Mirrors or Photographs: Which is more accurate?

September 23, 2006 4:34 PM

In terms of providing an accurate representation of how things actually appear in real life, is there any scientific data to suggest whether a mirror or a photograph provides the more realistic image?

Specifically, when I leave for work in the morning, I am generally confident in my appearance after having looked at myself in the bathroom mirror. Yet when I see photos of myself, I often want to curl up in a ball and weep at my hideousness.

Outside of obvious psychological factors (the tendency to overanalyze or be overly critical of photos of ourselves) what could be causing this great divide between what I see in the mirror and what I see in a photograph? How does each form of reflection distort reality? Or not?

posted by The Gooch to science & nature (11 comments total)

Quick theory: You see yourself in mirrors much more often than you see yourself in photos. Your mind has internalized the mirror image (which, keep in mind, is reversed right-to-left) as the "correct" way that you look. When you see yourself in a photo, the asymmetries that are present in everyone's face become magnified in your perspective, and you think you look grotesque. Anyone else who sees you in a photograph will think it looks just like how you look all the time.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:38 PM on September 23, 2006

Neither photographic or mirror representations are all that "accurate" although a carefully constructed and tested camera can produce pleasing, representative images.
posted by paulsc at 4:43 PM on September 23, 2006

Yeah, that's it. Flip the photo and see if you look less ugly.

Technically, this is called the mere exposure effect.
posted by myeviltwin at 4:44 PM on September 23, 2006

What FoB said: you're used to your mirror image.
I looked for something scientific to back it up, and found this.
posted by easternblot at 4:48 PM on September 23, 2006

Possibly even more important than the mirror image being reversed is the fact that in a mirror you see yourself *live* -- if you see an unflattering shadow / angle / facial expression / etc., you can correct it instantly (even unconsciously).

Photos are much more likely to catch you when one or more of these elements is "wrong" from the perspective of the camera.
posted by allterrainbrain at 5:12 PM on September 23, 2006

I just tried this out in front of a mirror (tried going to the mirror with my eyes closed, opening them, and just looking at myself without changing anything about my position or expression after that point). The instinct to make "corrections" was incredibly strong. Interesting exercise to try if you want to illustrate this graphically/experientially.
posted by allterrainbrain at 5:17 PM on September 23, 2006

Flip the photo and see if you look less ugly.

Or hold up a photo to the mirror and see if the mirror image of the photo is more pleasing.

Another big difference is that your image in a mirror is three-dimensional, but a photo is two-dimensional, which will distort your apparent features.

ISTR from an earlier askme post that this is where some of the N pounds that a camera adds comes from, and that this is part of why print and movie beauty-people can be kinda funny-looking in real life; they need to have big noses or something in order for their 2-d image to look good.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:19 PM on September 23, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

Something scientific.

Although I really like ATB's "adjustment hypothesis" too.
posted by myeviltwin at 5:29 PM on September 23, 2006

From a different angle, it could be that photographs often have weird lighting. I know I have pictures where (for example) my acne looks much worse than it really is because the lighting was weird. At least, I hope that's the case.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 5:36 PM on September 23, 2006

When you see yourself in a photo, the asymmetries that are present in everyone's face become magnified in your perspective, and you think you look grotesque.

This is true ... but moreover, seeing yourself in photographs:

1) ... provides you with angles that are nigh-impossible for you to reproduce with mirrors. You are seeing yourself from angles and in lighting that don't exist anywhere else. It's completely understandable that you feel alienated from and foreign to this representation that is supposed to be you -- because you can't see it or reproduce it anywhere else where you can examine it and become familiar with it.

2) ... means you're looking at snapshots in time that you don't control, especially candid and semi-candid photos ("Quick, say cheese!"). The difference between a smile and a glazed look can be as little as milliseconds and millimeters. When you look in a mirror, you are not seeing those fragments of time -- you see the entire "video stream," if you will, that is provided by your eyeballs. That glazed look only last a millisecond. Blink and you miss it.
posted by frogan at 7:28 PM on September 23, 2006

Re: frogan's #2:
Yes. If you make little "microexpressions" in between your smile and your turning to talk to Uncle Jerry; if you have an animated, lively face, candid photos especially will catch you at unappealing in-between expressions. The good news is, other people in real life don't see those in-between expressions. They process the video stream the same way you do when you're seeing it in the mirror. So the really bad photos are not representative of how you look to others. The mirror is closer.

Plus, the lighting of a lot of pictures is horrible. This accounts for bad coloration, exaggerated angles, flab lines, etc.
posted by LobsterMitten at 11:42 PM on September 23, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]