Katie sent in an image from Digital SLR Cameras and Photography For Dummies by David D. Busch. The image followed this text (p. 181):
To minimize wrinkles or facial defects, such as scars or bad complexions, use softer, more diffuse lighting, as shown in Figure 10-3.
And here is Figure 10-3 with the accompanying caption (p. 182):
So after learning that diffuse lighting is good for minimizing defects, we are then told that women in general need such lighting. Katie says she tried to imagine the reason for this instruction, but “can’t think of a possibility that isn’t about reinforcing traditionally-gendered imagery.” The assumption in the book seems to be that women always want, and need, to be photographed in ways that emphasize a blemish-free beauty ideal. Not all subjects are “often best pictured” in this way; this instruction is specifically about how to present women. Presumably we might want to picture men in ways that emphasize strength, or show them as wizened or wrinkled or otherwise presented without the softening effect of diffuse lighting.
It’s a small example of how gendered norms are taken for granted and reproduced in various fields. If you’ve seen similar examples (or, for that matter, contrary ones) about photography, painting, etc., we’d love to have them.
Comments 29
Bleep — July 11, 2010
Yeah, I've heard this kind of crap a lot. Soft light for women, hard directional light for men (it makes them look 'tougher', or more 'dangerous'). So you've got the youthful, innocent look or the lived-in distinguished look. There's also the assumption that any woman you shoot will want to be 'shopped to hell and back. The more plastic, the better. And this needs to be done pre-emptively, without consultation. Pretty depressing.
Helen — July 11, 2010
There are lots of things like this in photography. Even the tilt of a head when a model is posing can be construed as 'masculine' or 'feminine' and is generally informed buy social constructions and how we are used to seeing men and women depicted; ignoring these guidelines can create an image that looks odd to a good number of people but they often can't explain why.
Simone Lovelace — July 11, 2010
Wow. That's so absurd. Lighting does so much more than hide (or show) facial imperfections. It drives me crazy the way larger aesthetic considerations are always subordinated to the fear of showing women as less than "perfect."
Soft lighting is better for lighter-skinned people, unless you want your subject to look like Grave Robber.
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/repo_the_genetic_opera05.jpg
On the other hand, brighter lights can be more flattering for darker-skinned people, whose features can disappear in dim or poorly-directed light.
To me, picking a light level that clearly shows your subjects' features and expression should be the top priority; worry about concealing wrinkles later.
Alix — July 11, 2010
I like my wrinkles -- they're part of what give character to my face.
Melissa — July 11, 2010
From my personal experience, every light expert I have asked suggested the same thing because "women always want to look flawless". In fact, I was watching a web seminar about commercial photography duo Larson and Talbert here and a few of their rules struck me, namely "ALWAYS make women look beautiful. NEVER let unretouched (HR) images leave the office". They discuss this at around 21-22 minutes. My professors have always stressed the same thing.
elle pesh — July 12, 2010
Not to detract from the point, but which edition does this refer to? The 2nd edition uses a teenage boy instead of a woman.
http://books.google.com/books?id=N_OX_S5czwsC&pg=PA184&dq="To+minimize+wrinkles+or+facial+defects"&hl=en&ei=v6w6TJcehJyWB8jBwdIH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22To%20minimize%20wrinkles%20or%20facial%20defects%22&f=false
"Figure 10-3: Teenagers are often best pictured with soft lighting in full-length or waist-up poses."
Scapino — July 12, 2010
"The assumption in the book seems to be that women always want, and need, to be photographed in ways that emphasize a blemish-free beauty ideal."
Nitpicky, but no, the assumption, clearly stated in the text, is that women OFTEN want, and need...
jenni — July 12, 2010
this is just a photographer's comment, but out of the 100-200 women i have photographed (for various reasons, portraits mostly), i cant remember a single one who would have asked not to be retouched or asked for a 'harsh' lighting or similar. however i remember some 70-90% of those women being insecure about how they look, asking about covering blemishes, asking if i can retouch specific things later on and if the light etc is merciful and so on... the list is endless. (and yes, i retouch and do everything i can to make the subject of the photo happy).
im sure other kinds of women exist but we have to accept the fact that MOST women really do want a soft "forgiving" lighting. how women have gotten to this is another subject. but the reality is this and i think its okay for a photography guidebook to address this.
Liz — July 12, 2010
As a direct parallel, I've seen countless times the advice to draw a woman's face using as few lines as possible if you're doing it for comic books or something like that. You can use a lot of lines to show men making a facial expression, but you're cautioned not to on women because they can read as 'wrinkles' or 'imperfections.'
adrenalectomized — July 13, 2010
Lol, if I take a self portrait on my mobile, I always use harsh directional light. Looks way cooler. I'm female. I don't wish to look soft and suggestive. :D
Ben Zvan — July 13, 2010
As a photographer, this is something that I struggle with on a daily basis. If I'm shooting a man, I can pretty much get away with anything, but if I'm shooting a woman, I have to hide all the character in their face. I have a long-term project to investigate gender and race differences in photography, lighting, and retouching.
adrenalectomized — July 14, 2010
Ugh.
Yup, sadly, that's how society is. Men are allowed to be a bit ugly or asymmetric, it shows character. Women are supposed to just look as sexual as possible.
It makes me want to shear my boobs off in protest. You can't objectify me as 'just sexual' if I don't have any.
adrenalectomized — July 14, 2010
Ugh1 I'm tired of being seen in a sexual light full stop...