![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thoughts on Photography
So it comes to my attention that I never look the same in photographs as I do in the mirror. I don't really buy into all of that subjective bullshit. Here's the real reason - and why we all, pretty much, look different in photos.
Photography, at least the kind we are most familiar with personally, involves only a single-dimensional snapshot. You have ONE "eye" which receives light from all sources from its unique perspective. This causes an almost fisheye appearance in photography as far as I can tell...at least compared to the composite, three-dimensional image that is created by our own two eyes.
To help you think about it, consider this: When you look head on, eye-to-eye with someone else, you are seeing a composite image of their face - both the perspective of your right eye and the perspective of your left - which ultimately shows a more complete, full of depth picture (and also increases the size of their head relative to what's in the center of their face - their nose, their lips, their chin, because you can actually see more of the edges of their head)
So what happens to make me hate all of my photos is that no photo I take traditionally can conceivably represent what I see in the mirror or what you see when you talk to me in person. It makes my nose and lips look bigger than they actually would appear to be in reality.
So cheating with Photoshop is fair, as long as I still stay true to what I see in the mirror and what I know others perceive as well, thanks to having two eyes and not one.
However, here's the thing...
I'm now convinced that, generally, what makes a good "actor" or "actress" in looks is looking good in front of a camera. Still-frame photos are typically airbrushed and transformed somewhat anyway. Video adds SOME additional depth because there is movement and life, if a head twists you get to see more depth in real time - but it still has the same problem of not capturing what a human being can see in reality given the same circumstance.
Therefore I'm of the opinion if I met some of these really "great" looking actresses or actors in reality (and they didn't have a thousand dollar makeup and hairdo) they would probably look pretty fucking normal, since 3D is not as easy to manipulate as 2D is.
Photography, at least the kind we are most familiar with personally, involves only a single-dimensional snapshot. You have ONE "eye" which receives light from all sources from its unique perspective. This causes an almost fisheye appearance in photography as far as I can tell...at least compared to the composite, three-dimensional image that is created by our own two eyes.
To help you think about it, consider this: When you look head on, eye-to-eye with someone else, you are seeing a composite image of their face - both the perspective of your right eye and the perspective of your left - which ultimately shows a more complete, full of depth picture (and also increases the size of their head relative to what's in the center of their face - their nose, their lips, their chin, because you can actually see more of the edges of their head)
So what happens to make me hate all of my photos is that no photo I take traditionally can conceivably represent what I see in the mirror or what you see when you talk to me in person. It makes my nose and lips look bigger than they actually would appear to be in reality.
So cheating with Photoshop is fair, as long as I still stay true to what I see in the mirror and what I know others perceive as well, thanks to having two eyes and not one.
However, here's the thing...
I'm now convinced that, generally, what makes a good "actor" or "actress" in looks is looking good in front of a camera. Still-frame photos are typically airbrushed and transformed somewhat anyway. Video adds SOME additional depth because there is movement and life, if a head twists you get to see more depth in real time - but it still has the same problem of not capturing what a human being can see in reality given the same circumstance.
Therefore I'm of the opinion if I met some of these really "great" looking actresses or actors in reality (and they didn't have a thousand dollar makeup and hairdo) they would probably look pretty fucking normal, since 3D is not as easy to manipulate as 2D is.