PetaPixel

PIX Magazine for Lady Photographers Miffs Women, Gets Mocked for Fluff

PIX magazine is a newly launched digital magazine that has women photographers in mind.

But the writers at Jezebel — and at least one female photojournalist who wrote in with a tip about the magazine — are a bit miffed over the content, which they say is “full of lady stereotypes”.

Here are a few of PIX’s features, plus the colorful commentary from Jezebel in parenthesis:

  • “Smudge-proof makeup tips for long days behind the camera” (Because every lady’s top priority while on the job is her mascara!)
  • “Seasonal Flats: these flats will keep your feet covered, comfortable and cute while you’re on photo shoots” (Stay away if excessive florals make your eyes hurt.)
  • “Step-by-Step: create these beautiful lanterns for your studio” (Hmm, has nothing whatsoever to do with photography, but ladies looove decorating!) (Side note: I’ll admit that these are pretty awesome and I want to make some for my apartment.)
  • “Beauty Dish: New Jersey-based wedding photographer dishes about her camera-ready style” (Duh, because all women looove weddings!)
  • “Photographing Newborns: A unique kind of labor” (Double duh: all women looove babies!)
  • “Couples at work, couples at home” (Can you imagine ever reading a story like this in a men’s — or gender neutral — magazine?)
  • “In mint-condition: stay on trend with these green accessories” (Uh, seems like someone may have been running a little low on “trend” ideas…)
  • “Lens Flare: Photography inspired accessories” (That aren’t green?)
  • “Luminous Lenses: Shoot in style with these designer lens protection wraps” (Zebra print!)
  • “Hanging Tough: These camera straps are stylish yet tough just like you” (Blerrrgh.)
  • In the PIX Editor’s Note, Jeaninie Moutenot writes:

    If you love to snap photos, chances are you’re pretty creative and artsy about the rest of your world too. It’s important to you that your business is modern and cool, you’ve always got an eye out for hip clothing and accessories, and looking professional and shooting well are top priorities. If this sounds like you, PIX is here to help!

    As a whole, Jezebel summed the magazine up as filled with “excessively girly and fluffy content” — perhaps geared more towards the mom with a camera demographic, rather than photography business owners as the Editor’s Note suggests.

    PIX publisher Neilsen Photo Group, which also owns Photo District News, released a statement:

    On July 10th The Nielsen Photo Group, parent company of Photo District News, Rangefinder and other publications and photography events, introduced a new, free digital magazine edition of PIX for photo enthusiasts. The content of this edition is specifically geared toward women who enjoy photography as a hobby, featuring articles and product suggestions intended to inspire women to shoot more and create better photographs…

    What do you think about PIX — stereotypical fluff or simply tapping into a niche market of accessorized photo enthusiasts?


     
    • CP

      I honestly would not buy into anything listed above. They’re doing a good job aiming to the photography enthusiasts as they said above. Some of those mom’s out there would love to “bejewel” their cameras. I want to look serious in front of my clients, not pretty.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Amando-Filipe/1575265174 Amando Filipe

      Target audience: Women fauxtographers maybe?

    • http://twitter.com/intensitystudio Antonio Carrasco

      It’s a photography magazine… that’s not about photography? I guess cameras are just fashion accessories now?

    • http://twitter.com/BarnabyN Barnaby Nerberka

      Bloody egregious

    • LS

      I don’t see what the problem is. If you don’t like that kind of content, don’t read it. It will die naturally. If you want to crusade against that kind of content, why don’t you go after Glamour, Elle, Redbook, Cosmo or whatever. Aren’t they full of stereotypical content too?

    • me

      where’s the article on “how to bedazzle your camera strap?”

    • ChristianRudman

      Working in a camera store is pretty revelatory as to how a lot of people do view their cameras as some kind of accessory. For the most part, people don’t need much over their camera phone, yet they purchase beginner to high end DSLRs to look like they know what they are doing while taking photos. The irony is that they never take the darned thing off full-auto. I can imagine that there is also a market to accessorize for the exact same reasons.

      Photographers like CP obviously are not the target market, and that’s ok. People are using the blanket term “female” when the magazine is really more targeted towards people who are concerned kitsch factors.

      There actually is a market for this stuff, that’s why a commercial
      entity is creating a publication these kinds of vendors can advertise
      in. Mod straps, one of the kitschy-est accessories my store sells is
      actually kinda popular, Kelly Moore bags are a decent seller too, and
      they were designed specifically so a female photographer could carry a
      DSLR and still look like they have a high-end leather purse instead of a
      Tamrac utili-pac.

      The magazine is nothing more than a bloated advertisement insert that you normally see full of coupons. The thing is, PIX was never really pitched as anything other than that. They have been pretty straightforward about the aim of the magazine, other than using some fancy marketing speak to make it more appealing to the masses, but who doesn’t do that?

    • Ahmad Amryl Abd Malek

      Gone through the mag, it’s not that bad. Not a lot of gears reviews or ads, more towards camera accessories and photography services. It would serve a niche market I think. All in all, a good effort.

    • Mansgame

      Ah, the old “I have a vagina so I need to be treated differently” routine. In some things it makes sense to have a women’s magazine for makeup or other gender specific things, but photography is photography.

    • Mec

      Fluff heads will love it, the rest of us are too busy out there working on our images to bother with such rubbish.

      Personally I’m against anything that re-enforces stereotypes. I have enough trouble as it is working against them. Yes I am a female photographer. No I don’t do weddings, babies or happy families. You want someone edgy and in your face, can do. You want fluffy bunny rabbits and Mrs Beaver – happy to give you a referral but that’s not my style.

    • Stuff

      Oh look. More signs that the industry is a bloated dead cow waiting to burst.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joey-Duncan/1111692326 Joey Duncan

      So photography can’t have a subculture? So you are either one type of photographer or you’re not allowed to be one? Being a professional or hobbyist is no different than this.

    • http://twitter.com/ColDuke Col Duke Lacrosse

      Pull a magazine out from 30 years ago and look at the crap that was sold then. Nothing’s changed.

    • OSAM

      Ugh, Jezebel. They’re always miffed about something. Miserable lot that can’t seem to possibly find anything good.

    • http://twitter.com/LeslieVazquez20 Leslie Vazquez

      other than using some fancy marketing speak to make it more appealing to the masses, but who doesn’t do that?..AlluringWay.blogspot.com

    • Mark

      Women shooters = designer handbags and glitter stickers for the shutter button.
      Men shooters = gaffer’s tape

      In all seriousness though, It’s a digital magazine which means it really a glorified blog. Ergo, it’s for a niche audience and not intended to be the replacement for Professional Photographer Magazine. That said, it does promote a stereotype, but then again, so does Maxim Magazine and Men’s Journal.

      I’m just not sure how these photographers actually keep a legitimate business afloat when they are spending money on accessories. I mean, to be fair, there isn’t any type of equivalent for “men”. So I guess that means a male photographer actually makes more money at the end of the day since he probably hasn’t spent it on floral lens covers.

    • Kent

      Anyone else keep reading the title of this article and subconsciously keep replacing the second “f” in Miffs, with an “L”? My God what has become of me..

    • Kent

      I meant first “f”.. you get the picture.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Brianbannister.BannisterBrian Brian Bannister

      Anyone who would call this thing a good photo mag has not read it. One of their
      “expert” pros, Dixie Dixon claims to use a longer lens to get more depth in the photo. lol. Basic stuff that high school photogs would know isn’t even correct.

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.kantor John Kantor

      They could have called it TwatPic.

    • Mansgame

      That’s a strawman’s argument. The camera does not discriminate against who pushes the button on it.

    • rtfe

      mmmmm, milfs

    • rtfe

      photojojo

    • sundevil

      been to WPPI lately? Pix-on estrogen, with a few booths for the last few gearhead dudes remaining

    • http://www.facebook.com/mistress.monstar Monica Starling

      Exactly. Well explained.

    • http://www.facebook.com/xsportseeker Renato Murakami

      Eh? You know what a better Photography magazine for women is? The regular ones.
      I mean, I’m all for more gender equality, but if there is one magazine type I can point out where it’s not needed, it’s photography mags.
      At least the ones here in Brazil. Most of them are pretty technical and genderless… and the ones who do center on interviews and profiles, usually presents a very good mix between male and female photographers.
      But by the features themselves we can all see that the target isn’t exactly photography here: it’s consumism targeted to female photographers.
      We have at least a couple of magazines in Brazil on consumism targeted to photographers, and they are the ones that sells the most, so this kind of makes sense.
      Dunno if it’ll be accepted by the market though.
      Oh yeah, it’s the ones I keep my distance too. You know, magazines with 95% content of reviews, products for you to buy, acessories to “enhance” your photography, and 5% of stuff on techniques or interviews.

    • Olga Celle

      Right on target! BTW the Kelly Moore bags is a great idea since women photographers are the usual prey of street crime in poor areas of the world.

    • Olga Celle

      I could not say it better.

    • Kathryn

      Every magazine has a different purpose. I think one has an interesting niche that I cant find in every other mag. And no I don’t feel stereotyped because someone offered clothing or make up advice, I would think they understand the need to look your best as the hours drag on through an all day wedding. And why all the judgement on accessories? Every professional athlete has them and trendy suits and bags exist in the corporate world; I would think the creative realm should be allowed to express themselves as such without judgement from their peers.

    • Jason Hassler

      That name was probably already taken.

    • Sheryl Martin

      I totally disagree Mansgame. Just picked up the latest copy of Digital Photo Pro which was full of ads for men and photography articles geared towards men. One with a woman with extremely large breasts showing leaning over the handle bars of a motorcycle in a full spread color layout. Pix is too fluffy….I want somw tech articles that are written by women in a hard copy magazine.