Nice sneakers. :D
Printable View
Nice sneakers. :D
Sid... photogenic as usual! :) I've had a chance to see the pictures from the German MVP Open Days today, and, as always, Sid really stands out in every picture where he appears. That's where the Bollywood origins shine through... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Siddhartha
Sneakers? As far as I can tell, Tutankhamun is bare-footed in the picture... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cherish
Aw, you know what I mean. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gstercken
Btw, I am curious... when someone is "photogenic" does that always mean that they look good only in pictures?
Actually, that's an interesting phenomenon. Some persons (like Sid) look good in reality, and that effect is also almost always reflected in photographs. Other, less photogenic persons, while having a positive ("good-looking") impact in reality, tend to appear unfavourable in pictures. I must admit that I have no idea about the underlying principles of this observation...Quote:
Originally Posted by cherish
// Edit: In addition, and to answer your original question: Of course, the opposite exists as well: Persons who look good only in pictures. But usually and asymetrically, these tend to look good in reality as well - the disenchantment comes when they open their beautiful mouth to express a thought... ;)
// Edit 2: The good news is: Contrary to what it might seem at a first glance: We are on topic this time!
Hmm. Maybe because some feel uneasy when being photographed, hence they don't look as good as in person? (Just a theory). :D Probably, facial bone structure, lighting, etc also comes into play? Anyways, its nice to find out that you also find this "phenomenon" interesting. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by gstercken
Very true. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gstercken
Thank goodness for that! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gstercken
nice pic, Sid :thumb: Seems to be a nice place
Rejected. The observation usually also applies (and often especially) when the subjects in question are not aware that they are being photographed.Quote:
Originally Posted by cherish
Plausible, but probably not sufficient. My theory goes more like this: Even a person who is objectively "ugly" (read: unphotogenic) can be charming, have charisma and a way to behave, move and express her-/himself in a way that always renders the person pretty and attractive in a "live" scenario, while these attributes are evidently missing in any photograph - hence the discrepancy. Just a theory expressed in three words, however... But you get the idea. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cherish
Seriously, I have always been stunned by the fact that some individuals who always look good in reality often make a bad appearance in photographs. Others just always look good. That's what the term "photogenic" is all about - but I never found a definitive answer to what "photogenicity" really means. Fortunately, we have the chit chat forum here on CodeGuru for that... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cherish
// Edit: And, not to be forgotten, Wikipedia. But I have the strong feeling that what they tell us there is not much more than the amateur philosopy we are doing here... ;)
cool pic sid:thumb:
//your friend is really big..:p
Wow. I was actually going to post Wikipedia's say on the subject. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by gstercken
I admit that I haven't done any serious research on the subject - but I have just edited the Wikipedia entry 'Photogenic', adding my lay thoughts...Quote:
Originally Posted by cherish
I wonder if one can see your addition right away?Quote:
Originally Posted by gstercken
Well, it's there - that's what Wikipedia is all about. My addition is the third paragraph in the article (those unqualified ramblings about charisma etc.) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cherish
Ohh. I see it now. :cool: I missed that part earlier. :D :o Nice entry, btw. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by gstercken
Thanks, but it certainly needs some reworking. After all, it's just my dumb little personal theory. I'm sure that some serious research has been done on the subject, and as soon as I can afford some time, I'll track it down and try to update the article in a more qualified manner. For the moment, I just enjoy the funny thought that everybody currently enquiring Wikipedia about the term 'Photogenic' will read my personal blabla and consider it as part of the latest findings on that subject... That's what makes an institution like Wikipedia interesting and dangerous at the same time, after all... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by cherish