Re: PSSP Meeting summary - comment on age/gender

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. T. writes:

>Let me make a quick comment on Adam's explanation of the mature age
>of stereo photographers.  IMO, this has nothing to do with using
>50s equipment.  If you take a survey in your club, you will find
>that most people got into stereo in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, long 
>after the Stereo Realist officially closed its doors (1972).

This isn't really surprising.  When a fad dies (or when something
goes out of fashion, as stereography did in the late '60s), it tends to
become anathema to the general public (eew, you're still shooting
in STEREO?  That's like, so ESTABLISHMENT, man.  Aren't you HIP?).
Most people put away their hip-hugger bell-bottoms and platform shoes
after the 70's, and wouldn't have been caught dead in them (until the
'90s, that is).  About the only decade I'd be *surprised* to hear of
someone taking up stereography is in the 60's, right after it died.
Someone who picked it up at its height of popularity in the mid-40's
to mid '50's would probably have been roughly in their 30's-50's,
which would make them about 70-90+ today.  I don't *think* that's
the typical age of even your elder-statesman club member, but I
could be wrong.

>I also don't think that the average age of stereo club membership
>is any higher than the average age of a photography club.  My
>observation is that the average age of the PSA (Photographic Society
>of America) membership is rather high.

Of course this anecdotal observation hasn't any statistical validity
(although Dr. T. never implied that it did).  For one thing, club
membership is self-selecting.  Maybe all this means is that typically
older people join photography clubs of ANY kind.  Certainly we know
that there are lots of people shooting stereo in isolation, from all
the comments of the effect "I'm so glad I discovered P3D; I thought I
was the only one doing this..." we've seen here.  Maybe this unrepresented
population would completely reverse the above observation.  Who can say,
without a valid random sampling of the entire stereographic population?

>Why is this so?  Because it takes a certain maturity and certain
>income to "play" with cameras and film.  Some people get serious
>about photography only after they retire...

This is 180 degrees opposite to a remark you once made in reply to
a post of mine, George, (about clubs possibly buying an RBT camera
to lend to members) wherein you said that retirees tend to be on
fixed, limited incomes and not prone to spending too much on their
hobbies.  So which is it?  Do they have more to spend, or less?  By
your previous reasoning, it should be the pre-retirement age crowd with
the greatest disposable income who swell the ranks of stereographers.

>Getting younger men interested in stereo is a challenge... 
>They seem to be more interested in fast cars, good-looking women 
>and sports...

All of which make wonderful subjects for stereophotography!  I've
commented before on how the widest interest in our stereo cameras
we'd yet experience occurred when we took them to the "Dream Machines"
auto/plane/antique engine show at Half Moon Bay Airport.  All those
gadget-loving men and women, you know...  These are by no means
mutually excluse.

I do agree that two things are required for this hobby: MONEY and
TIME.  College-age youngsters tend to be lacking the former; post-
graduate age folks tend to be busy raising and supporting a family
and maintaining a household, and may thus be lacking either or both
commodities.  A fortunate few find a way to squeeze stereography in
on the family outting, etc., but are unlikely to find time to join
the local club (presuming there is one).

>Another "misconception" is that there are proportionally more
>men into stereo than women, compared to flat photography. [...]

>About the only connection with gender and age that I can detect
>is that stereo card collectors are mostly older men [...]

Mostly I find such off-the-cuff generalizations to be less than
useless.  Since they're completely anecdotal, they serve no purpose
but to create divisive stereotypes.

Personally I'm for stereographers and stereophiles of all genders,
races, creeds, and ages, working alone or in groups, be they "joiners"
or "separatists".  Up 3D!

	-Greg W.


------------------------------