Discerning "attractiveness" via photographs

Post Reply New Topic

Do you believe a person can discern the "attractiveness" of a person based upon a photograph-----or must one be observed in person in order to form a well-rounded "assessment"?

Based on photographs, I can range from about a "3" to about an "8," based upon such things as how I position my face in a photograph, my facial expression, how I "hold myself" bodywise.

A lot of my family members - myself included - have very flexible faces and a still photo usually totally misrepresents them.
I'm not a model. On most photos for documents, I look like a drug addict. Only very good photographers are capable of catching "the thing" about me.

One of the reasons I dislike Zoom is because it makes me look at least 10 pounds fatter. Photographs usually do the same thing to me.

I DO NOT think photographs are a great measure of beauty or attractiveness. Maybe a video chat or an in-person interaction would be best for discerning that. Also, there are so many aspects of a person that are lost in photographs. Smells/odors, idiosyncrasies, etc.

I don't think I'm beautiful at all, and I am the least photogenic person I know. I feel similar to you in that I think I range from a 1 to 6.5 depending on position, etc. My partner has been with me for over 2 decades and still shows me affection, so I'm assuming that he finds me attractive in some way.

zoom by cellphone? or zoom via desktop? I wonder if your camera has some distortion?

Zoom by iPad, actually. I guess somewhere between a cellphone and a desktop.

That might be part of the issue. If the camera is pushed near your face at specific angles, it can have that effect. If you have an iPad stand (or something you can makeshift into one) and place it at a slight distance from your face, you may get a more "accurate" video.

Also, different lenses (and a load of other variables) may distort our faces.
The Science Behind the Selfie (No, You Don't Really Look Like That)

It is easy to discern enough about the attractiveness of a person in a photo for the observer to decide whether or not meeting the person would be worth the effort.

An image of a well-dressed person who is smiling into the camera is much more attractive than an image of a slovenly-dressed person who is scowling into the camera.  Swipe right on the smile; swipe left on the scowl.

True....but I've known MANY people who really don't "look like their photographs."

I've known people who look much BETTER than their photographs.

I've known people who look much WORSE than their photographs.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 24 Sep 2021, 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Then they should give up trying to doctor their photographs to make themselves look more attractive.

Depends on what one is looking for I suppose? For example, I cringe at smiles that I feel are disingenuous. I'd much rather see a slight scowl than that! I also would prefer casual wear over someone who is "dressed to the teeth".

Photographs are only two-dimensional images.

Photography is an excellent, creative medium----but really has its limitations.

This is assuming that everyone is doctoring their photos. Camera angles and lighting alone can have a dramatic effect on appearance.

agreed

Granted; Candid photographs are notorious for making me look like a hideous troll; but the Missus and I have several posed photos in which I look like a reasonably attractive human being.

In any case, most of those candid photos show me having a good time with other people who are also having a good time.  From those photos, it may be deduced that while I may not be as physically appealing as the people I am with, I still know how to "party".