A Question About "Shooting like a man"

rodnunley · Dec 9, 2013

So this weekend I was talking to a friend about photography and during the conversation she said that I "shoot like a man". She said that if I looked around at the photography being bought and shown in magazines that it was photography that was "shot like a girl" or geared to sell to women.

I tried to get her elaborate or explain what she meant but she couldn't articulate her feeling.

I am a man. So certainly I am guilty of shooting to my tastes as I am a hobbyist and don't sell my work. But I do want to understand what she's talking about so I can grow as a photographer.

I also am aware that there is a difference between what she may see in magazines like Cosmo or Bust vs what I would see in Playboy or GQ. I don't know that this is what she was specifically referring too.

I generally try to emulate a style ... not a person. But it got me wondering how big a role my gender is playing in my photography.
I just wanted to get everyone's thoughts on what she is saying. Do others feel that there is a stylistic gender difference in photography?
(Here is a link to my Flickr page if you care to look at what she means: Rod Nunley's photosets on Flickr but I don't think that it's necessary to talk about my specific question)

PS: I have spent my time as a photographer trying to master the technical side. I want to know my equipment and how to use it. It's fun to figure it out. But I would like to start getting better results on the other end of the spectrum. More emotion in the images I create.

sashbar · Dec 9, 2013

If she was unable to explain what did she mean, how on Earth can we do it? And btw we do not even see your pictures. You know, one picture says more that a thousand of words

PS. OK, I see the link now

It is definitely not a girl's photography :mrgreen:

If we look at your portraiture, I am afraid what she said was not a compliment. Above all it has a rather "manly" direct, sometime brutish, sometimes naive feeling with very little consideration to aestetic sentiments when they do not support the main sex appeal theme. The words "nuanced", "style" and "beauty" are completely alien here. And that I guess can easily get up the woman's nose. Because women want and cherish these things for the sake of it, not as a part of their sex appeal or an instrument to get laid.

Derrel · Dec 9, 2013

I think if the sets I saw had been "shot by a girl", there would be more styling done, more propping, more "thematic" sets, as opposed to the simple seamless paper backgrounds and very minimalist propping that your style features. I think that might be what your friend was trying to articulate, but it's impossible to know what she meant for sure, since she could not even articulate what she was trying to say. In one sense, your style seems very dated, very old-fashioned, very "1950's magazine aimed at men style". Not like Playboy, but more like Argosy, or some of the other 1950's magazines for men, the kind that existed BEFORE Playboy ever printed an issue.

(As a side note, let me say that the question you're posing is, I think, filled with plenty of opportunities for potentially divisive replies.)

amolitor · Dec 9, 2013

For one thing you shoot a lot of scantily clad women in sexy poses.

rodnunley · Dec 9, 2013

sashbar said:
If she was unable to explain what did she mean, how on Earth can we do it? And btw we do not even see your pictures. You know, one picture says more that a thousand of words

There is a link to my flicker page in my first post.

rodnunley · Dec 9, 2013

Derrel said:
I think if the sets I saw had been "shot by a girl", there would be more styling done, more propping, more "thematic" sets, as opposed to the simple seamless paper backgrounds and very minimalist propping that your style features. I think that might be what your friend was trying to articulate, but it's impossible to know what she meant for sure, since she could not even articulate what she was trying to say. In one sense, your style seems very dated, very old-fashioned, very "1950's magazine aimed at men style". Not like Playboy, but more like Argosy, or some of the other 1950's magazines for men, the kind that existed BEFORE Playboy ever printed an issue.

(As a side note, let me say that the question you're posing is, I think, filled with plenty of opportunities for potentially divisive replies.)

This is a good point. Now that I am more technically proficient I do want to do more location shooting. Finding indoor furnished locations can be challenging.

rodnunley · Dec 9, 2013

amolitor said:
For one thing you shoot a lot of scantily clad women in sexy poses.

This is true. But so do lots of photographers. I just want to learn to do it as a better photographer.

jenko · Dec 9, 2013

Maybe she thinks you are objectifying the women. All T&A and no authentic personality, soul, or depth. Caricatures. Stereotypes.

I have a problem with the phrase "shooting like a man" because I find it sexist. Even if what I wrote above is true, and that is what she felt, not all men photograph women in this way. So, I also take issue with the idea of "shooting like a man."

runnah · Dec 9, 2013

I brought this up a while ago. The idea was if you could tell the gender of a photographer by just their work. I put forth that most people could guess with a high degree of accuracy.

rodnunley · Dec 9, 2013

And let me be clear. I am at the point with my photography on a technical level where I want to move on to learning how to shoot a good photograph. Not just a technically good photograph. I want to learn how to better get emotion from my model in the pictures that we take.

robbins.photo · Dec 9, 2013

Scratch yourself occasionally between shots. Bam. Your shooting like a man! Lol

Big Mike · Dec 9, 2013

I caught a bit of a headline earlier today (can't find the article now) that was about how men & women see/respond to advertising. It said something along the lines of 'Women don't respond as much as men, to sexuality used in advertising...unless the product is very expensive'.

I don't know if that applies to the topic of 'Shoots like a man'...but it might.

sashbar · Dec 9, 2013

rodnunley said:
And let me be clear. I am at the point with my photography on a technical level where I want to move on to learning how to shoot a good photograph. Not just a technically good photograph. I want to learn how to better get emotion from my model in the pictures that we take.

This is the most difficult step. Technical stuff is easy. HERE the learning curve becomes really steep.
PS. I saw the link and amended my first post. Thanks.

imagemaker46 · Dec 9, 2013

In my field of sports I know women that can out shoot a lot of men, and in some sports can kick my ass even on a bad day for them, I have been humbled by a good friend of mine from the UK that I believe is the best gymnastics photographer in the world. Does that mean they shoot like men? I think in certain areas, women feel more comfortable having pictures done by women, in other areas it makes no difference at all. Talent, skill and experience with a camera should not have a gender attached to it.

limr · Dec 9, 2013

I took a quick look at the OPs pictures and what I will suggest is that there's a very obvious sexuality about them - lots of skin, lots of pin-up t&a poses, lots of lacy underwear or tight clothing. Men are very visual and this type of overt sexuality is appealing and effective. Women are not...well, we're not so impressed with such displays. And since a lot of us don't look like Victoria Secret models, the idea that one must wear skimpy clothes and push up bras and show lots of skin is annoying, insulting, intimidating, and discouraging all at the same time. So why would we want to shoot in such a way as to make us feel crappy and angry?

I think a female photographer might style a shoot differently, as suggested, but also think differently about how to portray sexuality. She might draw on her own experiences about what turns men on: a sexy come-hither look in the eye, a flushed face, sex hair. Maybe she's wearing his robe or a big shirt - you can't see a lot of skin but you know she's naked underneath and she's giving you "the look" and you know what's on her mind. There's a LOT more left to the imagination.

Edited: For a specific example, I looked at the pictures of a woman wearing a sweater with a tattoo on her chest. Can't remember her name. I clicked on that gallery thinking, "Finally, maybe these will be more subtle than the others." What I saw was one picture with her sitting down, legs apart, looking at the camera and holding a sword between her knees. There was definitely a come-hither look on her face and the sword...well, the phallic symbolism doesn't get a lot more obvious than that. And oh yes, she had no pants on. Just the big sweater. Only the placement of the sword prevented the viewer from seeing her lady bits.

Put some friggin' pants on her. Between the look in her eye and the sword, the idea of 'sex' came across loud and clear without having to resort to lots of naked flesh as well.