those who feel the must weigh in. Gone are the days of albums, as songs now are king. Same with photography... gone are the days of rediculous standards set by a few and images, not photographer are king.
Happy shooting all... and don't look at photography with a white, black or any colored eye. Enjoy the craft, not the critics and soapboxers!
To anyone who is interested, Black participation in photography goes back to the earliest days of its creation. If you want to get information on the history of Blacks in photography, get the book, "Reflections In Black-A History of Black Photographers 1840 to the Present" by Dr. Deborah Willis and view the DVD, "Through A Lens Darkly-Black Photographers and the Emergence of A People" by Thomas Allen Harris.
Dear Mr. Cooke,
As a doctoral student in mathematics, (per your response to Brian Lewis a couple of days ago), I am hoping that you can shed some light on the methodology you used to support your inquiry regarding the racial and gender makeup of the ambassador programs for Nikon and Canon. I do not possess even a fraction of your mathematical skills so I hope you can scale any response you might care to offer accordingly.
Basically, I do not understand how a sample of the 65 individuals in these manufacturers’ programs could be in any way relevant to a population of over 300 million in the US alone. It seems to me the infinitesimal degree of confidence in such a comparison would render any attempt to characterize the results as moot. Could you please help me to understand how these demographic figures led you to your inquiry?
You begin your article with the assumption that anyone can learn to work a camera, i.e. take pictures. Is this true? I see a lot of articles asserting that camera design is biased to ‘right-handed’ users and, indeed, in many cases require both fully-functioning hands to use. From there you have ISO, Shutter speeds, apertures, lens focal lengths, depth of field, hyperfocal distances, and inverse square laws. And that’s just the camera. From there you have photojournalism versus fine art and the ethical and legal issues of where you can or can’t take pictures and of who or what that would keep the fStoppers community boiling for years. It seems to me that it could be intimidating and, as such, produce yet another set of biases to offset a desire to participate.
Yet another consideration could be the ability to support one’s self in such a profession. You could almost hear a Dad’s response, “Photography is fine as a hobby but you should have a real job to fall back on.”
I am curious, too, if there have been any studies where anyone could identify the ethnicity or gender of a photographer simply by looking at a photograph they had taken? Since the term ‘anyone’ might be overly broad, it may be necessary to say general population, other photographers, or curators of photography from major galleries or museums.
Thank you very much for your time and for your consideration of my inquiry. I hope that I have managed to make some small contribution to the conversation.
Regards,
Kurt
Anyone that can hold a camera in their hand and press a shutter can take a photograph. I can sum it up in one word:
AUTO.
Mr. Logan,
While you are absolutely correct that anyone with the ability to hold a camera, or just about any smartphone produced in the past ten years, has the ability to take a photograph in AUTO mode, it seems safe to assume at least three things about that photograph:
1. It will probably never be printed. Anywhere.
2. It will do little or nothing to advance that person’s professional standing as a photographer.
3. It will do nothing to equalize the ethnic or gender equities discussed above.
It is merely a response to this sentence and nothing more: "...You begin your article with the assumption that anyone can learn to work a camera, i.e. take pictures. Is this true?". Because of the mindset of auto and the advent of digital photography, any and all people are picking up cameras and calling themselves professional photographers.
Mr. Logan,
All noted and TKVM for the clarification.
BTW: Beautiful images in your portfolio.
Where can we get some more information on your eBook?
Thank you so much for liking my work and thank you for your inquiry. Here is a link to my eBook:
www.dallasjlogan.com/ebook/
It is shameful that camera companies seem to mostly white male photographers as masters and exceptional artists. However historically within art photography, there have been fewer barriers to women artists when compared to women artists who paint or sculpt. Looking at the art world which is usually very white male, there are many women in the canon of great artist photographers, Nan Goldin, Cindy Sherman, Kiki Smith, Annie Leibowitz, Bunny Yeager, Margret Bourke White, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, Mary Ellen Mark, Francesca Woodman, Sally Mann, Carrie Mae Weems, Lisette Model, Lorna Simpson and the list goes on. Certainly photographic art history still skews towards men, however the field has long been well ahead of the gender equality curve. This makes Canon and Nikon's lack of female ambassedors far more egregious and out of touch with the photography community they sell to as there are so many accomplished woman in the field.
Like all research, it is how we research. I am not saying you researched to meet your articles criteria; however it sounds like you might have done some top searching. Meaning that without really looking into sites or looking further into the industry you might not have really seen what is going on.
I guess the first thing I would say is not knowing what field of photography you are talking about really plays a part, what part of the country, etc... There are a lot of criteria that can change the results. (Just saying these things to try to help quiet some of the hoards).
In regards to the Ambassador programs, I'm not sure how much weight I would let those carry. The day those programs are run by women, you will see those numbers turn around. I can tell you that those programs are quite heavily politically based as well. Not as in Democrat and Republican, but if you ever get involved in something like the PPA where the Ambassador program is also selecting from heavily, you will understand what I mean. It is who knows who, and who is doing what for who.
I know enough large successful studio owners that when I hear someone talk about this classification of photographer, we are talking 4+ photographers in their studio. Surprisingly enough almost all of the time, those photographers are females. The reason for that is people are much more comfortable with female photographers today, plus when they bring their teenage daughters in for their senior pictures, there is that feeling that the female photographer is "safer".
If you search by individual cities in different parts of the country, you will find a huge difference in who is doing what. Again, it is depending on what type of photography you are talking about. There are so many types of photography out there it is impossible to break it out in an article.
Now, this is going to sound so incredibly sexist but hang on and bear with me. I do know that a lot of young women who have worked for me who are incredible photographers and can do any type of work they want have gotten married within a couple of years after they left my employment. That isn't to say they couldn't have continued with their photography, but for some reason they chose not to. It was disappointing to see they didn't continue. I don't know if that was their choice or not. I am NOT saying that women don't photograph or don't go into the industry because they get married or have to make a choice. What I am saying is that like men and women a like I do believe there is a part in all of us that are artistic to say something along the lines of "my work will never be good enough"... "if I have a way to have the steady income"...."if I do "this" now, I can go back to my photography anytime". I do believe women have a much harder time getting support from family, friends, loved ones to pursue photography. Even if you are a man how many of us get that full support from people that say "Go for it... you will succeed and you will be rich and famous...' or anything even close? Not very many photographers have ever had any kind of full support from people. They usually look at us like we are crazy.
There are many more women out there than meets the eye. They may not be the ones with the web site, or their name on the web site, but I am here to tell you that in a lot of cases they are the reasons for keeping businesses afloat. There is still a good ol' boys club out there in this industry, make no mistake about it. Go to a PPA Annual Conference sometime. If you hit one that has 4000+ people at it, be ready to see some women photographers. These gals are true professionals. They are out there. They may not need to toot their horns as loud as the men.
.
I would never have imagined to see an article like this. Photography and race?...... No...... just no. Photography and sex/gender, yes, there are definitely more males in photography than females, or at least it is thought of more as a masculine craft/industry.
What!? So we're not allowed to talk about the issue of racism, but we are allowed to talk about the issue of sexism? What a silly comment. And not 'just...no'. You have to qualify a comment like that. Why not? Why are you allowed to stand up for women (probably just white women though right?) but somebody isn't allowed to stand up against racism?
Please calm down. I stated my contextual point of view, that is all. If you read again, you will see that I didn't say anyone shouldn't state their own view, nor am I telling anyone what to talk about. I'm black African by the way, but I don't care about racism in the sense that I don't promote it. I'm used to sexism in the photography industry, towards myself too, but racism? Considering I live in a dominantly black country.... well...... I'm sure you get my point. The subject of this article is actually HIGHLY contextual, for people in America (I don't know where you are from, nor will I assume) the racial aspect makes sense, for people in Africa, it doesn't. Have a nice day!