OK that title is a little disingenuous but the article in question is more than a little condescending and deserving of mocking. In Sunday's business section the New York Times published Baby on Board, and a Photography Business, Too about women who come to photography as a business after photographing their own children, expanding to their friends and then beyond. For women that approach photography as a business this is actually not a bad business model to follow. They find out they love something, they do it first only out of love and then gradually expand their pursuit into a money making venture. As the article pointed out many of these women do have other jobs that pay their bills so they can start small, with just a few clients and low rates, and still turn a profit. If they are serious about photography as a business and have talent and determination their potential for growth and success is pretty limitless.

That's not really the article's point though. Actually I don't think the article has much of a point but I'll share the impression that I got from the article "oh look isn't it cute how women can now be photographers, well photographers of children, because cheap, easy to use digital cameras make it so simple for them. It's so cute as long as it doesn't hurt, you know "real" photographers too much."

"Lots of mom-with-a-camera businesses fail because they try to do it around the edges," said Mrs. Brophy, who has a preschool-age daughter and two teenagers and works as director of external relations at the Warner School of the University of Rochester in addition to running her weekend photography business. "Plus, women face a business dilemma when they have to ask their husbands if they can buy a new camera."

A more interesting article would have been about new photographers in general who have come to photography because cheaper equipment and digital technologies have removed some of the previous barriers to photography both as an art and a business. This article also could have focused on how many of these new photographers are establishing portrait businesses because it's a more direct route to actually making money than say advertising photography, the pennies for picture microstock business model, or the decidedly small travel and landscape market. If you had to have the "Moms with a camera angle" the article could have focused on women who use the profits from their portrait businesses to give them the time and equipment to pursue other artistic photography pursuits, or used the profits to decrease their "normal" working hours and have more time with their kids and families. But no, pitting "Mom's with cameras" against "real professional" photographers is so much easier and much more fun and turning up your nose at digital photography for the supposed glory days of film is much better as well.
< / sarcasm>

"A man only comes to my studio when a woman decides that she wants a picture of him. So if moms are driving all the photo sales, then it makes sense that all these new photographers armed with digital cameras are moms." - Kirk Voclain

Tags: photography, mwac, portrait photography

David Hobby of the brilliantly helpful site about lighting Strobist has an interesting article about Photography's Vanishing Middle Class. In the article David discusses giving photography information on the internet "for free", how the microstock industry is devaluing photography and photographers, and making a living as a professional photographer in a world full of serious amateurs and semi-pros. Perhaps even more interesting than David's article is the discussion it has provoked in the site's comment section.

OK Alec Soth didn't really say that. What he said was

I think what makes a good photographer is being willing to explore what you really want to explore. If you really want to photograph furry kitties, just do it. It's ok.

"I believe in photography as one means of affirming the enormous beauty of the world." - Ansel Adams