# Some people just aren't photogenic.



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 21, 2010)

Why? I look terrible in pictures, but then I look in the mirror and I think I look good. Is it the camera that's lying? Or am I only lying to myself? Does the light bounce off me in a weird way? Is being "photegenic" a myth or is there some scientific explanation for it? Help me out here, guys.


----------



## garza (Jul 21, 2010)

If your face happens to be asymmetrical, and most faces are, then no photograph of your face will ever look correct. What you see in the mirror is a reversed image. That's the image you associate with how your face looks. When you see a photograph of your face, it looks distorted. The asymmetry does not have to be much for you to reject the photograph as being wrong. Other people see the photograph and say it looks just like you. 

Of course I think we all believe we are more attractive than we really are. A friend of mine, now deceased, used to tell me that I have a face made for radio. And I keep trying to convince people that my singing is not as bad as it sounds.


----------



## Eluixa (Jul 21, 2010)

What you might like is someone who knows how to take good pictures, and do a photoshoot.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 21, 2010)

Nice friend, garza. Of course it's probably better to have friends who are honest with you than anything else. You're probably right about the asymmetrical thing. I don't know why I didn't think of that. But that seems like only a slight thing that wouldn't make you look much different than the way you see yourself in the mirror. A reversed image doesn't necessarily make someone look bad.

Eluixa, thanks for the suggestion, haha. I didn't mean for this question to come off like I was asking how to look good in pictures. Although I do think the photoshoot idea sounds fun, I tend to look better in pictures when I don't know they're being taken.


----------



## Kat (Jul 21, 2010)

Lighting makes a huge difference in pictures. The camera catches light differently than your eyes do. 

I notice this a lot with my pictures. Pictures with a flash make me look really red (as my son put it-you look all sunburned) whereas pictures in a natural light are more true to what I perceive my skin tone to be-pale. 

Take pictures in natural light, early evening and morning are the best times, or overcast days. Or pictures with more than one light source. 

I rarely like pictures that other people take of me. My own self portraits are okay. Because I know what angles look best for myself. In other peoples pictures I look fatter and red faced.


----------



## Blood (Jul 21, 2010)

Lose the skin. Have a picturing taking of your skull. Looks great every time.


----------



## caelum (Jul 21, 2010)

I disagree with garza on everyone thinking they look good.  I've known some attractive people who can't be convinced of their attractiveness and always feel self-conscious.

And then there are some people who are just blissfully unconcerned with appearance, who never have that worry niggling them.  I'm particular about what I wear, but take my uncle for example: he just grabs whatever's on the shelf and flies with it.  He's a hard guy to worry about things in general, though, which is strange because he's a Firefighter/Paramedic—yes both, small town, long story—and I can imagine few jobs more stressful.  Maybe it's toughened his psychological skin.  Or maybe he's just always been that way, hard to phase.  There are some people who are so single-minded you'd think it would take a nuke to derail them from their purpose.  I'm talking to you, Ahab.


----------



## Blood (Jul 21, 2010)

caelum said:


> There are some people who are so single-minded you'd think it would take a nuke to derail them from their purpose.


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## caelum (Jul 21, 2010)

Oh, the human condition.  More specifically, the nerves of a tough-minded person compared to my uncle compared to people who fuss over things compared to worrying about how one looks.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 22, 2010)

Try looking in the mirror in different lighting and you'll notice subtle differences somewhat similar to those you see in your pictures.. A huge part of producing a nice photograph, it would stand to reason, would be getting the lighting right. It is true that some people do look better in the flesh than they do in some of their photographs but even the most attractive people will look at some of their pictures and think they look terrible when you, looking at those pictures with them, can't really see much difference between those they prefer and those they dislike. I suppose you pick up on any subtle defects looking at your own pictures. You never do when it comes to other people, or at least I don't


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 22, 2010)

Anybody who has ever worked in photography and modeling is well aware of the reality of "photogenic".  
It's why they do screen tests.

I think we've all seen beautiful women who don't take a good picture. (I used to live one.  Don't have any pictures)

I've shot plenty of models who don't look all that special in real life, but look great in print.  Everybody learns not to judge by meeting somebody...you look at their portfolio.

One of the most remarkable examples I ran into was Janice Schmidt, at the time the oldest Playmate of the Month ever.  I met her, had dinner with her, took a couple of rolls,  screwed her six ways from Sunday, (just kidding about that last one) and was at no time in the presence of a beautiful woman, not even somebody I'd look twice at on the street.
The shots I took of her were sensational, very hot.  

A good make up artist and good light man can help out, but it's too complex a situation to have an easy solution.

It's kind of like the beautiful sunsets everybody takes pictures of.  Then get home and they have this picture of a little sun over a dark sea.  

It's a real quality and not a big deal unless somebody is really starstruck.


----------



## alanmt (Jul 22, 2010)

You may also be using only one expression when you look in the mirror, and so different expressions in your pics seem wierd.  My husband hates what he calls my mirror face.  But I have kind of an elastic face (why I used to get cast in comedies a lot) so pictures of me run the gamut from looking ugly/bizarre/just plain goofy to pretty hot (if the angle and lighting and rest of the universe combine into the rare but perfect conditions).  

Of course, people are also way too hard on themselves.  I blame cosmo.  Further comments on that issue are in the tavern for those who are over 18.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 22, 2010)

Heh, Alan -- my wife has what I call her "picture face" -- this really big smile and deer-in-the-headlights stare. Every time you point a camera at her, she does it, no matter what.

Something I found interesting -- one of my first shoots as an art director was for a line of small appliances -- the pics were for packaging, displays etc. We hired a hand model for the shoot. While we were setting up, we used the photographer's assistant for a stand in. Her hands looked perfectly fine to me, well manicured etc. and I was thinking, we could just use her and save a chunk of change -- until I saw the first few test shots. Her hands look awful. And really, most people's hands don't photograph well at all. The hand model's hands didn't look that much different, but looked great in the photos. Part of it had to do with how she held things, but otherwise, it was pretty hard to discern just what made her hands more photogenic.

Some of the models I've worked with look great in person and in photos. Some look better in photos. It's hard to pinpoint just why that is.  Some also know just what to do in front of the camera, and are great at taking direction. Of course, the photographer has a whole lot to do with it too.

The most attractive models, in and out of photos, that I've worked with are women I've hired through an agency that specializes in "real people." So, these are ladies who you use to portray business women or moms or nurses etc. They are more "what you see is what you get" as opposed to the fashion models who tend to look more different in photos than in real life.

Probably one of the best and most fun shoots I've been on -- the model was a dog. Literally. The dog's trainer could pose the dog pretty much any way you would want, and the dog would hold the pose it until the trainer told her to move. It was pretty amazing. She was easier to work with than any human.


----------



## terrib (Jul 22, 2010)

I do the same thing, Dream....my pictures look like crap! And what's worse....my voice on a recorder...I sound like Elly May Clampett!


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 22, 2010)

Ooooo, talk dirty to me.  I LOVE that white trash southmouth.

Why is there no word for "audiogenic"?


----------



## terrib (Jul 22, 2010)

....Pig Poop...Hog Farts....Chicken Puke...Cow Tongues


----------



## Baron (Jul 22, 2010)

terrib said:


> I do the same thing, Dream....my pictures look like crap! And what's worse....my voice on a recorder...I sound like Elly May Clampett!


 
Sure you don't mean Granny?


----------



## terrib (Jul 22, 2010)

Yep, I'm sure, Old Man....how about you, Baron?....know anything about taking pictures? Cameras? Why do some people look bad in pictures?


----------



## Baron (Jul 22, 2010)

terrib said:


> Yep, I'm sure, Old Man....how about you, Baron?....know anything about taking pictures? Cameras? Why do some people look bad in pictures?


 
A half decent photographer can make anyone look better in a photo than they look in real life.  The pictures that most people take are distorted because the right sized lens is needed to produce an accurate portrait.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 22, 2010)

In Mexico, where the word  "_joto_" means "queer, homo, etc"  there's the word  _"jotogenico"_


----------



## vangoghsear (Jul 22, 2010)

Another difference that may or may not matter is that humans see differently than cameras.  The brain combines the left and right eye views and adjusts for distance, color, focus, fills in missing detail, etc.  The camera takes a single image from one angle and distorts based on the lens selected, distance, angle, lighting etc.  Of course that image is eventually viewed by humans, but in 2D these elemental differences are minimized.

Some people freeze up on camera.  Some are just natural and at ease.  This I think is one of the biggest elements in being photogenic.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 22, 2010)

Lots of good stuff to consider here. I think mainly it depends on the type of camera you use. The camera on my cell phone makes everyone look bad, but then the cameras in my photagraphy class make everyone look good. I probably just have to buy a better camera.


----------



## Baron (Jul 22, 2010)

Dreamworx95 said:


> Lots of good stuff to consider here. I think mainly it depends on the type of camera you use. The camera on my cell phone makes everyone look bad, but then the cameras in my photagraphy class make everyone look good. I probably just have to buy a better camera.


 
If you buy a compact then you should get one that zooms to or through 80mm, the ideal for portraits on a digital camera.  That would be 100 mm on a roll film camera.

It's obvious that you aren't going to spend out on studio lighting equipment just to take pics of yourself and friends.  It's a good idea though to avoid taking pics in harsh light and to use the fill-in flash mode on your camera.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 22, 2010)

That's one aspect of the problem, vangos,  the flattening out, and the interpretaion of colors as form.

You can give a girl a lot more cleavage by putting dark make-up between her breasts and reflective powder on the hooters themselves, for one extreme example.   You see the difference between darkness and shadow or lightness and nearness, but the camera doesn't.  

As a generalization I'd say most anti-photogenic women suffer from a flattening of the perspecive the eye sees  and interprets.


----------



## PSFoster (Jul 23, 2010)

I haven't seen a picture of me yet that I liked.  And I sound like a hillbilly kid on an answering machine or tape recorder.


----------



## Like a Fox (Jul 23, 2010)

I have the opposite problem, Dream. I often look pretty amazing in photos, have since I was a baby. 
But I don't really turn heads in life. Not sure what the hell that's about.

I think of the two, it'd be nicer to know I look better in life. Though I guess when I die people will say "Wasn't she a beauty?"
Fools!


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Jul 23, 2010)

I really doubt you don't turn heads, Fox.


----------



## darknite_johanne (Jul 26, 2010)

sometimes it's the curvature of the lens, it makes you face kinda fatter on the middle part, and sometimes that's the difference between a beautiful you and an ugly you. hehe


----------



## SilverMoon (Jul 26, 2010)

Baron said:
			
		

> the right sized lens is needed to produce an accurate portrait





			
				darknite said:
			
		

> sometimes it's the curvature of the lens, it makes you face kinda fatter on the middle part


 
So, it seems that the lens contributes to many of the problems in capturing the best photgraph possible. I know of a photographer who could have used a better one! Some years back, I needed head shots for my "blooming" career in acting where I was an extra. Here, you always need a Glam shot and a Girl Next Door shot. This photographer snapped Renne Russo so I was expecting magic which I think I was entitled to since I was shelling out so much money and, again, that he was a celeb photographer. They turned out just terrible. Only a couple of shots were flattering. I've had better shots from a poloraid camera, I think because I was in a relaxed setting.

I think it's the phographer's job to make you feel comfortable, make you feel attractive. To be a "coach". This photographer I mention had a very flat personality. I was very nervous about this studio session and needed to hear more than "snap, snap snap". As a result my personality didn't show through. Just me, over posed, too large a (nervous) smile and so many shots with eyes cast down or rolled up like Linda Blair's! Not funny, then. I did get allot of work from the Glam shot where I was slotted as the socialite but if I had one really good Girl Next door shot, it would have given me many more opportunies. So many more doors to walk through. 

Who thinks that it's part of the photographer's job to "bring you out" to your most attractive best? I don't think that it's been mentioned here.


----------



## Baron (Jul 26, 2010)

Of course, if we go into the professional area, a photographer needs to be able to relate to, and communicate with his subject, particularly when doing portfolio or portrait work.  I do quite a few spotlight cards for actors and actresses and usually arrange to have lunch with them before the shoot so we build up a rapport.  I'd say it's impossible for someone with a flat personality to get into celebrity photography.  Of course there are those who get so up themselves that they distance themselves from anyone who isn't already a name.  Fortunately, they tend to be in the minority because most photographers at that level see their work as an art form and they don't want to produce bad art.

I know that I've never had any problem relating to the models I work with, which probably explains why this is my third marriage.


----------



## SilverMoon (Jul 26, 2010)

Good! I was hoping to hear from you, knowing you're a professional. That you went as far as to have lunch with your clientel is one smart move and from an artist's point of view I think the begining of a kind of "sculpture". Am I making any sense? Kind of like relaxing the clay in order to make for a more maleable piece to the end's best result. 



> Of course there are those who get so up themselves that they distance themselves from anyone who isn't already a name.


 
Unfortunately, I think that this was my case. Only too late did I discover volumes of photographer's portfolios who were true artists, not business men, who wrote about their process of creating "art" as a preface to the photographs which were stunning.



> Fortunately, they tend to be in the minority because most photographers at that level see their work as an art form and they don't want to produce bad art.


 
Well, we're talking about "Manhattan" where it's often "Snobsville". Make an easy buck when you can.



> I know that I've never had any problem relating to the models I work with, which probably explains why this is my third marriage.


Well, three's a charm! And you've got a "keeper". Someone so beautiful can't possibly be a writer. She should look like Georgia O'Keefe!

Just an anecdote: My father was married four times. At the ceremony, being the heavy drinker that he was, he held up his glass before speaking into the microphone and said "I celebrate my fourth with a fifth." Everyone just died laughing.

Thanks for your feedback. Now, I'm dying to see your portfolio. Maybe you can share some snaps here? And maybe help me out with my avie! This is one of the Girl Next Door shots. Only kidding :wink:


----------



## terrib (Jul 26, 2010)

_Just an anecdote: My father was married four times. At the ceremony, being the heavy drinker that he was, he held up his glass before speaking into the microphone and said "I celebrate my fourth with a fifth." Everyone just died laughing._

I am laughing...so funny, Silver....


----------



## SilverMoon (Jul 26, 2010)

Yeah, he was a kick. Always the life of the party. "My" mother was also a great witt. Two witt-nits!


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 30, 2012)

Shut up, Dreamworx! You are sexy hot.

Now stop posing in front of the mirror.


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Apr 30, 2012)

Well thank you for bringing this thread all the way from 2010 just to tell me that, Kyle!


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 30, 2012)

2010? 

My powers of time-travel astound even me.

I take it back then.  *ThbbBbb*


----------



## Deleted member 33527 (Apr 30, 2012)

Lol well no don't take it back...I mean any time you want to compliment me go right ahead!


----------



## philistine (Apr 30, 2012)

lin said:


> Ooooo, talk dirty to me.  I LOVE that white trash southmouth.
> 
> *Why is there no word for "audiogenic"?*



Phonogenic, perhaps?


----------



## Trilby (Apr 30, 2012)

Do you think that as well as the mirror image thing - could it also be that photographs a in 2D.


----------



## justbishop (Apr 30, 2012)

I would love to crack this one. I used to be very photogenic, if I do say so myself. Nowadays...just...no.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (May 1, 2012)

If I know I'm getting a picture taken, I tend to look alright.  Candid shots are often a toss-up, though - I can either look really good or really goofy.

Incidentally, maybe a person's photogenic nature has to do with the similarity between their forced smiles and their natural ones.  For example, I like to think I know how to manipulate my facial muscles to produce a more natural smile (curling the upper lip in, crinkling the eyes), and I'm sure professional models do it a heck of a lot better than I do.  The average person might not be aware of that, though, so they always look awkward in pictures.


----------



## Bachelorette (May 14, 2012)

I find that I often look pretty good in self-portraits I take. But I'm a two-face. (Ever see that Seinfeld episode?) Or perhaps Nick Cave explains it better: 

"I am tall and I am thin, of an enviable height,
And I've been known to be quite handsome
At a certain angle, and in a certain light."

But in most pictures - sometimes even in self-portraits - I look positively horrid. And I always say, "What an awful picture of me!" And everyone else says, "You look fine. That's what you look like."

Then, I get very, very depressed. :sad:

Point is, I agree: photogenicness exists, and I'm not it.


----------

