PDN launches digital photo magazine for women

  • “Smudge-proof makeup tips for long days behind the camera”
  • “Seasonal Flats: these flats will keep your feet covered, comfortable and cute while you’re on photo shoots”
  • “Step-by-Step: create these beautiful lanterns for your studio”
  • “Beauty Dish: New Jersey-based wedding photographer dishes about her camera-ready style”
  • “Luminous Lenses: Shoot in style with these designer lens protection wraps”
  • “Hanging Tough: These camera straps are stylish yet tough just like you”

-Headlines from PDN’s new women’s magazine, Pix

Photo District News have launched a new photography-focused digital magazine for women called Pix, a few screenshots from which are presented above. It’s a doozy. Jezebel is on the case: Finally, Lady Photojournalists Get Their Own Photo Ladymag Full of Lady Stereotypes. You can read through the whole first issue here, and the next issue will be available via iTunes in December 2012.

In more serious women-in-photography news, two women have been nominated to Magnum (Zoe Strauss and Bieke Depoorter, alongside Jerome Sessini), Isadora Kosofsky has won the 2012 Inge Morath Award, and as Matt wrote previously, the Alexia Foundation has started a $25,000 Women’s Initiative grant.

10 Responses to “PDN launches digital photo magazine for women”

  1. Taylor Roades

    I don’t know whether or not to find this a little degrading. Thanks for the bottom bit of your post I find it a lot more useful.

    • M. Scott Brauer

      Thanks for the comment, Taylor. I think the consensus at Jezebel is that it’s degrading. I’ve got more thoughts on the matter; here’s what I wrote to a friend on facebook: I think this magazine is really weird. But there’s something I’ve been trying to put my finger on that I can’t quite reach about people’s anger with women taking up cameras. There was a viral video a while ago about a “mom with a camera,” and that phrase has become, in some circles, shorthand for someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing with a camera. I’ve also seen people dismiss budding wedding photographers because they’re girls who happen to own cameras. Anyway, my point is that there’s a lot of sexism in all parts of the photography industry, and this magazine is probably contributing.

      And this gets to a point that I always have a hard time articulating but that some of the jezebel commenters brought up about the girlyization of everything made for women. Not everything has to be pink. But I don’t want to say that pink is always bad, either. I hope that makes sense. Basically, I’m glad that something like Red Ants Pants (from my home state!) exists: http://www.redantspants.com/pants.php They’re basically carhartts but made by women and tailored better for women. But the product is also not condescending and they’re good work pants. And this magazine is not the Red Ants Pants of photography.

    • C. Brown

      I was interested in the idea because, I though it might be a source for camera gear (not cameras) built around a woman’s body. straps that work with a c-cub size, for instance. But I found the “Smudge proof makeup tips” to be very off-putting. Much in the vein of “and the car has a lipstick mirror.” Seriously, this is as bad as that video that tried to sell girls on science with supermodels and makeup chemistry. That’s now a communications case-study on how NOT to do it.

  2. Paul

    I am sad for my fellow photographers who are women. Ladies you deserve better. At first I thought this was some sort of spoof. I never thought photography and cameras were gender specific or needed to be. I stopped supporting PDN years ago as it just seemed like a vehicle to sell products with little editorial value.

  3. Monica

    Seriously…what is the problem with it?!?! I just looked through it, and could find nothing that was demoralizing or degrading. Perhaps you all need to get a life….There are way more important things in life to grumble about.

    • M. Scott Brauer

      Thanks for the comment, Monica. My initial thoughts, and what I hear others talking about, are that the magazine makes an assumption that female photographers are primarily concerned with looking good while taking pictures. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but when that seems to be the point of 90% of a magazine, it’s comes across as patronizing and condescending. Looking at other publications put out by PDN, which often cover nitty-gritty aspects of the business of photography, this gives the impression that for women, being a photographer is mostly about fitting into a specific gender stereotype. While I think there’s a time and a place for camera-themed jewelry and how to decorate a non-studio photo studio, there are many more pressing issues that a magazine designed for female photographers could address. Why not balance some of the fluff with some articles about real issues about gender in the photography industry?

      A colleague offered up some things she thinks would be useful to female photographers here: http://jasminedefoore.tumblr.com/post/26978960889/story-ideas-for-nielsons-new-women-photographer and I think those topics are a good start.

  4. john

    I’m with Monica. fluffy, yes. innofensive. kinda fun. there are more important things in life to grumble about. “mom with a camera” is likely working hard with a limited equip budget. Wanna gripe? Try “dentist with a camera”.

  5. gale zucker

    Very offensive to me. Photo magazines have been dude-oriented forever, but this is so insulting. Cute shoes?! And the only photo talk is babies and families?? It is patronizing and condescending, you’re right. As if making sure I have a mint green camera bag and hot nail polish is more important to me than shooting the job.

  6. Macro Photographer

    Does that mean the subjects would now be only female oriented?

Comments are closed.