?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

return of the sociologist

Kris Cohen, the nice guy researching photo blogs who interviewed me last november, is back again. He's concerned about the lack of represeantation of women in his study and wants to interview some more (he's doing commercial/academic reasearch, so a good gender balance *is* necessary, please let's not get started on that old chestnut) so wants to talk to more women who post photos.

jinty, elleblue I have of course already suggested you both. Hope that's OK (he's reasearching for University of Surrey, elleblue; jinty, I'm pretty sure you know all about him already). If anyone has any other photo-posting women on their friends list, please suggest them in comments below; please bear in mind that he needs to conduct his interviews *face-to-face* so don't start suggesting your friends in the wider world, no matter how great their photos are! UK train network only, please. Any near/in London especially welcome.

Oh -- green_amber I also suggested to Kris that you might be a good person to ask about people as you have loads of UK friends. Hope you don't mind ...

Comments

( 29 worms — Feed the birds )
mattcallow
28th Apr, 2003 03:28 (UTC)
erinpower is in birmingham, she posts a lot of photos. and maybe my alter ego slackbastard is female? who knows... :)
cleanskies
28th Apr, 2003 07:36 (UTC)
the anima speaks!
wow, erinpower's stuff is really nice.
green_amber
28th Apr, 2003 03:29 (UTC)
Sure. I would post photos if I could work out how. (Yes, bought a domain and a web host amount of megs, but stil don't know HOW. Colour me bimbo. Is this going to help the survey?!)
green_amber
28th Apr, 2003 03:32 (UTC)
Actually this is interesting. Very few of the women on my list post photos, in fact I can't think of any straight off!! Oh, right, tamaranth and zoo_music_girl. Phew. But there IS a gender differential.. is it all about technical incompetence? The first of those is a profesional web person by occupation and lives in London - she might be good to talk to...
cleanskies
28th Apr, 2003 07:44 (UTC)
.... as does zoo_music_girl, I think
Thanks very much, I knew you'd be able to come up with some people.

Hmmm. It might be down to not having time. I post less photos than I might because there are always lots of other things need doing first. Scanning's a faff, resizing and balancing out what my antique scanner does to the colour, remote linking ... (I'm falling asleep as I type ...)
jinty
28th Apr, 2003 09:11 (UTC)
not having time?
probably depends on how esoteric your photo equipment is, amongst other stuff (or, more realistically, what your budget is). I get my photos developed in Snappy Snaps and get a CD at the same time (it's more cost-effective if you batch films together and get a CD that covers a number of rolls -- cos the CDs are a fiver each). That means that all I have to do is import them to my ibook, get them into the right format & directory (I currently use iPhoto to do this, but actually GraphicConverter would maybe be more sensible), and upload.

Oh yeah, then remote linking. Bah. I'm hoping that Xjournal has this as a good easy command... ::checks:: oh well, maybe not, but I suppose the Glossary feature could be used to insert the command. Maybe. ::goes to suggest new wishlist to Fraser Speirs::
mzdt
28th Apr, 2003 09:33 (UTC)
Re: not having time?
I currently use iPhoto to do this, but actually GraphicConverter would maybe be more sensible

Decidedly. Batch conversion to jpg, with max size, borders, and anything else you can think of. GC is also handy 'cos you can tell it to write flat files, without all that preview resource fork nonsense photoshop etc add (big file size saving, esp. on smaller pics).

And it runs on really old macs (in fact everything since they invent colour quickdraw, in fact).

jinty
28th Apr, 2003 09:41 (UTC)
Re: not having time?
[GC being more convenient]
yes yes, but (I thought of this just after I wrote that comment) then it wouldn't be in iPhoto, and I wouldn't have all my photos catalogued/organized online. Hmm. Must think if that would be a problem or not. I like the fact that with iPhoto you can easily post those .mac albums and stuff but then maybe that's not crucial.
andypop
28th Apr, 2003 13:16 (UTC)
Re: not having time?
But then maybe I'd be able to actually look at the photos in your online albums, rather than just the thumbnails which is all I can currently access...
jinty
29th Apr, 2003 03:40 (UTC)
Re: not having time?
Yeah, or upgrade yer webbrowser... (I know I'm taking my life in my hands saying this where mzdt might hear -- he of the still-working mac that runs System 3!)
andypop
29th Apr, 2003 04:39 (UTC)
Re: not having time?
or upgrade yer webbrowser

Not possible on this machine. I can't even download basic anti-spam software. Seeing as most people just post their pics in a yahoo album or whatever, where any fule can look at them without any problems (even me), I tend to blame the format you're using (for instance, we're working on making Linusland the type of site anyone can look at or at least read, no matter how primitive their software. There's even awards for super-accessibility, I hear).
cleanskies
29th Apr, 2003 02:34 (UTC)
Re: not having time?
Esoteric equipment? Me? Never .... :D

I've not tried Snappy Snaps CD option (the one from Jessop's Kodak lab is execrable) yet, but I'm not (to be honest) very excited at getting photos on CD. I like prints, they're tactile and shiny and have a glow of colour you simply don't get in digital versions. Plus I usually only want to put one or four shots from a film online.

And when I do convert to digital versions, I usually treat the photos on an individual basis with photoshop as my "digital darkroom" (garg), easing and adpating and changing them until they're right for online production. [ Though a batch conversion might be good for the once-in-a-blue-moon film where (doubtless through intervention of the camera fairies) every shot's a winner, like those B/W Holga pub/club shots I've been promising to get online forever. ]

I could make it faster, but all my work revolves arund rituals, exercises, processes. And this is my process for publishing individual pictures online.

But I surely do wish that my scanner worked a little faster.
jinty
29th Apr, 2003 03:44 (UTC)
Re: not having time?
The CD for me is an extra, not a replacement for prints. I often want to put more than one pic from a film online, and this was easier when I didn't have a scanner. But it's a luxury not a necessity. And I appreciate what you say about rituals, exercises, processes. It just takes time, though.

But then those are all very user-specific things, and we started off this discussion asking why girls might upload photos less than boys -- my contention is still that it's not really going to be the time factor, as there are ways round that. I can see it being the geek factor, or the modesty factor, or the 'why on earth would I even want to have a website' factor instead.
badasstronaut
28th Apr, 2003 04:20 (UTC)
I use a site called www.worldisround.com which makes it very easy. They give you your own space and you can upload and edit and it's really paint by numbers... this is mine. I haven't uploaded a lot lately but once I get a decent speed connection try and stop me!
green_amber
28th Apr, 2003 04:24 (UTC)
Wow this is FAAAB - thanx so much!!
jinty
28th Apr, 2003 05:47 (UTC)
Great!
Of course that's fine to include me in the list of victims.

I would suggest general_jinjur and jinxremoving, but neither of them live within London easy-distance. Boo. I would also suggest tinyjo but as she was part of the first wave with you, that would be silly... And I presume Anna Kookymojo has already been done?

mzdt, any more suggestions? You da man for photo stuff, no? Unfortunately thestoneheart is in Germany, right?
cleanskies
28th Apr, 2003 07:46 (UTC)
Re: Great!
ooooh, nice. If a little too remote for Kris' purposes (unless she lives in a sort of Germany of the Mind).
mzdt
28th Apr, 2003 09:20 (UTC)
Re: Great!
unless she lives in a sort of Germany of the Mind

Please elaborate; nice concept. Kind of general ecologically better, but unltimately not quite as exciting?

Have you tried [Bad username: girls_who_post_pictures_in_their_journals]. Damn. Doesn't exist.

In which case there's lonna in Bristol, and I think inmyskin in Wolverhampton posts at least webcam pics every so often...
cleanskies
29th Apr, 2003 02:51 (UTC)
Re: Great!
hmmmm.

The friends-only journal's probably a bit intimidating for Kris, but lonna should most certainly be on his list!

a sort of Germany of the mind

I don't know, I wander into a new journal and one of the first things I do (after reading down the page) is look at where they say they're from. And lots of people don't give literal answers to that, or have a location which relates to where they were living a year ago, two years ago, or are lying for whatever reason. Do you know I have a friend on my friends lists with whom I only seem to have one thing in common? He's from Ballard, and interested in Oxford. I'm from Oxford, and interested in Ballard. We're connected through the geography of interest.

Perhaps when I mentioned a Germany of the mind (which sounds rather bracing and hygienic to me, well-organised and given to looking blankly at lesser creatures' attempts at humour!) I was thinking more of a Berlin of the mind -- thestoneheart's photos struck me as perfectly located in artists-quarter urban, that odd sort of upstairs world of wrecked buildings and tall ceilings, decay at the edges and cleared spaces, steadily filling up with light and art.
jinty
29th Apr, 2003 04:07 (UTC)
Re: Great!
And lots of people don't give literal answers to that, or have a location which relates to where they were living a year ago, two years ago, or are lying for whatever reason
I looked for users from Iraq the other day, and they were almost all American spoofs (with multiple varieties of Saddam's journal, of course).
(Anonymous)
29th Apr, 2003 06:02 (UTC)
Re: Great!
[kris here, sociologist in question]
Not intimidating so much as amazing. Thanks everyone for your replies, offers, thoughts.

For the people who have volunteered and/or been volunteered, I'll send out an email with a request and details about the work I'm doing (you can read a little about it here: www.weeklyincite.blogspot.com). Thank you all.

For easy image uploading, I've just discovered www.camblog.com, which is free as well as easy (and interfaces with blogger.com, though I wonder if it's blasphemy to mention that name here).

And I'm glad the issue of photoblogging and gender, per se, has come up here. I'm always watchful of the point when something like a gender imbalance in my research ceases to be merely oversight on my part and starts to be interesting as a facet of what I'm studying. Thus far, because I've talked to so few women, I've been cautious about making gender claims, so I'm glad to see the issue raised here. Here's a thought which may or may not be germane to the intersection of gender and photoblogging--maybe you'll tell me. A lot of (men's) photoblog pictures that I've looked at, and talked about with their photographers, seem to be images of, and images about, the way the photoblogger sees. And I mean that pretty literally: so read "sees" as "unique or idiosyncratic vision, the quality that makes how I see the world unique". In this sense, then, (men) photobloggers, whatever else they're shooting, are taking photos of how they see the world. This is the photos' content, in significant part. I keep putting "men" in parens because I'm not sure if this is a gendered characteristic of photoblogs.

Thanks again for the replies.
Clearly, I have some lessons to learn about appropriate length and brevity for 'comments'.

kris
cleanskies
29th Apr, 2003 10:09 (UTC)
Re: Great!
so, in that theory, does my quest to post the photos I don't see make me posting my "unique vision" (in a very MANLY way) or more scrapbooking, posting all the neat shiny stuff I found?

My camera is a magpie!
(Anonymous)
29th Apr, 2003 12:02 (UTC)
Re: Great!
I like the magpie/scrapbooking theory as well. Tell me more about your attempt to post the photos you don't see. Are you talking about not wanting to preconceive the photos you take, but rather to let the camera do some of its own weird work (and you contrasted that mode to once having done a professional shoot)?

k
cleanskies
30th Apr, 2003 07:36 (UTC)
Re: Great!
My favourite photos are the ones that come as complete surprises on development; the gift photos, that show things that aren't as they are. But, my point here was that you could see that as attempting to force my unique vision onto the world -- even though it is in my case really a lack of vision.

Or something.

Though I do also post neat stuff! pictures which are really far more magpie-y. And you could argue that the photos that show things that aren't as they are are neat things I find, too, it's just that I happen to find them inside my camera.

Okay. Confused now.
(Anonymous)
3rd May, 2003 16:16 (UTC)
Re: Great!
So:

the gift photos v. the magpie photos:

The difference being the role of the camera in each (or specifically, the relationship of you to the camera). The similarity being your role as a translator of each. Translator? In the act of photography, in the act of looking at the world or at photographs, you translate them into something else; in any case, they emerge _through_ you, through the work of your photoblog. Question mark.
-kris
cleanskies
4th May, 2003 04:23 (UTC)
confusion of camera and photographer?
Hmmm. It seems awkward to apply so linguistic a term to the role of a photographer, even metaphorically, and though of course the act of looking is one interpreting, this is almost too obvious to mention. You're also starting to lose the camera in the photographer, while what I try to do is the opposite; the camera becomes the mechanical translator of experience into memory (with all the censoring/misleading/incompleteness that implies). Or, returning to the unexpected, or gift shot, taking photographs is more akin to pressing flowers or collecting butterflies -- except that what the photographer is trying to collect doesn't exist until it's collected (except possibly just before, in a brief flash of premeditation/expectation/intent).

If you see what I mean ;)
green_amber
3rd May, 2003 23:30 (UTC)
Re: Great!
tamaranth says she's up for it. And I have actually been jogged into putting photos up on the web for the first time ever. courtesy of the site suggested above : see http://www.worldisround.com/articles/16869/index.html and draw your own conclusion - certainly not "my vision of the world" I think, nor on the whol, "magpie stuff I found".. (Actually it's the pix people send me as I don't have a real digicamera yet. So hardly a good sample, kris!)
lonna
29th Apr, 2003 10:21 (UTC)
Re: Great!
i'm up for it, send me an email or leave a comment in my journal.
:)
jinxremoving
30th Apr, 2003 18:41 (UTC)
Re: Great!
hey, thanks - i was trying to decide whether this would apply to me ...

rudedoodle posts loads of photos ... but unless kris is going on any trips to belfast ...
( 29 worms — Feed the birds )