I think the cover shot, of a styled, perky girl with a (probable) consumer camera (we're all photographers now, get it?) with a definite kit lens pretty much says it all.
I can hear the voices at the concept meeting now:
"We need to make more money. Can we come up with another contest that encompasses...everything?"
"No, we have already done that."
"I've got it! Combine "Real Simple," "The Knot," "Cosmopolitan," and "Popular Photography!"
"Great idea! We'll fill it with useless stuff about 'photography,' targeting women--articles like this:
"Get Stronger," "Shoot in Style," "Makeup Tips for Behind the Camera," and "Craft Projects!"
"Awesome! All of the articles will subtly imply that women have no understanding about photography, and they are more interested in looking cute and taking Pix! Get it? Pix! Awesome title!"
"Right, it'll be just like the girl mags that subtly demean women and their body image etc. except this will be photography! No serious information, just candy corn soundbites that read like a FB post!"
Seriously, though, the women photographers I know (and I know a lot) would most likely laugh at this obvious money-grab, and burn it.
The girls I know carry two bodies, a 70-200, 24-70, 12-24, flash or two, and a laptop. And that is a light day.
They set up studio shots with famous people, shoot concerts from the pit, file shots on the fly, and generally do it with their own style and flair, while being highly professional and excellent shooters.
They don't need to know about "50 Irresistible Accessories." They are more concerned about technique and getting the shot that counts--and that includes even the wedding shooters and amateurs I know.
But to imply that women are not strong enough to do photography; are more concerned with what they wear while shooting rather than genuine photographic knowledge; and are more interested in "color trends" and being "artsy" than in F-stops and RAW files, is a disservice and embarrassing.
Posts
