The photo below captures a meet at the entrance to the Pergamon Museum...
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...
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...
// 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!
Last edited by gstercken; April 19th, 2006 at 07:40 PM.
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...
Hmm. Maybe because some feel uneasy when being photographed, hence they don't look as good as in person? (Just a theory). Probably, facial bone structure, lighting, etc also comes into play? Anyways, its nice to find out that you also find this "phenomenon" interesting.
Originally Posted by gstercken
// 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...
Very true.
Originally Posted by gstercken
// Edit 2: The good news is: Contrary to what it might seem at a first glance: We are on topic this time!
Thank goodness for that!
Last edited by cherish; April 19th, 2006 at 07:43 PM.
Maybe because some feel uneasy when being photographed, hence they don't look as good as in person? (Just a theory).
Rejected. The observation usually also applies (and often especially) when the subjects in question are not aware that they are being photographed.
Originally Posted by cherish
Probably, facial bone structure, lighting, etc also comes into play?
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.
Originally Posted by cherish
Anyways, its nice to find out that you also find this "phenomenon" interesting.
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...
// 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...
Last edited by gstercken; April 19th, 2006 at 08:15 PM.
// 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...
Wow. I was actually going to post Wikipedia's say on the subject.
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.)
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.)
Ohh. I see it now. I missed that part earlier. Nice entry, btw.
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...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Siddhartha
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... 
Seems to be a nice place
Nice entry, btw. 
Bookmarks