May 17, 2007 2:13am CST
ever seen someone who is gorgeous but photographs badly? or the reverse, someone who is okay-looking in real life but looks amazing in photos? i'm curious if there is a scientific reason for this. is it a reaction between certain light on certain skin types? or maybe a certain shape of head/face that looks better in 2D than in 3D? something like that?
3 people like this
• United States
19 May 07
I have such weird camera karma. Maybe the Aborigines were right - that the camera takes a little piece of your soul with every photo! Even when I was a child, I was camera shy. My mother could catch some truly adorable pictures of me, when I wasn't looking. I think that whenever a camera aims itself at me, I instantly become the poor, ugly, stoke-face lady. I'm not kidding. I'm no beauty queen, but I couldn't be THAT unattractive! I don't understand the black magic involved but I know a big part of the problem is flat out camera shyness. Sometimes, during the same event, I will take some lovely pictures and then the poor hag will show up. Same make-up, same hair-do, same clothes! If I think about the camera, something in me cringes and that cringe is not very attractive on camera. I do know some women that are plain as soap in person and are beautiful on camera. There has to be something scientific, and not just psycho-emotional, about the whole thing. I bet there's a study somewhere - but how could they record their subjects for comparision?! "This is what she looks like in a photo, and this photo is what she looks like in person" LOL
20 May 07
that's kinda funny (about the old hag who appears whenever she feels like it, and also about recording the subjects with a photo vs. an 'in-person' photo) i guess to compare a person's photogrpahic image with the 'real them', maybe with a very good sketch artist, you could have an efficient enough result? if the artist can get a realistic representation of the subject, and then compare with a photograph..... it wouldn't be perfect, but it could possibly work. maybe the scientific part of being photogenic lies somewhere in the studies of transfered energy. i mean, some people apparently have a certain type of energy or aura, which can project itself onto film, even without actually taking a picture. i can only think of one place where i've seen this occurence somewhat documented, that is the movie 'the ring', though i would recommend watching the original japanese version, as it deals with ACTUAL film and the U.S. remake makes use of newer technologies, like digital cameras. sort of not the same thing. if you don't mind watching scary movies, i think it's film #2 in the original 'ringu' series where we get to hear about this energy transfer onto film emulsion. my point? maybe if people can transfer a certain energy onto a raw roll of film, there's something to be said about conveying their 'image' onto a photograph itself, which would explain why they turn out looking good or looking like an ogre ;)
• United States
21 May 07
Okay, that's deep and scary. So, if I follow your theory - my energy projects itself as the ugly hag-lady? LOL!! Yes, some days, I am truly that but surely not every time the camera is rolling. Or maybe it is just the fact that the camera is rolling that brings the hag to the forefront - maybe she wants, NEEDS, to be seen? I've had my aura photographed using kirillian photography and I was beautiful - peaceful, loving, healthy...just lovely. So, maybe cameras have the ability to capture that energy which exists between the two worlds of the flesh and the pure spirit? Maybe cameras capture us how we feel about us? Or maybe we both just read too much science fiction? ROFL
24 May 07
sorry to freak you out haha ;) but maybe we do read or watch too much science fiction for our own good! your kirilian portrait...how did it look? i've never seen actual photographs taken this way, so i'm trying ot hink if it was lines and waves and blurs, or if you can actually make out a 'face'? please enlighten me!
• United States
21 May 07
I love taking pictures and most of my photographic work is related to people’s faces. There is no science behind perfect photo or perfect face. It takes two people for good photo, model and photographer. If model is willing to show her/his personality...it is 50% of success. I can play for hours till I have the perfect shot. Photographer has to study each face in order to find out what past of model's face she/he wants to focus on. Proper light is very important; I prefer maximum opening lens and no flash at all, because flash can make any skin look bad….
24 May 07
i agree with you! i rarely use flash unless i'm trying to create some sort of effect. i would rather slightly underexpose my shots than punch in a flash and ruin the ambient light effects. i recently showed photos to a friend that i shot of her over 3 years ago. she had forgotten how lovely she looked in them. she said i am the only one who knows how to make a 300+ girl look glamourous ;) perhaps it's more in the fact that we have been friends for over 15 years, and we are comfortable with each other, and i know her best features. slightly getting off topics, but is there somewhere on the net where i could view some of your work? i'm so curious! :)
17 May 07
ok, so what about if you are seeing the person right in front of you, and YOU take the pic and don't edit it? ;) with someone like tyra banks or whomever, for sure there is editing going on, but with people we know who don't get photoshopped...what then? lol
8 Feb 09
I suspect that it's due to the fact that our eyes are stereoscopic and build up a picture from two angles whereas a camera receives light from one angle only: its aperture. Similarly, there are many ways to project the surface of a globe on to a map, but all such projections have distortions.