Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!

Why are photographers always being cast as perverts in television dramas?

Pete Plus
17 18.8k 97 England
7 Mar 2001 1:28AM
What do you think - agree or disagree? Lets
have your views

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

BigCol 17 1.8k 1 Scotland
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
Probably for the same reason the writers of these dramas portray Christians as Bible bashing wierdos, or muslims as extreme fundamentalists. It uses and builds on peoples preconcieved, uninformed ideas about people and practices thay don't really know much about, nor understand.
Pete Plus
17 18.8k 97 England
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
Good point. Anyone else got any views?
tom hardwick 17 11
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
Antonioni didn't help with his portrait of the photographer in the 1966 film "Blowup".
Remember the scene where the two giggling schoolgirls visit the studio for an audition?
David Hemmings and his black Nikon Fs started me on a whole new lifelong hobby. tom.
jshphoto 17 1
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
Because they are?

I only turned professional last fall. Literally 2 weeks after my business license arrived in the mail both of our existing portrait studions were in the news. The first photographer was arrested for taking nude photographs of a minor (he was charged with sexual assault of a minor). The very next day the other photographer was in the news because he had been arrested for having a hidden video camera in his dressing room.

Since we only had two portrait studios at the time that make 100% of photographers perverts Smile It also makes my timing very lucky since I suddenly found myself the only studio in town.
Try looking at the back pages of any photography magazine - dominatrix sex phone lines, glamour models etc. Try looking at the front cover of some magazines - scantily clad nubile maidens. Try looking for what's coming ( excuse the pun)in next week's Amateur Photographer (UK weekly) Erotica that's what, and apparently nothing else, presumably it will be wrapped in plastic to keep mucky sticky fingers off, so without buying it there will be no way of knowing what else.Need I say more? As a woman I neither want nor need any of these, and as a photographer who looks for info I ignore them and read only what I want.
BigCol 17 1.8k 1 Scotland
8 Aug 2001 1:28AM
Further to Lorraine's comments...
Magazine editors will try to tell us that sex sells! However take a look at the cover of walking/climbing magazines, gardening magazines, etc.
Infact why not take a look at Outdoor Photographer, no semi-naked women to be seen not on the front cover nor on the inside.
Obviously AP feel they can dedicate a whole issue to 'erotica' without detriment to their normal readership figures.
Being a subscriber to AP I am forced to recieve the issue whether I want it or not, why not simply distribute the articles throughout other issues of the magazine?
Having quickly flicked through my copy I find that other than the usual news, technical information and advertising pages the issue is made up entirely of 'erotica' articles.
Give AP a miss this week, if you really don't need it.
MikeP 16 2
23 Sep 2001 7:14PM
I seems to be a common problem in real life as well!

I am always looking for models to work on a 'Prints-for-Time' basis. I was recently approached by a local singer who needed some shots for her management company. She had approached other photographers who in my area who informed her that PFT meant only nude shots!!

I personally don't take nude/topless photo's, and am trying to expand my own portfolio with high quality portraits, and because of a common perception of 'glamour' photographers I find increasingly difficult to find local models.

Anyone else have similar problems?
photoworks 15 317 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2002 3:15PM
i have similar problems> When i was in Paris, i used to work with models from models agencies but here where i live it is not easy
redsnappa 15 2.0k United Kingdom
17 Oct 2002 5:40PM
It's because a the odinary photographer taking landcape shots doesn't make for intersting tele,

we just have to laugh it of & live with it worrying about it won't change anything.
Little Jo Plus
16 2.3k United Kingdom
20 Oct 2002 12:03PM
Part of the problem is that the photo magazines such as AP are in a time warp. Practical Photography has at last acknowledged that not all photographers are male and turned on by nudity. They are broadening their horizons to cater for a wider spectrum of readers.

The media have a lot to answer for, and so have press photographers with their lack of respect for the privacy of their subjects. Together with events like the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, some so-called professionals have only helped to reinforce the misconceptions in their quest for a good story.
sinargee 15 245
22 Oct 2002 2:12PM
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that sex does sell. That fact won't change no matter how enlightened men become. The sex industry in all its forms is probably the oldest industry going.

I don't condone it, just stating a fact but please lets not condem all nudity as filthy. There are many fine images of the naked form, male and female, paintings and photographs. I am not talking of glamour or topless designed to titilate and excite but legitimate art.

If program produces really researched the day to day life of a photographer it probably wouldn't make exciteing television, shooting still life or that pack shot for Corn Flakes.

Television drama is for the most part fantasy anyway so what do you expect.

Big Bri 17 16.4k United Kingdom
23 Oct 2002 6:24PM
Blimey ! And there was me thinking photographers are always cast as perverts because we are.
Well, now I feel much better about myself Wink
SuziBlue 15 16.2k 10 Scotland
10 Nov 2002 1:06PM
I agree - writing that portrays all photographers as dribbling male perverts hooks into a blanket prejudice based on the few dribbling male perverts who do give photography a questionable name, and doesn't do the writer any favours either. And yes ... grubby adverts in the back of a photography mag only perpetuates the myth.

And these days it's sad but true - photographers have to be regulated where minors are concerned. That's not tampering with ambience and mood and an artist's relationship with the subject. It's about chld protection.
Stan. L-B 16 222 United Kingdom
10 Nov 2002 4:32PM
It is interesting that our editor is promoting this posting. Not that I think he is sympathetic to this subject matter; far from it. But, I have always felt that editorial staff, be they news or magazine, have brought about this attitude themselves. As in most forms of promotions, tell the people that such and such is so, enough times, and, those who's minds are open to such dubious influences will believe it.
To introduce a recent fact; this month I had a visit from my grandson who is reading art at a London Uni.. When I ask what his subject for the present time was, he showed me a book on, 'Art Icons' this particular book was promoting the style of the photographer, Man Ray. I found the book of little artistic value and concluded that this man and his associates must have been be sick in mind and body. To my mind it was an excuse to use the art world to promote pornography. The subject of the book died in 1976. I feel the genuine art world is shooting itself in the foot by promoting such publications.
I hope my findings will go some way in answering the question. Thanks for posting the question.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.