why some gals are more photogenic?

Paul_Yeo · 14th March 2005

I would like to ask why some gals look good on photo but not real person and vice versa.

is it bcos of lens distortion?

if it is due to the photographer's skill, which area of his skill that cause the photo and real person to look DIFFERENT? (color? skin tone? distortion? posing? lighting?)

i thought camera is WYSIWYG?

( pardon me if I sounded ignorant )

user111 · 14th March 2005

its supposed to be WYSIWYG

technique can help less pretty girls look better on the captured image

Astin · 14th March 2005

A photograph is 2D while a person face is 3D.
Its the same issue for taking scenery or insect, imo.

ortega · 14th March 2005

Originally Posted by Paul_Yeo

I would like to ask why some gals look good on photo but not real person and vice versa.

is it bcos of lens distortion?

if it is due to the photographer's skill, which area of his skill that cause the photo and real person to look DIFFERENT? (color? skin tone? distortion? posing? lighting?)

i thought camera is WYSIWYG?

( pardon me if I sounded ignorant )

The photographer's skill is actually to make full use of the different factors to make the image look good. Understanding the medium and the tools that are used to create the image. All these factors come together and make or break the final image.

Paul_Yeo · 14th March 2005

hi hi, other than the 2D photo and 3D real person explanation, anyone got any explanation why a real person seen with our eyes may look different from a photo?

Paul_Yeo · 14th March 2005

Originally Posted by ortega

The photographer's skill is actually to make full use of the different factors to make the image look good. Understanding the medium and the tools that are used to create the image. All these factors come together and make or break the final image.

this refer to lighting and other issues right?

actually, what i mean is why the person in photo is DIFFERENT from the person in real life loh?

bcos one of my frenz said that she look fat in photo but in real life, we dun think she is fat loh.

Astin · 14th March 2005

Originally Posted by Paul_Yeo

hi hi, other than the 2D photo and 3D real person explanation, anyone got any explanation why a real person seen with our eyes may look different from a photo?

Sometimes your eyes play tricks on you lah.
Example, your eyes can auto-focus instantly, your eyes adjust brightness differently, your eyes adjust white balance differently too.

AReality · 14th March 2005

Originally Posted by Paul_Yeo

bcos one of my frenz said that she look fat in photo but in real life, we dun think she is fat loh.

Simple...
Just tell her she's fat lor.
If she thinks she's fat, then tell her what she wants to hear. No point telling otherwise...

sequitur · 14th March 2005

lenses play a part too..

there's a difference between taking a subject with a 20mm lens and 50 and 85..

portraiture working range.. usually people like to use 85-135mm.. why ? reason is that it more or less provides the real WYSIWYG. there will be compressions and distortions on other lenses.

you can read about this in some photography books.

as for normal digicams.. please remember that in reality, they're like 9mm-35mm lenses and the sensor has a crop of 4x or something.. if you know what i'm saying... (as opposed to dslr crop of 1.6...)

Sion · 14th March 2005

Originally Posted by Paul_Yeo

I would like to ask why some gals look good on photo but not real person and vice versa.

On the photos she might be photographed at 50 years ago and in the real person she might be 50 years later?

Zplus · 14th March 2005

A persons face under different lighting and at different angles has subtle differences. So its possible that a person looks good at a certain angle only and with some light to help hide/show some features. Lens plays a part as perspective distorts a face to a certain extent. Photographer plays a part to look out for good features to enhance and others to hide.... A good makeup artist also helps to do that.

Ever met a gal in a club and then see her in daylight... yeah... basically you get the picture. Looks different under different lighting (excluding the beer of course

). Its quite different in different lighting.

A 50mm approximates a WYSIWYG.....

Another example... models in model shoots ads look nice...but taken by different photogs and posted in portrait... either look even nicer or not as nice...

NMSS_2 · 19th March 2005

Originally Posted by Astin

A photograph is 2D while a person face is 3D.
.

got to do with lighting.

i am ugly, photos made me uglier

XXX Boy · 19th March 2005

Originally Posted by Paul_Yeo

I would like to ask why some gals look good on photo but not real person and vice versa.

is it bcos of lens distortion?

if it is due to the photographer's skill, which area of his skill that cause the photo and real person to look DIFFERENT? (color? skin tone? distortion? posing? lighting?)

i thought camera is WYSIWYG?

( pardon me if I sounded ignorant )

Might be due to Karma?!

RossChang · 19th March 2005

Originally Posted by XXX Boy

Might be due to Karma?!

Nonono, it's the Qi...

mpenza · 20th March 2005

have also seen the opposite where pretty girls didn't turn out nice in pics.

magicdragon · 20th March 2005

The true inner soul is captured and reflected LOL

Seriously:

1) Lighting (eg afternoon sun/direct flash = uglier
2) Prespective: 80 - 135 mm lens (in 35mm film format) compresses foreground and background a little and the depth is shallower (more pleasing hair/skintones) Low angle or high angle can shorten or lengthen body esp with wide angle.
4) Some people stiffen up just before a shot while others relax
5) Some people have the left side and right side of their faces more similar -- more pleasing to the eye. While others have a better side.

Imp note - it's not just gals but people animals etc

gundugundu · 20th March 2005

I think beauty is also perceived in other ways besides looks. For example Miss A may have a pretty face but does not know how to carry herself well in front of the camera...(she picked her nose when you click your camera)

& Miss B average facial feature but carry herself well, is confident in her pose, does the right thing for the camera & photographer & has a certain "air" / "aura" around her...so the picture turn out nicer loh...

gundugundu · 20th March 2005

Maybe really got something to do with the "Qi"...
Can you imagine the photographer telling the models.."c'mon gals give me more "Qi" here..I need a little more "Qi" on your right..that right "Qi" baby "Qi"!!

rainman · 20th March 2005

Originally Posted by Paul_Yeo

I would like to ask why some gals look good on photo but not real person and vice versa.

is it bcos of lens distortion?

if it is due to the photographer's skill, which area of his skill that cause the photo and real person to look DIFFERENT? (color? skin tone? distortion? posing? lighting?)

i thought camera is WYSIWYG?

( pardon me if I sounded ignorant )

bcos they came from different factory...

Yildun · 22nd March 2005

Our eyes do play tricks on us.

cos the human eyes are too much of a variable, while the film (or CCD or CMOS) shows us the "LIGHT", no bias. so WYS is not WTF (what the film) sees.

I suppose colour plays an important part here. Colour seen thru the eye is different from colour captured on film.

Our perception of physical beauty is affected by many factors which cannot be captured on film. How well we know the person plays an important part, and of course the person's reaction to a camera and/or the cameraman.

Actually its not just about girls. Even pictures of places which look good on a tourist magazine dont look as fantastic once u r there yourself.

But cockroaches look equally unphotogenic to me at any pose, angle, lighting conditions, makeup or no makeup, dead or alive, leg hair shaved or unshaved, whatever.

Prove me wrong by showing me a photogenic roach.

14th March 2005	#1
Paul_Yeo Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Sengkang Posts: 2,156	why some gals are more photogenic? I would like to ask why some gals look good on photo but not real person and vice versa. is it bcos of lens distortion? if it is due to the photographer's skill, which area of his skill that cause the photo and real person to look DIFFERENT? (color? skin tone? distortion? posing? lighting?) i thought camera is WYSIWYG? ( pardon me if I sounded ignorant ) __________________ www.boo.sg

14th March 2005	#5
Paul_Yeo Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Sengkang Posts: 2,156	hi hi, other than the 2D photo and 3D real person explanation, anyone got any explanation why a real person seen with our eyes may look different from a photo? __________________ www.boo.sg

14th March 2005	#9
sequitur Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,825	lenses play a part too.. there's a difference between taking a subject with a 20mm lens and 50 and 85.. portraiture working range.. usually people like to use 85-135mm.. why ? reason is that it more or less provides the real WYSIWYG. there will be compressions and distortions on other lenses. you can read about this in some photography books. as for normal digicams.. please remember that in reality, they're like 9mm-35mm lenses and the sensor has a crop of 4x or something.. if you know what i'm saying... (as opposed to dslr crop of 1.6...) __________________ my flickr. Last edited by sequitur; 14th March 2005 at 04:21 PM.

20th March 2005	#16
magicdragon Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 114	The true inner soul is captured and reflected LOL Seriously: 1) Lighting (eg afternoon sun/direct flash = uglier 2) Prespective: 80 - 135 mm lens (in 35mm film format) compresses foreground and background a little and the depth is shallower (more pleasing hair/skintones) Low angle or high angle can shorten or lengthen body esp with wide angle. 4) Some people stiffen up just before a shot while others relax 5) Some people have the left side and right side of their faces more similar -- more pleasing to the eye. While others have a better side. Imp note - it's not just gals but people animals etc Last edited by magicdragon; 20th March 2005 at 12:21 AM.

14th March 2005	#2
user111 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 4,719	its supposed to be WYSIWYG technique can help less pretty girls look better on the captured image

14th March 2005	#3
Astin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Astin Studio Posts: 4,724	A photograph is 2D while a person face is 3D. Its the same issue for taking scenery or insect, imo.

14th March 2005	#11
Zplus Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Some equitorial, tropical isla Posts: 2,353	A persons face under different lighting and at different angles has subtle differences. So its possible that a person looks good at a certain angle only and with some light to help hide/show some features. Lens plays a part as perspective distorts a face to a certain extent. Photographer plays a part to look out for good features to enhance and others to hide.... A good makeup artist also helps to do that. Ever met a gal in a club and then see her in daylight... yeah... basically you get the picture. Looks different under different lighting (excluding the beer of course ). Its quite different in different lighting. A 50mm approximates a WYSIWYG..... Another example... models in model shoots ads look nice...but taken by different photogs and posted in portrait... either look even nicer or not as nice...

20th March 2005	#15
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,397	have also seen the opposite where pretty girls didn't turn out nice in pics.

20th March 2005	#17
gundugundu Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 394	I think beauty is also perceived in other ways besides looks. For example Miss A may have a pretty face but does not know how to carry herself well in front of the camera...(she picked her nose when you click your camera) & Miss B average facial feature but carry herself well, is confident in her pose, does the right thing for the camera & photographer & has a certain "air" / "aura" around her...so the picture turn out nicer loh...

22nd March 2005	#20
Yildun Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Singapore, Central Posts: 181	Our eyes do play tricks on us. cos the human eyes are too much of a variable, while the film (or CCD or CMOS) shows us the "LIGHT", no bias. so WYS is not WTF (what the film) sees. I suppose colour plays an important part here. Colour seen thru the eye is different from colour captured on film. Our perception of physical beauty is affected by many factors which cannot be captured on film. How well we know the person plays an important part, and of course the person's reaction to a camera and/or the cameraman. Actually its not just about girls. Even pictures of places which look good on a tourist magazine dont look as fantastic once u r there yourself. But cockroaches look equally unphotogenic to me at any pose, angle, lighting conditions, makeup or no makeup, dead or alive, leg hair shaved or unshaved, whatever. Prove me wrong by showing me a photogenic roach.