# Moms With A Camera, or MWAC



## gabelimom (Apr 26, 2007)

Hi all-

I stumbled across this acronym today in a New York Times article. The article was about the new surge in mommies who are taking their cameras and launching photography businesses with them. I was wondering if anyone else saw the article and what their thoughts are. Have you guys come across MWAC, and are they taken seriously in the photographic world? Looking forward to your responses. Thanks!  ​


----------



## CBRfanatic (Apr 26, 2007)

Hi, My mother falls into this category, she recently purchased a Nikon D80 and loves it, we plan on opening a studio together, she has been freelancing for some time now and im starting my own design firm. 
    I also know a portrait photographer that works out of her house, after the kids go to school in the morning she converts the living room into a sit in studio. Makes a nice chunk of change doing so as well, enough to fund an upgrade from a D40 to a lovely D2x!


----------



## Garbz (Apr 26, 2007)

More people saturating the market not because they like the industry but because they want to earn some more spare change with the equipment they have.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 26, 2007)

I've seen a TON of people who shoot with their new (usually the Rebel) kits in the green Auto mode, and still don't understand how much power they have with it. Outside at dawn or dusk and the flash just pops up on its own.:thumbdown::-(


----------



## brighteyesphotos (Apr 26, 2007)

I think I would fall into this simply because I am a photographer (or at least a student of photography) and because I am a mom. I am also attempting to break into the field myself but not yet full time. I know I still have lots to learn. I think it depends on how serious they are about the craft. Just because you have the expensive camera and software doesn't mean you're a photographer. I know some MWAC's that do it just because their hubby's bought them the newest Rebel. And I know others who are serious about the craft and just happen to be mothers. Does me being a Mom first make me any less of a photographer? I don't think so. It just means that I put my kids first and will sacrifice money and time for photography for them.


----------



## Alpha (Apr 26, 2007)

Yeah I see tons of them every day. Certainly there are a few who know what they're doing...somewhere. But I haven't seen any yet who take respectable photos.


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 26, 2007)

...and it's depressing the demand for professional work, especially in the wedding area. In some parts of the country, many pros have gotten out of the wedding business altogether due to the surge of non-pros doing weddings for $300. They don't usually stay in business long but it's enough to lower the pricing to the point where pros can't do the work for the going rate.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Apr 28, 2007)

brighteyesphotos said:


> I think I would fall into this simply because I am a photographer (or at least a student of photography) and because I am a mom. I am also attempting to break into the field myself but not yet full time. I know I still have lots to learn. I think it depends on how serious they are about the craft. Just because you have the expensive camera and software doesn't mean you're a photographer. I know some MWAC's that do it just because their hubby's bought them the newest Rebel. And I know others who are serious about the craft and just happen to be mothers. Does me being a Mom first make me any less of a photographer? I don't think so. It just means that I put my kids first and will sacrifice money and time for photography for them.



I don't know if that earns you the title of MWAC, because there's a negative connotation to that term-- it means something different than simply "mom and photographer," and it's not good.

Personally, I have an overwhelming disgust for anyone who talks about, "Doing some photography on the side to make some money."  :banghead: It just so happens that where I live, many of those people have young children and don't have jobs.  Coincidence?  Maybe it's the modern-day woman's version of selling Avon.  Everyone needs a social life and a sense of purpose.


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 29, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> Personally, I have an overwhelming disgust for anyone who talks about, "Doing some photography on the side to make some money."  :banghead:



Why?  I don't understand the hostility/disgust?  It almost sound elitist.:neutral:


----------



## Digital Matt (Apr 29, 2007)

One of the members of this forum was interviewed for that article, and was very displeased with the tone.  She has worked hard to build a successful business.

http://www.jottephotography.com/blu_site/index2.php

To me, is masogonistic and sexist to call it moms with a camera, when clearly, there are plenty of dads too, and college kids, and even high school kids.

It would be more correct to call it, "amateurs with a camera".


----------



## zendianah (Apr 29, 2007)

Digital Matt said:


> One of the members of this forum was interviewed for that article, and was very displeased with the tone. She has worked hard to build a successful business.
> 
> http://www.jottephotography.com/blu_site/index2.php
> 
> ...


 
Matt I agree with this! It is sexist. God forbid a woman, who is a mom. has talent. Is she automatically MWAC. Thats crap. I think people in general who get "more than a point and shoot" try their hand at photography for money. The thing some people do not understand is you cannot teach a photographers eye. You can teach lighting, composition but you have to have something diff. in order to make you a successful photographer not just a camera.


----------



## brighteyesphotos (Apr 29, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> I don't know if that earns you the title of MWAC, because there's a negative connotation to that term-- it means something different than simply "mom and photographer," and it's not good.
> 
> Personally, I have an overwhelming disgust for anyone who talks about, "Doing some photography on the side to make some money." :banghead: It just so happens that where I live, many of those people have young children and don't have jobs. Coincidence? Maybe it's the modern-day woman's version of selling Avon. Everyone needs a social life and a sense of purpose.


 
I realize there's a negative connotation to the term. To some people, I may fall into the MWAC category. To others, I may fall into the photographer who is a mom category. The way I'm seeing this based on the article and some of the replies here is that some of these Moms are taken seriously because they started out as MWAC and worked into something respectable and is considered to be a professional in their area. Others do it until they get bored with the whole hobby. I think those are the ones that can hurt business for others. Those are the ones that the article is being negative about are the ones that do not have the years of experience and learning many others do. I am a Mom. I have a camera. I'm working at becoming a full time professional. In the meantime, I do it "on the side" while I learn and develop my skills. 

I guess what I'm saying is that based on what I've shared about myself, some people would not consider me a serious photographer or even professional. Others would not even take the whole Mom thing into consideration.


----------



## Garbz (Apr 29, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> Why?  I don't understand the hostility/disgust?  It almost sound elitist.:neutral:



I understand the tone. Real photographers can put life's work into their art, and then amateurs come along and all they do is cause ... well the incorrect term for it is competition, better though to say a dilution in the market. They are often people who do not take very good photos, are not in the industry long, and all they do is cause hassles. Weddings are one examples as given above. But what about race events where a bunch of amateurs go and take photos which are not as good as the pros and then sell them really cheap to the drivers. While you could apply "you get what you pay for" to this thought, the purchasers normally have no idea that they aren't getting the real deal. It's almost like grey imports being sold at retail outlets, you don't know what you have until you try to make a warranty claim.

If you are a photographer, be a photographer, if you are an amateur (me) don't go and steal real photographers' lively-hoods by trying to flog off inferior goods for "some extra cash".


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 29, 2007)

America loves to call names, and I'm not sure MWAC is sexist. The name comes from people who aren't full time at a employment place, usually a stay-at-home-mom. That probably is a good description of the majority of people that are being described. For example, how many stay-at-home Dads are there? I'm one so I know. All I'm saying is let's not be too sensitive here. If the majority of people don't like the name, let's drop it.

Having said that, I know several stay-at-home moms that are part-time photographers, are certified in PPA and do an excellent job. In one case, her husband built her a studio in their garage and I ask HER for advice. And SHE complains about amateur digital photogaphers, too.

Let's not get off the point, which is "has digital photography gotten so simple and easy that non-pros can effect the professional market?"



Digital Matt said:


> One of the members of this forum was interviewed for that article, and was very displeased with the tone. She has worked hard to build a successful business.
> 
> http://www.jottephotography.com/blu_site/index2.php
> 
> ...


----------



## Alpha (Apr 29, 2007)

I'll make my point again here that your average American consumer equates "digital" with "easy to use."


----------



## RVsForFun (Apr 29, 2007)

...and I don't know how to change that. Part of the problem is that the cameras *do* produce a great picture with no fiddling most of the time. It's a growing problem that pros will have to combat.




MaxBloom said:


> I'll make my point again here that your average American consumer equates "digital" with "easy to use."


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 29, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> It almost sounds elitist.



Because it is!    Elitism is a very important aspect of the art world.  It keeps people in their place, and eliminates competition.  I mean what would happen if someone came out with a photographic product that reduced the need for expensive gear, time consuming inconvenient processes, and superior skills at twisting knobs and pushing buttons?  What if someone made photography so easy to do that all it really required was imagination, an empathetic and insightful mind, and the interest and desire to be creative? (which unless actively supressed appears to be an innate component in all human beings)  Oh wait! Kodak did introduce such a product about 120 years ago; it's called *roll film*.   



			
				Kodak said:
			
		

> You press the button.  We do the rest.



Sarcasm aside, it seems to me that photographers usually do their best work when working with subjects that inspire them.  Moms (and dads) with cameras have always been the leaders in childrens' portrait photography.  All the information needed to begin practicing and honing photography skills, and creating technically perfect photographs can be purchased for less than $30 at amazon.com.  The passion and inspiration that lead to great photographs is not as easily attainable.



			
				Alfred Stieglitz in 1899 said:
			
		

> Let me here call attention to one of the most universally popular mistakes that have to do with photography - that of classing supposedly excellent work as professional, and using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs. As a matter of fact nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons. As the name implies, an amateur is one who works for love; and viewed in this light the incorrectness of the popular classification is readily apparent.


----------



## Alex_B (Apr 29, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I'll make my point again here that your average American consumer equates "digital" with "easy to use."



I would expand this to the average world consumer.

... and since it is not at all easy to use, so many ... lets call them carefully "not-very-outstanding images" are produced. And those who take those images are often not aware of it. 

I know many of my images are very mediocre, OK, I took them, but at least I know they are not high quality.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Apr 29, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> Why?  I don't understand the hostility/disgust?  It almost sound elitist.:neutral:



My aggravation probably comes from two things: 

One, I'm not in this for money.  Like most people on this forum, I invest time into learning or studying or just talking about photography with other photographers.  I shoot because I love to and one day, when/if I'm good enough, I'd like to make my living doing it.  Sure I make money, but when I buy a new camera or lens, my underlying thoughts are "this camera/lens=ability to take pictures the way I'd like," not "camera/lens=income."

The second thing that really bothers me is willful ignorance.  I'm ignorant about a lot of things, including a lot of things that have to do with photography.  When we're learning, everyone is ignorant.  But why waste time learning when that time can be spent making money and talking about your photography business with your friends at the gazebo?

So people who don't know how to wander off the green square on their digital camera and call themselves photographers just because they're being paid for it annoy me, much as my acquaintance who works in the portrait studio at Walmart annoys me when she talks about being a photographer.  This might make me elitist, but that's okay, because this:



> Other women have engineered portrait parties, where several families get together and the budding photographer snaps portraits of the children at play. If the parents like the results, they tell their friends and playgroups, and the photographer's phone starts ringing.


is AVON, circa 2007.


----------



## monicab28 (Apr 29, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Yeah I see tons of them every day. Certainly there are a few who know what they're doing...somewhere. But I haven't seen any yet who take respectable photos.


 
Sounds like someone is a little afraid of some competition...

I would probably qualify as an MWAC and I actually take some pretty respectable shots, unless you don't consider having Coldwell Banker call you and ask for 4 shots and they are willing to pay this "MWAC" $1,000 for the 4 shots I took?!  Let's not lump everyone in the same category. Just because a woman, with children, that has a camera starts a photography business doesn't mean she can't possibly take "respectable" shots.  Let's get real people!!


----------



## xfloggingkylex (Apr 29, 2007)

monicab28 said:


> Sounds like someone is a little afraid of some competition...
> 
> I would probably qualify as an MWAC and I actually take some pretty respectable shots, unless you don't consider having Coldwell Banker call you and ask for 4 shots and they are willing to pay this "MWAC" $1,000 for the 4 shots I took?! Let's not lump everyone in the same category. Just because a woman, with children, that has a camera starts a photography business doesn't mean she can't possibly take "respectable" shots. Let's get real people!!


 
Maybe Max just hasn't seen you yet, and so you fall into the "some who know what they are doing... somewhere" catagory for him.


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Apr 30, 2007)

monicab28 said:


> Sounds like someone is a little afraid of some competition...
> 
> I would probably qualify as an MWAC and I actually take some pretty respectable shots, unless you don't consider having Coldwell Banker call you and ask for 4 shots and they are willing to pay this "MWAC" $1,000 for the 4 shots I took?!  Let's not lump everyone in the same category. Just because a woman, with children, that has a camera starts a photography business doesn't mean she can't possibly take "respectable" shots.  Let's get real people!!



Did someone sign up for an account just to parody a MWAC?


----------



## Alpha (Apr 30, 2007)

Tone down the testosterone, there, momma.

You're getting a bit worked up over nothing. I don't have any competition. I don't run a business. If you're making money and you know what you're doing, more power to ya. I will say, though, that millions of people and companies around the world pay for some very mediocre photographs every day. You may be a very capable photographer. I don't know, I haven't seen your work. But the fact that you sell some photos here and there doesn't really have all that much to do with how good you are.

I object to anyone without a clue starting up a photography business, whatever gender, because I think it's pretentious. 



monicab28 said:


> Sounds like someone is a little afraid of some competition...
> 
> I would probably qualify as an MWAC and I actually take some pretty respectable shots, unless you don't consider having Coldwell Banker call you and ask for 4 shots and they are willing to pay this "MWAC" $1,000 for the 4 shots I took?!  Let's not lump everyone in the same category. Just because a woman, with children, that has a camera starts a photography business doesn't mean she can't possibly take "respectable" shots.  Let's get real people!!


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 30, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> Elitism is a very important aspect of the art world.



I'm beginning to see that you are indeed correct.  :raisedbrow:


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 30, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> Why? I don't understand the hostility/disgust? It almost sound elitist.:neutral:


 
It IS elitist... and ignorant.

I have a day job and I do photography on the weekends. I don't understand why full time photographers hate the competition?


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Apr 30, 2007)

RMThompson said:


> I have a day job and I do photography on the weekends. I don't understand why full time photographers hate the competition?




I can't speak for the full time photographers who hate competition, because I do photography in my spare time and someone in the portrait business isn't in competition with me.  However, I don't understand why some People With A Camera assume that other People With A Camera are annoyed with them due to a perceived "competition"--- oh, wait, yes I do.  Attributing annoyance to competition is a boost to a PWAC's ego, while attributing it for the real reasons is not.  Or we can play hot potato with the word "elitist" because it serves the same purpose as the word "competition" right now.

Obtaining a camera requires money, but obtaining skill requires time.  I don't see how I'm being elitist.  Everyone here owns a camera.


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 30, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> Attributing annoyance to competition is a boost to a PWAC's ego, while attributing it for the real reasons is not.



I think RMThompson was responding to Garbz' quote:

"But what about race events where a bunch of amateurs go and take photos which are not as good as the pros and then sell them really cheap to the drivers."

In that case, it was, if you will, sour grapes about competition (IMHO).

Correct me if I'm wrong, AD, but your gripe about MWACs seems to be that they are using it to make money and socialize (your quip about AVON), and don't really care about "The Craft", and that annoys you/****es you off, correct?


----------



## TheOtherBob (Apr 30, 2007)

On "competition," all business owners would rather be monopolists...  But I don't think that's the issue.  Consider this hypothetical:

1. "Pro" spends thousands of dollars and many years learning photography, and opens a business.  Pro charges high rates for fantastic pictures.
2. "Amateur" buys a basic camera and a big flash (to look important), sets it to Auto, and starts a business.  Amateur charges 50% of what pro does - and the pictures are maybe half as good.
3. Amateur's friends start hiring Amateur because...well, they're Amateur's friends. 
4. Pro and Amateur bid for the same job.  Amateur gets it because they charge half as much.  

Should Pro be upset by that?  

Maybe.  The consumer can easily quantify Amateur's low rate, but it's hard to quantify quality.  (Maybe Pro's stuff is really 1000 times better instead of just twice as good - if so, then "half price" is not really a bargain.)  Or the consumer might be mislead into believing that they're getting the same service for half the price - when in fact they're getting half the service for half the price.  (You'd like to think that the customer would carefully evaluate the two portfolios and decide...but that may not happen.)  Plus, there should be a reward for all the hard work that Pro has put into learning the craft - they shouldn't have to charge half price for full-quality.

But maybe not.  Some people, given the choice, would rather get half as much quality for half the price.  You could tell me all the features of a Jaguar, and how great it is to drive.  But I just want to get to work - I'd rather buy a Honda.  I know it's not as good - but it's cheaper.  Some people are happy with wedding photos from disposable cameras - they'd rather spend their money on an extravagent honeymoon.  Likewise, maybe a couple who hires Amateur to shoot pictures of their kids would have otherwise hired Pro to do it - but they also might not have done it at all, because pictures of some rugrats wouldn't be worth what Pro charges.  Amateur just gives them an option between "do it yourself" and "Pro."

So if you think that "MWAC's" are an example of consumers failing to recognize quality and being mislead into buying cheapo junk - then you should be upset.  On the other hand, if you think that it's an example of people filling a gap in the market (low-price photography) by offering a decent product at a lower price, then you'd like it.  I don't know which is the case, of course - but I think that's how it sorts out.


----------



## zendianah (Apr 30, 2007)

Since we are starting to put people in little boxes.. MWAC and PWAC and OWAC (Otters With A Camera) -- LP with a camera..  how about thinking of another stupid accronym to argue about? Would I be considered DrMWAC? (Dr. MOm with a Camera, since I take pictures for money on the weekends?


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Apr 30, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, AD, but your gripe about MWACs seems to be that they are using it to make money and socialize (your quip about AVON), and don't really care about "The Craft", and that annoys you/****es you off, correct?



MWAC isn't very nice.  That's a derogatory term, it's not fair, and it's not very descriptive.  There are a lot of talented mom/photographers, and it's not right that someone be taken less seriously because they happen to be a woman with children.  My gripe is about anyone with a camera who.. and yeah, you got it right.

Recently, I spoke with a local writer about a local fine art photographer (his friend) who takes two Nikon DSLRs into the field with him.  One is set to color and one is set to monochrome mode, "So he doesn't have to spent time switching between the two."  I always handle statements like that with grace, but honestly, that sort of thing makes my brain hurt.  I hope that making a few bucks never makes me so overconfident that I stop learning.

Edit:  Using photography to socialize isn't bad, but remember I'm borderline autistic, so I really wish people on the street wouldn't use photography to socialize with _me_, or think that because I have a camera, I must be part of the party.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 30, 2007)

I think MWAC sounds a little bit -hot- and if there were MWAPB (paint brush) I'd hire them to come and paint my house before I'd rehire the NCPWAPB (Nin-Com-Poops With A Paint Brush) like I did last time.

And if they did a good job, I'd hire them again, and again and again. Everytime the house needed painting, or everytime they could do a  better job than I could. Just like I only work a day or two every week, I don't care what anybody does with their off-hours as long as they produce what I need. Likewise with my off-time, it's nobody's business- but I have to produce what my clients want.

Good luck to anyone with talent.


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 30, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> MWAC isn't very nice.  That's a derogatory term, it's not fair, and it's not very descriptive.  There are a lot of talented mom/photographers



Forgive me, I meant no disrespect...to me, a Mom With A Camera is a very difficult job, mostly because of the "Mom" part.  I was only using the label as a shorthand way of addressing the issue.



zendianah said:


> Since we are starting to put people in little boxes.. MWAC



(ZD, see above...it was for convenience).



TheOtherBob said:


> On "competition,"...if you think that "MWAC's" are an example of consumers failing to recognize quality and being mislead into buying cheapo junk - then you should be upset. On the other hand, if you think that it's an example of people filling a gap in the market (low-price photography) by offering a decent product at a lower price, then you'd like it.



Very well put.  (I myself think that it's "people filling a gap").



Aquarium Dreams said:


> Edit: Using photography to socialize isn't bad, but remember I'm borderline autistic, so I really wish people on the street wouldn't use photography to socialize with _me_, or think that because I have a camera, I must be part of the party.


----------



## gmarquez (Apr 30, 2007)

abraxas said:


> I think MWAC sounds a little bit -hot- and if




This whole thread is going downhill FAST.


----------



## zendianah (Apr 30, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> Forgive me, I meant no disrespect...to me, a Mom With A Camera is a very difficult job, mostly because of the "Mom" part. I was only using the label as a shorthand way of addressing the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## abraxas (Apr 30, 2007)

gmarquez said:


> This whole thread is going downhill FAST.





Thinking of the title of the article, MWAC got folks to read it, and the controversial title got folks talking about it.  That's talent.

Answer to the original question; Yes, I'd take them seriously.  Better be good though.


----------



## RacePhoto (Apr 30, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> I would expand this to the average world consumer.
> 
> ... and since it is not at all easy to use, so many ... lets call them carefully "not-very-outstanding images" are produced. And those who take those images are often not aware of it.
> 
> I know many of my images are very mediocre, OK, I took them, but at least I know they are not high quality.



I'm in the same boat. Keep in mind that every kid in a basement or a garage is going to be a rock star some day. 

MWAC is some journalists idea of a way to make a story. This isn't any different than the 60s when SLRs became very affordable and good. People were upgrading from all kinds of cameras to something better.

How many people have you known who sold Amway, ran a bead business, did some kind of home project business to make money on the side, and have a good time as well. That's what this is. Another minor venture for people who want to do something besides watch soap operas and sit on the couch.  Mom's with scrapbooks, Mom's selling cosmetics. Mom's selling nutritional items. Mom's making jewelry... Some take pictures!

What gets my goat the most is a friends wife, picked up a 
Z3 and took some pictures on vacation. She's winning local contests and making composites with Photoshop. People like that "REALLY" **** me off.  Because she's got a good eye and takes better pictures in two years, than I have in 30 years, and she's using what's almost a point and shoot camera.

Back to what I should have for a tag line. A camera never took a great picture, the person operating it does that. You can have 1000 MWAC's and I still think it's a contrived article, but some are going to be very, very good, many will just point and shoot. No big deal. This is not news. It's Olds! :thumbup:

Doesn't it also mean Man With a Camera?


----------



## Tomeboy69 (Apr 30, 2007)

RacePhoto said:


> I'm in the same boat. Keep in mind that every kid in a basement or a garage is going to be a rock star some day.
> 
> MWAC is some journalists idea of a way to make a story. This isn't any different than the 60s when SLRs became very affordable and good. People were upgrading from all kinds of cameras to something better.



Right on! Find an industry that hasn't gotten more affordable and more user friendly. I DJ (actually spin House music). I have 20+ years of beat-matching skills. Now a kid can go out, buy a dual CD player with auto beat matching, and call himself/herself a DJ. Does that bother me? Nah. The people that hire them wouldn't be people that would have the money to hire me anyway.

Look at video. Anyone can buy a decent camcorder and a Mac and spit out DVDs. Does that make them competition? I don't think so.

Clients that have the money and know what they want will know where to look for quality. The people that want cheap will go cheap - they're the clients you don't want anyway. Everyone started somewhere. I'm sure most of us have taken on a job or project at some point in our careers that we weren't 100% qualified for.


----------



## craig (May 2, 2007)

I am in the editorial/commercial field. Not a lot of moms entering this area. Have to say mo' power to 'em. Photography is in an exciting (and slightly uncomfortable) period. Kudos to anyone who can turn a dollar in this racket. 

Love & Bass


----------



## montresor (May 4, 2007)

Like all journalism, the NYT article creates the sense of a monolithic and significant trend which may not be able to be validated according to its actual statistical density. The Grey Lady, despite its self-proclaimed status as the nation's newspaper of record, is no more reliable than my dog in far too many instances ("What's happening in the world, Roxie?" "Woof!").

A trend which may not be a trend; and, more depressingly, an acronymically-challenged categorization which may not be valid or remotely fair to the individuals, many of whom are more than snapshooter talented, it seeks to pigeonhole, all in the service of a long-form feature that will look great in the reporter's clip file. I say this as a journalist who sees this kind of stuff from the inside all the time.

Anyway, even if the article is spot-on -- babies and weddings? You go, girls. I like to shoot abandoned factories, endangered architecture, and edgy street life. There's room for all of us, no matter how many of us there are.


----------



## JIP (May 6, 2007)

I used to read another forum http://www.prophotogs.com/forum/ ant it was full of what you call MWAC and most of them, at least from their images were great photographers.  I agree with the other posters who said that people do a good job capturing what they can relate to and I have seen alot of women photographers who do a wonderful job shooting things like children and weddings.  This is not to say that is all they can shoot but I have seen many that do a great job at this.


----------



## PhotogMom (Oct 30, 2012)

I think I "fall" into this category as well. No matter what, people don't take me as serious, once they find out I'm a mom. Like mom is some sort of bad stigma? I just don't get it. It's not people, as much as it is men and "professional" photographers. My great grandmother whom I was close to was dying before our eyes. She kept "photobooks" what we now call scrapbooks. She had Alzheimer's very bad. However, you bring out one of her "photobooks" and she could tell you details no one could ever remember; but she couldn't remember what she just ate five mins before. I was 9 when she passed away, on her death bed she gave me all of her history, her photobooks, told me to protect them, cherish them, and use them for inspiration. Years before this date, she had started scrapbooking with me, letting me help her, from taking the photos, to pasting them in the decorative page we made together. At 9, I took my grandmother's creative crown and started blossoming on my own after she had passed away. I got into Photography because of her, (She was a professional photographer, after her children had grown up.) I inherited all of her cameras, which I still have today, along with my own collection. I have been in love with photography, and art since as far back as I can remember. Any art really, front performing art, to photography. (I'm a terrible drawer, as long as I'm not asked to draw, I am okay. I do own and play man instruments as well, and have dabbled a great deal in Theater.) I'm an artist, down to my bone. 

I started my photography career, on the side, because I could never get the recognition to make a career out of it early on; before my two adorable mop heads came along. I have been in the photography, mostly freelance, and recreational, business for a long long time now. I decided to expand on it, and go to school, this of course after my first son was born. It astonishes me how many people don't view me as a true "artist" and or "photographer" because I am a women, but mostly because I am a mom. I have a substantive client base now. More than most of my professors at school do. I work a few days out of the week and make more than my husband does. Yet my income is our extra, "play" money. I don't do it for the money, I do it for the passion, the drive, the love and the art side. I took the practical route my first go around in college. I have an AAS and BAS in Criminalistics, which is practically useless to me at this point. I graduated top of my class from a very well established State University with honors. This was in 2008, as the economic stability in American plummeted. Prospect employer one after another, turned me down for employment because I did not have a doctorate and or 5 years field relative experience. Luckily my husband has had his very good and stable job since graduating high school. So I took "bank" jobs, and made our way through life, my photography, always on the side. The birth of our first son in 2010, really lit a fire under me to go back to school and dive more into the business aspect and marketing aspect of my creative side, as well as to learn more than I already knew about photography and art. However, one by one, most of the professors that were men and considered "professional" photographers, started giving me the same sad song and dance, how I'm contributing to the problem today, with moms thinking they could just buy their own cameras, and become photographers. None of them knew my background. 

I have one of those professors this semester. He thinks he can "break me", and is especially hard on me during critique. (I know so, because I over heard him chuckling with another student, male, single, childless, about how he intends on getting the 'momographers' to give up, because the field is too competitive and saturated for the likes of us". This professor has gotten lucky on a few name large business. His income is not consistent. Hints why he is teaching at the college, and not out making, "the big bucks". Sad really. That I'm viewed as a women who only got into photography to make a few extra bucks? When that's completely and utterly not true. He's a little older than me. He didn't get into the photography business until early 2000, which by then, I had been doing photography for almost a decade. 

I say all of that, to say this, no matter why as person chooses to pick up a camera and shoot, where they are at skill level wise, or who and what they chose to shot, it shouldn't matter. You should get your jobs based on your merit, and not your "better than thou attitude." So in my snarkiness and sly uppercut, I chose to rebrand my image and business name as Momographer to show the world, that, hey, moms, are just as good at photography as the "professionals", that some of us have been photographers long before our babies came along; our babies just give us inspiration, and a drive to keep going; even when we get knocked down. 

I am a successful, and wildly fabulous photographer, just ask any of my clients. I OWN all of my wet and digital photography studio equipment, both production and post production. I grow every day, and experiment every day with my photography. I learn every day about new things, concepts, and practices. Most careers require continuing education, why is photography any different? Why does being a mom and or women have anything to do with my skills or my business savvy side? Nothing. I didn't just buy a dslr camera one day and decided I was a photographer. This came through years of cultivation, love, dedication, and a desire to better myself. I started in film and worked into digital. I started with bottom of the line p&s and slowly worked into more advanced p&s's as well as slr's. 

I do sometimes think that a person should seek out a low end camera and practice, practice, practice and learn the basics of photography such as lighting, composition, etc prior to buying a high end, high powered camera, but hey, it's their money, not mine. 

Sorry for the lengthy rant. This is just my experience. 






gabelimom said:


> Hi all-
> 
> I stumbled across this acronym today in a New York Times article. The article was about the new surge in mommies who are taking their cameras and launching photography businesses with them. I was wondering if anyone else saw the article and what their thoughts are. Have you guys come across MWAC, and are they taken seriously in the photographic world? Looking forward to your responses. Thanks!  ​


----------



## jake337 (Oct 30, 2012)

Way to dig up a 5 year old thread!!

And no you don't fit into the category because you didn't just pick up a cheap kit from best buy and start charging the next day.  Thats what MWAC or GWAC are!  Buy today, selling by tomorrow!


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 30, 2012)

PhotogMom said:


> I think I "fall" into this category as well. No matter what, people don't take me as serious, once they find out I'm a mom. Like mom is some sort of bad stigma? I just don't get it. It's not people, as much as it is men and "professional" photographers. My great grandmother whom I was close to was dying before our eyes. She kept "photobooks" what we now call scrapbooks. She had Alzheimer's very bad. However, you bring out one of her "photobooks" and she could tell you details no one could ever remember; but she couldn't remember what she just ate five mins before. I was 9 when she passed away, on her death bed she gave me all of her history, her photobooks, told me to protect them, cherish them, and use them for inspiration. Years before this date, she had started scrapbooking with me, letting me help her, from taking the photos, to pasting them in the decorative page we made together. At 9, I took my grandmother's creative crown and started blossoming on my own after she had passed away. I got into Photography because of her, (She was a professional photographer, after her children had grown up.) I inherited all of her cameras, which I still have today, along with my own collection. I have been in love with photography, and art since as far back as I can remember. Any art really, front performing art, to photography. (I'm a terrible drawer, as long as I'm not asked to draw, I am okay. I do own and play man instruments as well, and have dabbled a great deal in Theater.) I'm an artist, down to my bone.
> 
> I started my photography career, on the side, because I could never get the recognition to make a career out of it early on; before my two adorable mop heads came along. I have been in the photography, mostly freelance, and recreational, business for a long long time now. I decided to expand on it, and go to school, this of course after my first son was born. It astonishes me how many people don't view me as a true "artist" and or "photographer" because I am a women, but mostly because I am a mom. I have a substantive client base now. More than most of my professors at school do. I work a few days out of the week and make more than my husband does. Yet my income is our extra, "play" money. I don't do it for the money, I do it for the passion, the drive, the love and the art side. I took the practical route my first go around in college. I have an AAS and BAS in Criminalistics, which is practically useless to me at this point. I graduated top of my class from a very well established State University with honors. This was in 2008, as the economic stability in American plummeted. Prospect employer one after another, turned me down for employment because I did not have a doctorate and or 5 years field relative experience. Luckily my husband has had his very good and stable job since graduating high school. So I took "bank" jobs, and made our way through life, my photography, always on the side. The birth of our first son in 2010, really lit a fire under me to go back to school and dive more into the business aspect and marketing aspect of my creative side, as well as to learn more than I already knew about photography and art. However, one by one, most of the professors that were men and considered "professional" photographers, started giving me the same sad song and dance, how I'm contributing to the problem today, with moms thinking they could just buy their own cameras, and become photographers. None of them knew my background.
> 
> ...




So you're a PWIAAM:  Photographer Who Is Also A Mom.

Sorry about the jerks in your life but they are and have been an epidemic for a long time for us all.

A sad fact of life is that too many people who can't make it, fake it.  They take on the appearance of an artist and sell the shtick because the steak isn't very well done.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 30, 2012)

It's almost hilarious, post #39...him doubting that the MWAC phenomenon was an ACTUAL trend!!! Hilarious!!! It proved to be a GIGANTIC trend!!! The Rangefinder just this month (that's _The Magazine of Professional Photographers_) reported on the state of the photography business. Right now, women, many of whom are mothers, are a HUGE part of the business...they outnumber men. Men who identify as full-time photographers have a median age of 50. Women are much,much younger. And have been at it fewer years. Ya' know, it seems it's almost as if, as the economy got worse, and as d-slr's dropped below $1,000, non-working mothers (what a silly term THAT is! but you know what it means)  at home decided to *turn to photography to make extra income!!* JUST like the NEw York Times reported on! AND JUST LIKE the business group reported...80% of new photography business being started in the 2007 period were by women...


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 30, 2012)

gmarquez said:


> abraxas said:
> 
> 
> > I think MWAC sounds a little bit -hot- and if
> ...



MWACILF?

lol


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 30, 2012)

PhotogMom said:


> I think I "fall" into this category as well. No matter what, people don't take me as serious, once they find out I'm a mom. Like mom is some sort of bad stigma? I just don't get it. It's not people, as much as it is men and "professional" photographers. My great grandmother whom I was close to was dying before our eyes. She kept "photobooks" what we now call scrapbooks. She had Alzheimer's very bad. However, you bring out one of her "photobooks" and she could tell you details no one could ever remember; but she couldn't remember what she just ate five mins before. I was 9 when she passed away, on her death bed she gave me all of her history, her photobooks, told me to protect them, cherish them, and use them for inspiration. Years before this date, she had started scrapbooking with me, letting me help her, from taking the photos, to pasting them in the decorative page we made together. At 9, I took my grandmother's creative crown and started blossoming on my own after she had passed away. I got into Photography because of her, (She was a professional photographer, after her children had grown up.) I inherited all of her cameras, which I still have today, along with my own collection. I have been in love with photography, and art since as far back as I can remember. Any art really, front performing art, to photography. (I'm a terrible drawer, as long as I'm not asked to draw, I am okay. I do own and play man instruments as well, and have dabbled a great deal in Theater.) I'm an artist, down to my bone.
> 
> I started my photography career, on the side, because I could never get the recognition to make a career out of it early on; before my two adorable mop heads came along. I have been in the photography, mostly freelance, and recreational, business for a long long time now. I decided to expand on it, and go to school, this of course after my first son was born. It astonishes me how many people don't view me as a true "artist" and or "photographer" because I am a women, but mostly because I am a mom. I have a substantive client base now. More than most of my professors at school do. I work a few days out of the week and make more than my husband does. Yet my income is our extra, "play" money. I don't do it for the money, I do it for the passion, the drive, the love and the art side. I took the practical route my first go around in college. I have an AAS and BAS in Criminalistics, which is practically useless to me at this point. I graduated top of my class from a very well established State University with honors. This was in 2008, as the economic stability in American plummeted. Prospect employer one after another, turned me down for employment because I did not have a doctorate and or 5 years field relative experience. Luckily my husband has had his very good and stable job since graduating high school. So I took "bank" jobs, and made our way through life, my photography, always on the side. The birth of our first son in 2010, really lit a fire under me to go back to school and dive more into the business aspect and marketing aspect of my creative side, as well as to learn more than I already knew about photography and art. However, one by one, most of the professors that were men and considered "professional" photographers, started giving me the same sad song and dance, how I'm contributing to the problem today, with moms thinking they could just buy their own cameras, and become photographers. None of them knew my background.
> 
> ...



Pics or it didnt happen, lol


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 30, 2012)

PhotogMom said:


> I think I "fall" into this category as well. No matter what, people don't take me as serious, once they find out I'm a mom. Like mom is some sort of bad stigma? I just don't get it. It's not people, as much as it is men and "professional" photographers. My great grandmother whom I was close to was dying before our eyes. She kept "photobooks" what we now call scrapbooks. She had Alzheimer's very bad. However, you bring out one of her "photobooks" and she could tell you details no one could ever remember; but she couldn't remember what she just ate five mins before. I was 9 when she passed away, on her death bed she gave me all of her history, her photobooks, told me to protect them, cherish them, and use them for inspiration. Years before this date, she had started scrapbooking with me, letting me help her, from taking the photos, to pasting them in the decorative page we made together. At 9, I took my grandmother's creative crown and started blossoming on my own after she had passed away. I got into Photography because of her, (She was a professional photographer, after her children had grown up.) I inherited all of her cameras, which I still have today, along with my own collection. I have been in love with photography, and art since as far back as I can remember. Any art really, front performing art, to photography. (I'm a terrible drawer, as long as I'm not asked to draw, I am okay. I do own and play man instruments as well, and have dabbled a great deal in Theater.) I'm an artist, down to my bone.
> 
> I started my photography career, on the side, because I could never get the recognition to make a career out of it early on; before my two adorable mop heads came along. I have been in the photography, mostly freelance, and recreational, business for a long long time now. I decided to expand on it, and go to school, this of course after my first son was born. It astonishes me how many people don't view me as a true "artist" and or "photographer" because I am a women, but mostly because I am a mom. I have a substantive client base now. More than most of my professors at school do. I work a few days out of the week and make more than my husband does. Yet my income is our extra, "play" money. I don't do it for the money, I do it for the passion, the drive, the love and the art side. I took the practical route my first go around in college. I have an AAS and BAS in Criminalistics, which is practically useless to me at this point. I graduated top of my class from a very well established State University with honors. This was in 2008, as the economic stability in American plummeted. Prospect employer one after another, turned me down for employment because I did not have a doctorate and or 5 years field relative experience. Luckily my husband has had his very good and stable job since graduating high school. So I took "bank" jobs, and made our way through life, my photography, always on the side. The birth of our first son in 2010, really lit a fire under me to go back to school and dive more into the business aspect and marketing aspect of my creative side, as well as to learn more than I already knew about photography and art. However, one by one, most of the professors that were men and considered "professional" photographers, started giving me the same sad song and dance, how I'm contributing to the problem today, with moms thinking they could just buy their own cameras, and become photographers. None of them knew my background.
> 
> ...




He might want to take a look at recent statistics on the industry. It's LARGELY dominated by us.... 


> &#8220;The number of female photographers has grown,&#8221;  he says. Now it&#8217;s a 2/3-to-1/3 split of males to females, a pickup from  last year.&#8221; Forty percent of them are part time, while 28 percent, he  says, are full time. &#8220;And it&#8217;s a younger female at that,&#8221; he says. &#8220;Age  45, and younger,&#8221; according to the 2011 & 2012 InfoTrends  Professional Photographer Study.


Rangefinder - State of the Industry: Business Trends 2012

I say we band together and run HIM out of the business... Oh wait, he's pretty out of the business seeing how he's just teaching.


----------



## IByte (Oct 30, 2012)

Moron with a a camera problem solved, gender neutral, simple and to the point.


----------



## Tee (Oct 30, 2012)

I sometimes feel that not everyone understands that just because you are a mom it does not make you a MWAC.  MLEEK is a mom but not a MWAC.  She is a photographer.  There are plenty of "Hi, I just bought a Rebel T2i and have a client shoot tomorrow.  How much should I charge?" threads that are created weekly.  Or the "natural light only" photographers.  Are people really having that hard of a time distinguishing between a photographer who happens to be a female and a person who happens to be a mom who was told by her friends that she does the best selective coloring in Piknik and should start a business?  Jake hit the nail on the head of what a MWAC is:



jake337 said:


> And no you don't fit into the category because you didn't just pick up a cheap kit from best buy and start charging the next day.  Thats what MWAC or GWAC are!  Buy today, selling by tomorrow!



 I shoot a lot of models and in my circle we deal with the term GWC or Guy With a Camera which means a guy with a crap camera claiming to be a photographer for the sole intent of seeing girls in various states of undress.  Having the term GWC attached to your name in the model circles will ruin you.  It doesn't matter if you said something in earnest that was perceived differently by the model or maybe you just looked creepy (yes, how you look can get you the GWC badge in a heartbeat).  Once you're labeled a GWC (and you're really not one) you're done.  It's a backhanded compliment when a model says to me, "thank God you're not a GWC."   It also means that I'm good to go with her model friends.  So yeah, I'd say GWC trumps being called a MWAC any day of the week.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 30, 2012)

The problem lies with the M in MWAC. It's not just Mom... I've seen it used as Man With A Camera too. 
Personally I prefer the AWAC. Amateur With A Camera. Although that will open a whole new debate. There are many here who consider them amateurs but have the skill to shoot professionally. Then there are those amateurs without the skill to turn the camera on... 
Which has lead us to  the "Best Buy Photographer." 
Aaaand... I have bought a camera at Best Buy. Hey, it was a great deal and I wanted one my kids could use! 
You see where I am headed here... this is a no win debate on the name. Although I REALLY like IByte's Moron With A Camera. That seems to work all of the way around... so far.


----------



## IByte (Oct 30, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> The problem lies with the M in MWAC. It's not just Mom... I've seen it used as Man With A Camera too.
> Personally I prefer the AWAC. Amateur With A Camera. Although that will open a whole new debate. There are many here who consider them amateurs but have the skill to shoot professionally. Then there are those amateurs without the skill to turn the camera on...
> Which has lead us to  the "Best Buy Photographer."
> Aaaand... I have bought a camera at Best Buy. Hey, it was a great deal and I wanted one my kids could use!
> You see where I am headed here... this is a no win debate on the name. Although I REALLY like IByte's Moron With A Camera. That seems to work all of the way around... so far.



Thanks M, but I got to give the credit to Charlie for that one from a(same) previous argument, I used to say man-with-a-camera, but I'm a Jock-with-a-camera  I have my own catagory ftw!! Lol


----------

