[nathanm]

So far I have yet to see any women out in the woods in the freezing cold, but apparently I am photographing the wrong stuff!   Usually if women and cameras are together there's payment and model releases involved.

[thunderbrick]

Dunno, Nathan.  I met my precious wife through a mutual interest in photography.  We were both on an on-line dating site, and I sent her a simple question.  "what kind of photography do you like?"

The next thing you know my house is re-decorated, I am wearing better clothes, and she STILL wants me to move the Maggies against the wall, turn them down, and sell my LPs.

Seriously, I have much better man-cave now and her help is invaluable in making the house look good great.  All of my female buddies are very impressed with what she has done with this stubborn mischief maker.

Neither of us are what we were looking for (and HOW!), but we couldn't be happier!   

[nathanm]

So what was her answer?  In my experience there is only one "celebrity" photographer that non-photo enthusiast people know; Ansel Adams.  He seems to be the only dude who got any traction in the public consciousness.  But keep in mind I come from a land of uncultured bumpkins where such luxuries as the arts only leak in in bits from the outside.  

Maybe I am biased, but it would seem that photography in general is no longer "a thing" if that makes any sense.  It's so ubiquitous with everyone having a camera, not to mention the more nefarious increase in cameras in the environment.  I just think of kids today and how utterly documented their lives are.  For every one photo of me as a kid there's about 100 for a modern kid.  And for people older than me, probably far less!  You may be lucky to have that one formal portrait with you in your finest clothes, clamped in a head brace.

There's certainly more of a female factor in photography than there is in the Hi-Fi man club, I'll grant you that.  It serves both the more emotional and aesthetic concerns of women while also providing plenty of gadgetry and technical stuff for the men, to be completely sterotypical.

[thunderbrick]

So what was her answer?  In my experience there is only one "celebrity" photographer that non-photo enthusiast people know; Ansel Adams.  He seems to be the only dude who got any traction in the public consciousness.  But keep in mind I come from a land of uncultured bumpkins where such luxuries as the arts only leak in in bits from the outside.  

Maybe I am biased, but it would seem that photography in general is no longer "a thing" if that makes any sense.  It's so ubiquitous with everyone having a camera, not to mention the more nefarious increase in cameras in the environment.  I just think of kids today and how utterly documented their lives are.  For every one photo of me as a kid there's about 100 for a modern kid.  And for people older than me, probably far less!  You may be lucky to have that one formal portrait with you in your finest clothes, clamped in a head brace.

There's certainly more of a female factor in photography than there is in the Hi-Fi man club, I'll grant you that.  It serves both the more emotional and aesthetic concerns of women while also providing plenty of gadgetry and technical stuff for the men, to be completely sterotypical.

Nathan, I don't recall her answer, but it must have intrigued me.

I agree with you on AA.  I saw a show of AA originals in Detroit a few years ago.  Listening to the know-it-all idiots (mostly guys, BTW) critiquing the prints was maddening.  I wanted to dope-slap ALL of those pretentious bastards.  Like a moron I passed up a chance to take a seminar with him a LONG time ago.  Maybe in the next life, I suppose.

I completely agree on the "thing" thing.  Go to a swap meet and see a bunch of middle-aged neurotics arguing about different coatings or mechanisms, instead of taking photos. Do you see any audio parallels here?  Nah, couldn't be.   

I teach community education photo courses, and your stereotype is right on the money.  Most of my students are women     who really need a little more technical background to get better creative control of their images.  Most of the few men I teach are either BS artists who try to challenge me (bad idea), or they are so obsessed* with the toys/tools that they don't take many photos.

Lastly, my small town has DOZENS of so-called "Pro" photographers listing their services on the community on-line bulletin boards, not ONE of whom has taken my (or others') classes.  All they are is auto-everything snap-shooters who love to take cute photos, and have little or no understanding of people, photo fundamentals, or most important, LIGHT!      

* I confess to having one foot in the creative end, and the other in the "playing with toys" part.  It is, after all a hobby first and foremost.

End of rant.  For now.       

[woodsyi]

Back in '89, I went to see Mapplethorpe exhibition at WPA after Corcoran refused and was actually very impressed by the work.  I have too may conflicting interests to really be a great photographer but I have been piddling with cameras and camcorders since I had my Audiovidual class (which included B/W photo darkroom production) in junior high school.  I do it to "capture" the moment or motion.

[nathanm]

Once you finish a photo all the technical stuff pretty much vanishes anyway, so that may be why technically-interested people don't take many photos, cause then the fun's over so to speak.  I know I enjoy the process of making photos much more.  Once I get it printed and framed I lose interest in it and want to move onto the next thing.  But before I shoot the thing I will be much more obsessive about gear and whatnot.

[brj]

But keep in mind I come from a land of uncultured bumpkins where such luxuries as the arts only leak in in bits from the outside.

Hey now!  You have all that art in the fancy Quadracci Pavilion to go view...   

Hmmm... the Quadracci seems like a really nice photographic target, now that I ponder it.  (I haven't been there in a few years.)

[drphoto]

I didn't get in on the voting, but I'd say I basically take pictures to get paid. However, photography has been a fun career You get to solve new problems all the time. I've been all over the country and have seen a lot of interesting things. Plus, its great to be your own boss.

I've been self employed my entire life. I was a house painter in high school and college, and then went into the photo biz. Even when I worked as an assistant, I was still a freelancer.

I've been working a part time job over the past year as a pharmacy tech at a hospital, trying to switch gears and go to pharmacy school. There are parts of the job I enjoy, but much of it is the same old shit, day in and day out. Plus you have to put up with the  moronic decisions made from above that never seem to solve real world issues. I have a whole new appreciation for Dilbert!