What exactly does it mean when you are considered photogenic? I was told I wasn't photogenic....well, that is something I already knew. I am not. Not at all, in fact. I look different in every single picture taken of me. Sometimes I can take on this male appearance, too, oddly. But does that mean I am not worthy of a great photograph?
Anyhow, I can't remember where I read this, but, it said there are points to the face, in numeral sequence or rather, that when added up and placed in order, they can either be in your favor...or not....and then making you less photogenic. I suspect when looking at someone with a natural eye as opposed to a glass lens, you are bound to look better in person. Maybe not.
This is how I can tell if a person is photogenic or not. In a silly manner, of course...and not scientifically proven. Not that I necessarily believe we can or cannot be, photogenic. I took a photo of someone who I thought might be photogenic, grabbed it from the web, a good looking person. I put it in PS and reversed the shot. Well, strangely, they appeared odd with those perfect features seeming out of place and out of whack. Surly I could have identified that by seeing them with the naked eye. Then, I took a not so attractive person from the web, to someone else, of course, and turned it around and found that they appeared to be more photogenic, with features still in place and not contorted...and even looked a little better. Hmmm...
And how is that we can identify what is pretty to us and what is not? Does society have us that whipped on perfection that we are blinded by what true beauty can represent? Give me the bizarre any day. I have more things in common with folks I know who are, say, less attractive. Odd features like huge eyes, bad teeth and the like. Imperfections. I tend to move with a crowd who possess those sorts of features. God forbid if I had a female friend who looked better than me..haha. I don't...
If given the chance to photograph someone with perfect features and someone with imperfections, for example, Roger Ballen's, Dresie and Casie twins...I would give my right leg and arm. To me they are picture perfect examples of being, photogenic. They look the same, and not in a twin sense, but photographically. By the way, it was their picture that I turned around and found their features still identical as when the picture was not....the perception was unchanged as opposed to the person who was better looking. That example I can't seem to find in my documents to show you.
This may or may not make much sense to anyone...and I tried to give a simple explanation for my saying....so try to decipher what you can. I'm sure there is someone who can recognize what it is I was trying to say.
Here's the twins....drooool.
[attachment deleted by admin]
