Men are better Photographer and Women better subject.

[Silence Sky]

Yes this topic is pointless.

However, I would point this out in club snap: Demand and supply.

For men, most of us got into photography probably because of good marketing creating a demand. The manufacturers repeatedly use machoism synonymns in order to sell their products, such as 'tough', 'reliable', 'speed'.

Sad to say, few ever enter it soley because they want good photographs. Then again, that's very much my opinion.

Ever heard of a nikon or canon DSLR labelled 'sleek', 'sexy', or anything else?

And as goes, there is a DEMAND for female models by men who have these machines. So of course the modelling agencies would arrange for more girls to flaunt their stuff instead of guys. Do women demand model agencies for guys? They probably could get the men themselves.

Hence this topic is a dead horse. There is nothing to support the theory that women love to flaunt and men are more inclined to be gifted in shooting than simple demand and supply. The latter is pretty much simplified of course, but it's not an analysis. Just an observation.

However, I would point this out in club snap: Demand and supply.

Supply and Demand is about the invisible hand balancing the economy. We are not discussing about pricing or market trend in this thread. Therefore, it is not related to this topic. If you really want to apply economic principle here, maybe can try using the indifference curve. For example: I am willing to give up one can of Pepsi to look at a male (in trunk) portrait, I am willing to give up five can of Pepsi to look at a female (in bikini) portrait. Both choices give me the same level of satisfaction. By counting the average number of Pepsi needed to trade off for looking at each portrait, maybe we will have a better answer.

For men, most of us got into photography probably because of good marketing creating a demand.

Marketing is for Product, Photography is a hobby and life style. We can promote photography through campaigning (eg. Photography is good and beneficial for you) but very less through marketing. Now, it is like you are saying the manufacturer is so good at marketing that got you to buy a camera without having a purpose. Now, I have bought this camera, what to do with it? Got no choice, but to pickup photography.

The manufacturers repeatedly use machoism synonymns in order to sell their products, such as 'tough', 'reliable', 'speed'.

Got too much to say, but will keep it short. “Tough”, “Reliable” and “Speed”, these terms are used to described the products, having bought this product does not make one a macho man. A lady will also want to buy a product that is tougher, more reliable and perform faster, isn’t it?

Sad to say, few ever enter it soley because they want good photographs. Then again, that's very much my opinion.

Since it is very much about your opinion, let’s skip this line.

Ever heard of a nikon or canon DSLR labelled 'sleek', 'sexy', or anything else?
Who knows one day we will have SLR as compact as today's PnS, built specially for our ladies.

And as goes, there is a DEMAND for female models by men who have these machines. So of course the modelling agencies would arrange for more girls to flaunt their stuff instead of guys. Do women demand model agencies for guys? They probably could get the men themselves.
Female models are in demand for most of the events, eg: Comex; Roadshows; Car Shows ect..
And you say men with these machines DEMAND female models, why?? Are you implying female models are better than male models. More demand means the product is better right? Or, would you like to explain why men with machines demand for female models?

Hence this topic is a dead horse. There is nothing to support the theory that women love to flaunt and men are more inclined to be gifted in shooting than simple demand and supply. The latter is pretty much simplified of course, but it's not an analysis. Just an observation
Sure is dead horse, if you sum it all up as simple supply and demand.

OK continue here.

 

[Deadpoet]

I am definitely not a sexist for having made the following statement. The person I respect most is a woman.

But I generally feel that a man is a better photographer and woman always makes a better subject than man.


I personally think that men are very visual creature (tend to fall in love through looks), that's why like to make nice photograph. Women are more passionate, crave for attention, that's why like to be in front of the camera.

It could also due to our build. Men have stronger arms to carry a SLR, while women have more and better curves to make interesting pictures.

Why do you say?

:think:

Can we get back on topic?

TS's comment is a stereotypical gross generalisation.

 

[eikin]

Can we get back on topic?

TS's comment is a stereotypical gross generalisation.

can i add one more word to that?

TS's comment is a superficially stereotypical gross generalisation.

 

[Wisp]

well.....if you take this "general" back to the topic of discussion, let's see:

Men are generally better photographers

Men are specifically better photographers.


see? i believe(correct me if i am wrong) when you first started this thread, your meaning is actually the first one. but some people just like to you-know-what and purposely view it as the second meaning. with this discussion(or argument, as some pp called it) going on at different sides of the coin, it will just get violent and more violent and more violent, until it becomes a flaming match(like what it is going to happen soon when this post is quoted and replied).

so back to the "arguement" about life being "general"............, there is no argument, there is no spoon, cos i dun know what "general" is, same for "specific". problem is those two words can be defined differently to give advantage to one's "arguement". one can very easily mislead people by defining those words him or herself, giving a slight skewed to the actual topic of disccusion by allowing them to give "arguments" like "Tell me another Lee Kuan Yew you know". and since we find it hard to pinpoint the exact meaning of "general" and "specific", we shall take the general meaning of them as their specifics differ from people to people. so, if one wants to talk about life being general or specific, well......, how do you define "life" in the first place? life as in you, or life as in mankind? ............or do you want to take life in general?

*Sigh*. Your point is?

 

[Silence Sky]

TS's comment is a stereotypical gross generalisation.

whew ... what to say .. really, can't think of anything other than "sucks".
So many words, which one you want me to comment on?
The words are either too short or too long for me to understand.
Put them all together speaks no volume, very flat. Bad composition.
Subject is very blur, totally out of focus.
You know where these words should go to. Also remember to empty the trash bin after you did what is to be done, please.


Brother... me Joke joke only hor....
A very strong statement from you. I don't know how to refute your statement, so I wrote some rubbish.

 

[student]

me Joke joke only hor....
A very strong statement from you. I don't know how to refute your statement, so I wrote some rubbish.

:nono: :nono: Don't joke!

Be serious! How could you even try to talk rubbish! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

Direct. Pull no punches. Give it straight from the gut. No compromises. Make it clear and without ambiguity. If truth hurts, so be it! Afterall, you are only talking about the comments. You are only talking to the person talking. You are not talking about the person who happens to be the person doing the talking!

 

[David]

For men, most of us got into photography probably because of good marketing creating a demand. The manufacturers repeatedly use machoism synonymns in order to sell their products, such as 'tough', 'reliable', 'speed'.

Sad to say, few ever enter it soley because they want good photographs. Then again, that's very much my opinion.

Ever heard of a nikon or canon DSLR labelled 'sleek', 'sexy', or anything else?

Hmm, rather biased opinions.

Maybe we do get swayed by adverts about which brand of camera to buy but I'm not sure if it's justified to say we get into photography bcos of "good marketing". For me, and I know many others, we didn't get into photography bcos of some external strategies. It's the love of the craft itself. To want to take beautiful pics and memories that last. I was also influenced by close people around me.

So I disagree with the 2nd point also. Yes, it's very much your personal opinion. Maybe with digital, it seems people just buy without a purpose for good photos? But there are tons of people out there who are dead serious about photography!

As for the description issue, I think even if you labelled DSLRs as "sleek, sexy" etc, you're probably not gonna get many more women attracted to photography. It's likely the overall implication that is attached to the hobby/trade of photography that make women less interested. (See the issue on soccer and racing below.) So I don't think it's so much about the description itself.

Photography is just like other things ln life. More guys like to play soccer. But you can't say Only guys play soccer. Women do too. More guys like to talk about cars and race with them. But we can't say Only guys do that. Women do too. About the only point we can argue is that there are more guys in these activities than women.

Why the difference? It's the way men and women are different in their biological makeup. Maybe the book "Why men don't listen and women can't read maps" will make a good read. (Even this title is biased and controversial!)

 

[Silence Sky]

Hmm, rather biased opinions.

Maybe we do get swayed by adverts about which brand of camera to buy but I'm not sure if it's justified to say we get into photography bcos of "good marketing". For me, and I know many others, we didn't get into photography bcos of some external strategies. It's the love of the craft itself. To want to take beautiful pics and memories that last. I was also influenced by close people around me.

So I disagree with the 2nd point also. Yes, it's very much your personal opinion. Maybe with digital, it seems people just buy without a purpose for good photos? But there are tons of people out there who are dead serious about photography!

As for the description issue, I think even if you labelled DSLRs as "sleek, sexy" etc, you're probably not gonna get many more women attracted to photography. So I don't think it's so much about the description itself.

Photography is just like other things ln life. More guys like to play soccer. But you can't say Only guys play soccer. Women do too. More guys like to talk about cars and race with them. But we can't say Only guys do that. Women do too. About the only point we can argue is that there are more guys in these activities than women.

Why the difference? It's the way men and women are different in their biological makeup. Maybe the book "Why men don't listen and women can't read maps" will make a good read. (Even this title is biased and controversial!)

Brother David:

We stand on the same line. Great minds think alike. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[Silence Sky]

:nono: :nono: Don't joke!

Be serious! How could you even try to talk rubbish! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

Direct. Pull no punches. Give it straight from the gut. No compromises. Make it clear and without ambiguity. If truth hurts, so be it! Afterall, you are only talking about the comments. You are only talking to the person talking. You are not talking about the person who happens to be the person doing the talking!

Come on, Satay16 confuse me earlier, now your did it again.

By the way, I have seen your works, very nice. I like them.:thumbsup:

 

[David]

Brother David:

We stand on the same line. Great minds think alike. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Izzit? Juz writing what I feel bro.

 

[Lord_Angelus]

WA. this brainless topie is still running?

 

[Wisp]

Hmm, rather biased opinions.

Maybe we do get swayed by adverts about which brand of camera to buy but I'm not sure if it's justified to say we get into photography bcos of "good marketing". For me, and I know many others, we didn't get into photography bcos of some external strategies. It's the love of the craft itself. To want to take beautiful pics and memories that last. I was also influenced by close people around me.

So I disagree with the 2nd point also. Yes, it's very much your personal opinion. Maybe with digital, it seems people just buy without a purpose for good photos? But there are tons of people out there who are dead serious about photography!

As for the description issue, I think even if you labelled DSLRs as "sleek, sexy" etc, you're probably not gonna get many more women attracted to photography. It's likely the overall implication that is attached to the hobby/trade of photography that make women less interested. (See the issue on soccer and racing below.) So I don't think it's so much about the description itself.

Photography is just like other things ln life. More guys like to play soccer. But you can't say Only guys play soccer. Women do too. More guys like to talk about cars and race with them. But we can't say Only guys do that. Women do too. About the only point we can argue is that there are more guys in these activities than women.

Why the difference? It's the way men and women are different in their biological makeup. Maybe the book "Why men don't listen and women can't read maps" will make a good read. (Even this title is biased and controversial!)

I'm doing my assignment at 3am in the morning, so I shall be quick. Good on you that you got into it to take beautiful pictures. Or your friends.

Of course I leave it to your own indiscretion that you did pay attention to those beautiful photographs on national geographic or otherwise that made you want to take great pictures. With a blerb of a little sign that says 'nikon' or 'canon' or whatever. Or the back of even a nat geo magazine . If they could get you interested in photography and create a chance for you to buy their product, that's already a form external marketing strategy! Sponsorship is a valid form of marketing.

Of course, that's if you're honest , I don't know. I begin to doubt people's words after the countless many I met seem to declare themselves impassioned by the works of others but keep switching cameras and sometimes entire systems year after year. And still remain at the same level. And only concerned about pleasing others. Well, like I said, very subjective and remains my opinion.


Sleek and sexy is not only just words, it's also about form and factor. Product design. DSLRs are not made as luxury items, but as work horses. Why are compact cameras made small, silver, shiny with a neat and carefully considered form factor? Well, for an example, go to a club if you should see tons of ladies snapping away with those cameras with their friends.

Not to say you won't find girls with DSLRs. Of course there are, but there is a less inclination among them to do so unless perhaps they are really interested in photography. And then again there are exceptions. And exceptions of exceptions. Nothing is absolute.

As for the rest of the points you made are valid. As for silence sky, I shall deal with your above post after my 2 days of caffeine abuses.

 

[Wisp]

Supply and Demand is about the invisible hand balancing the economy. We are not discussing about pricing or market trend in this thread. Therefore, it is not related to this topic. If you really want to apply economic principle here, maybe can try using the indifference curve. For example: I am willing to give up one can of Pepsi to look at a male (in trunk) portrait, I am willing to give up five can of Pepsi to look at a female (in bikini) portrait. Both choices give me the same level of satisfaction. By counting the average number of Pepsi needed to trade off for looking at each portrait, maybe we will have a better answer.

Supply and Demand is not just a sticker that says 'SOLELY for economics'. It's a terminology. To press your statistical analysis to arrive at such a profound thought that says all women LOVE to show off in front of cameras or men are suited to SLRs just because of their body structure is so mind boggling it rocked a good number of people to the floor , as evidenced.

Use your math to calculate the probability of finding a right partner. Would you do that? I attended a talk on that and I don't think I would agree to sleep with 20 women just to stand a 91% chance that the 21st would be the right one.

Your implementation of statistical knowledge is just another form of creating an educated guess based on random nature, not taking account of human wants and feelings. At times its useful, but for certain purposes (especially labelling people), it's best left in the cupboard.

Marketing is for Product, Photography is a hobby and life style. We can promote photography through campaigning (eg. Photography is good and beneficial for you) but very less through marketing. Now, it is like you are saying the manufacturer is so good at marketing that got you to buy a camera without having a purpose. Now, I have bought this camera, what to do with it? Got no choice, but to pickup photography.

God, re examine your statement. Marketing is 'to sell', regardless of product, service, motif or whatever. To subscribe to your example of how a customer would buy a camera and figure out photography is flawed even in that sense. To sell something, you must create a need. If I were the manufacturer, I would first: try to get you interested in photography, Second: Sell my product. It is still marketing. Campaigning is still yet another form of marketing. So is advertising. So are exhibitions: It's all about marketing, in the case of exhibitions, talent. If you want to stick to your cut and dry version of marketing then go ahead.

Got too much to say, but will keep it short. “Tough”, “Reliable” and “Speed”, these terms are used to described the products, having bought this product does not make one a macho man. A lady will also want to buy a product that is tougher, more reliable and perform faster, isn’t it?

No lady is going to buy a camera that's gonna look as big as her hand bag, even if it is tougher, reliable or perform faster. Of course if DSLRS could be made as small as P&S, and fit in the lady's pocket, you'd see a jack in sales. But hey, the argument is not about why ladies won't buy canon or nikon DSLRs, it's why they won't buy something that doesn't appeal to them.

Since it is very much about your opinion, let’s skip this line.

Thank you.

So much for now, type more later.

[/QUOTE]
Another day.

 

[Lord_Angelus]

No lady is going to buy a camera that's gonna look as big as her hand bag, even if it is tougher, reliable or perform faster. Of course if DSLRS could be made as small as P&S, and fit in the lady's pocket, you'd see a jack in sales. But hey, the argument is not about why ladies won't buy canon or nikon DSLRs, it's why they won't buy something that doesn't appeal to them.

I kind of can fit my DSLRS and my Two Lens into my bag.

 

[Wisp]

Do you carry your cameras around in your hand bag? Do you even own a hand bag?.

 

[gundugundu]

Brother David:

We stand on the same line. Great minds think alike. :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

omg & oh your tuapekkong or watever... this is so bizzare! :bsmilie:

 

[LindaChew]

You see, this is what happen when one has too much free time. Most men do.

 

[Sion]

You see, this is what happen when one has too much free time. Most men do.

That is because the women do all the housework.

 

[student]

You see, this is what happen when one has too much free time. Most men do.

This can also happen when women feel that men are useless and incapable of doing anything well.

So they don't!

And have plenty of time!

 

[creampuff]

This thread is soooo wayout...

Just a passing thought,
Why do beer ads feature women rather than men? :think:
Are the photographers who photograph the women in such ads likely to be men or women?