What makes a person photogenic?

February 28, 2012 8:00 PM

What physical traits make a person photogenic?

This is not a question about what someone can do to look better in photos. It's about the more immutable (facial & other physical) traits that look better in photos than in real life, or vice versa, e.g. strong/weak jaw, button nose, square/sloping shoulders, whatever. I think we all know people who look consistently better in photos (or consistently worse) than in person, and it's not just a matter of how they smile or pose or angle their head.

I used to think the camera was just more forgiving than the eye of exaggerated features (Bette Davis eyes, Jay Leno's jaw), but I've seen other examples where it seems like the opposite. So I think it must be more specific.

Anyway, kind of a weird question I guess, but I'm curious, and I know there are a lot of (both pro and serious amateur) photographers on here ...any thoughts?

posted by pete_22 to Clothing, Beauty, & Fashion (34 answers total)

Symmetry.
posted by Mr. Justice at 8:02 PM on February 28, 2012 [7 favorites]

Symmetry.
posted by vegartanipla at 8:02 PM on February 28, 2012 [7 favorites]

Symmetry.
posted by J. Wilson at 8:05 PM on February 28, 2012 [7 favorites]

Good skin makes a big difference as well.
posted by J. Wilson at 8:07 PM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

John Cleese narrated a program on The Human Face that delves into this topic pretty deeply.
posted by This_Will_Be_Good at 8:07 PM on February 28, 2012 [6 favorites]

Nthing symmetry and The Human Face. It used to be available on Netflix Instant, which is where I watched it. Not sure anymore, as I've since quit. But check there, too, if that's available to you.

Symmetry is only available via good genetics and extensive plastic surgery, unfortunately.
posted by two lights above the sea at 8:10 PM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

Having a square face shape helps.
posted by Iris Gambol at 8:13 PM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

Best answer: I actually don't think symmetry is your answer...symmetry is an answer to "what makes people attractive to others," whereas you're asking about those people who look better in pictures than in real life. I do think striking features are key here-- huge eyes, sharp jawline. Generally people with more angles in their face look "better" in pictures than softer featured people, I find.
posted by sweetkid at 8:15 PM on February 28, 2012 [14 favorites]

People have said that I'm photogenic and my face is not symmetrical. Maybe it has more to do with being comfortable in front of the camera and knowing how to work your angles and... smile with your eyes. :D (--> reference to America's Next Top Model, in case you haven't heard of that before.)
posted by foxjacket at 8:20 PM on February 28, 2012

Best answer: I also find that big noses rarely photograph well. Most of the people I know who are crazy attractive yet look inexplicably bleh in photos have big noses. Perhaps something about the shadow it casts? No idea.
posted by JuliaIglesias at 8:20 PM on February 28, 2012 [3 favorites]

Response by poster: sweetkid, exactly. I'm not asking what physical features are attractive in an absolute sense, I'm asking what features look better/worse in photos than in real life. Symmetry could be an answer to both questions, of course. It looks like the Cleese program is more about the first question, but maybe it also touches on mine?
posted by pete_22 at 8:22 PM on February 28, 2012

Well, there's a pretty funny (and somewhat helpful) WikiHow on being photogenic.
posted by two lights above the sea at 8:33 PM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]

I think you have at least two questions here.

1) What makes people look pretty good/ not terrible in photographs, such as candid snapshots? Symmetry definitely helps here - lopsided faces don't look so good in snapshots.

2) What makes people look crazy attractive/ beautiful in posed photographs? Big, striking features are probably more key here; they probably need to be photographed well to look good, but when they are photographed well, they look REALLY good.
posted by insectosaurus at 8:36 PM on February 28, 2012

Best answer: This is modeling 101. People with striking features (big eyes set far apart, big lips, big forehead) and/or strong, sharp angles (sharp noses, strong jawline, high or sharp cheekbones) always photograph better than people without. Symmetry doesn't really play into it because you can always photograph around that with knowing how to pose.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 8:43 PM on February 28, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'd agree with sweetkid and even take it one step further in positing that too much symmetry in a person's facial features is actually rather unsettling to look at, and can appear somewhat fake and robotic-looking.

Think about who is actually very attractive and/or photogenic to you: their faces may appear symmetrical, but if you look closely, you'll notice a beauty mark on a cheek, one dimple bigger than another, an eyebrow that arches slightly more than the other, a slightly crooked grin, etc.

Personally, I believe people who smile easily are the most photogenic because their eyes as well as their smiles tend to reflect their grace back at the camera.

It can be argued that which particular physical features photograph "best" are culturally dependent. For example, Americans are programmed by our magazine covers and popular media to accept youthful skin and big, perfectly straight, white teeth as photogenic and attractive, but in France, most folks tend to have a wider variety of people presented to them as attractive/photogenic and some may find our country's perception of "photogenic" ridiculous and artificial.
posted by LuckySeven~ at 8:44 PM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

Best answer: In my experience having a very mobile or animated face/body works against you in photos ... it seems to increase the probability that you'll be caught by the camera in the middle of some gesture that looks fine as a full action, but whose individual pieces look horribly awkward. People who can calmly sit still without displaying weird micro-gestures generally photograph better.
posted by forza at 8:44 PM on February 28, 2012 [8 favorites]

Oh and I forgot to add long necks.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 8:44 PM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]

Best answer: I think a lot of people are missing the crux of the question. It's not about what you can do to make yourself more photogenic or what society's standard of beauty is. It's about what facial features translate better to print. Anyway, a classic example of someone who had all the right features is Grace Jones.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 8:49 PM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

As you get older, having a face that falls into smile lines rather than frown lines makes your smile much more photogenic and natural looking, and it tends to look more pleasant even at rest in a photo.

Of course you manage that by smiling enough more than you frown that the wrinkles fall in the right direction.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:50 PM on February 28, 2012

My answer is, a good photographer. I think anyone can look stunning, provided the photographer poses them in a way that shows off their uniqueness and their humanity.
posted by b33j at 9:09 PM on February 28, 2012

pete_22: "11sweetkid, exactly. I'm not asking what physical features are attractive in an absolute sense, I'm asking what features look better/worse in photos than in real life."

This is tricky to answer because (absence the "cheats" of professional lighting, makeup, and photo retouching), it's largely dependent on the skills of the photographer.

Large, deep set eyes and an angular facial structure, like Reese Witherspoon's, can photograph very well or appear bony and sickly (I'm not posting any photos like that cause I think she's awesome all the time) depending on the photographer.

The same with full, lush features like Anne Hathaway's; she lovely in most photos, but I've also seen less skilled photographers make her look like what one miserable cretin referred to as "the droopy-eyed, melty-faced woman from Soundgarden's Black Hole Sun video."
posted by LuckySeven~ at 9:27 PM on February 28, 2012

This is not scientific or anything, but I get told I'm photogenic all the time (particularly by the photographers and fashiony types in my office), even though I'm not a tremendously beautiful or symmetrical person, and rather than having sharp, defined features, I have what I refer to as a big ol' wheel of cheese head. As near as I can tell, it's because I have fair, reasonably glowy skin that reflects light well, a pretty huge and shapely smile, and the ability to hold my face still when smiling. However, likely because of the big smile thing, it's virtually impossible to get a good photo of me making a neutral or serious face. I tend to look sort of peeved and bloated.

Also, I'm pretty sure that at least 50% of a great photo is good lighting and having the photo taken by someone who knows what they're doing.
posted by mostlymartha at 9:42 PM on February 28, 2012

Yeah, I have big eyes, a round face, a wide smile, and a small, soft chin, and basically if the photographer isn't over-attentive my headshots come off looking like Jabba the Hutt's sweet-natured baby cousin.
posted by gingerest at 11:04 PM on February 28, 2012 [6 favorites]

Photographers are used to the idea of golden section grids - if rule is that if the focal points of your image lie at lines or intersections on the grid your photo will look better. Golden section ratios also apply to faces too however - it is possible to construct a facial mask grid based on golden sections. If a person's facial features have a good fit to this grid - rather than just being "symmetrical" - then they are more likely to be considered photogenic.
posted by rongorongo at 11:43 PM on February 28, 2012 [5 favorites]

Head/neck ratio is the thing I've noticed that makes people who are attractive in motion look really funky in still photos. Channing Tatum, for example, looks like a Lego minifig (cylindrical peg for a head) when photographed head on, but is actually generically good looking in motion. He doesn't look like a minifig in every photo, so angle obviously has something to do with it as well.

I seem to see this most in guys - I don't know if it's because they're the ones most likely to have small heads, large necks, or not to be able to distract from this with masses of hair.
posted by clerestory at 11:52 PM on February 28, 2012

"model pretty" for women is big forehead, big eyes, pouty lips, small chin (bottom lip should be close to to the end of the chin), long neck and decent skin. This will always look good head on. High cheekbones, a strong jawline and deepest eyes will make side and angles shots good too.
posted by fshgrl at 12:26 AM on February 29, 2012

And a small nose. It can be hooked or crooked and it just adds character but a big nose casts shadows, which often photograph weird. Light colored eyes are easier to photograph too but not a huge deal as long as you can expose for eyes and skin correctly at the same time.
posted by fshgrl at 12:29 AM on February 29, 2012

Best answer: I've done some photoshoots with models (as the photographer) and I will second the following:

- Strong bone structure - makes the face dynamic and interesting from multiple angles. Taut skin without much fat helps show this off, but some people can carry extra weight well and still photograph beautifully, so it can go either way.
- Good skin - not just clear, but the quality of reflecting light evenly. Color doesn't affect this as much as age does. A person can have lovely clear skin in person, but around late 20's/early 30's it starts losing that 'reflective' quality in photos where it just glows under studio lights. Again this is not a universal, as not all younger people have it and some older people do.
- Slightly larger than normal head, don't know why this is true, but it is!

These are the factors that would make someone interesting to photograph regardless of whether they are even traditionally 'pretty'. When I'm photographing someone I see them more as an object and look for sculptural qualities, light/shadow etc, so these things are irrelevant to whether someone is attractive in daily life. (And they are also mostly irrelevant in snapshots/informal photos, which rarely have the right lighting to take advantage of an interesting face anyway.)
posted by ella wren at 5:40 AM on February 29, 2012 [1 favorite]

Best answer: In my experience, people who AREN'T photogenic, puzzlingly so (my husband and high school best friend are both quite attractive in real life but tend to look nothing like themselves and rather weird in photos), often have common traits having to do with their coloring and face shape--light colored eyes and skin and matching hair that look washed out in pictures (when in real life all of that matching lightness is striking and pretty), and a face shape that isn't very angled (mentioned above) which, in 2 dimensions, comes out looking amorphous and blobby when it doesn't in real life. I think the aforementioned striking contrasts and angles thing being camera-compatible is true.
posted by ifjuly at 5:41 AM on February 29, 2012 [2 favorites]

Best answer: I have a few friends who are not especially attractive in person but who consistently look fantastic in photographs. I have some other friends who are very attractive in person but consistently look terrible in photos. These are mostly casual photos. It has nothing to do with the skills of the photographer.

The photogenic people have smooth, creamy, pink-toned skin with very few shadows or blotches, bright (not big) eyes, relatively small noses, and big, nicely shaped smiles with big white teeth. The non-photogenic people tend to have a lot of shadows and lumps in their pictures that aren't obvious in person and their mouths look uneven and strangely twisted. I think that in person we mentally edit out a lot of lumpiness and unevenness in a face in motion that becomes obvious in a still photo. Good photography and careful posing can hide that unevenness, but photogenic people don't have it in the first place.
posted by Dojie at 6:19 AM on February 29, 2012 [2 favorites]

Best answer: Nthing distinctive features - high cheekbones, a strong jaw, long neck, a full mouth, and above all, interesting eyes. Lidded, almondine, round, narrow, intense, cool, warm - the eyes catch attention, and they need to be something special. What makes them special will vary from person to person, and it will need to work with the other features. Clint Eastwood's steeley squint wouldn't work to well with an easygoing smile.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:03 AM on February 29, 2012

I'm photogenic but not especially strikingly pretty in real life (ie, I've been told I photograph very well). I have high cheekbones, a strong jawline, deep-set eyes, and a pointy nose.

I always thought I was photogenic because in pictures I'm not talking, though--a lot of beauty in real life has to do with motion and expression, and when I'm talking I look like a gremlin.
posted by millipede at 12:00 PM on February 29, 2012

In my experience as an amateur photographer who prefers candid shots, an ideal subject is someone who lacks self-consciousness about being photographed.

If they are willing to regularly go about their business without adopting a sudden "bright picture smile!!!", and don't flinch at the camera, it's 100x easier to capture great photos of that look that defines their personality to their friends.

Quite often (not always, but often), these people are rather photogenic: I throw away fewer worthless shots, and end up with so many decent shots it looks like I favored them out of the crowd available to me... when in fact it's just that every one else's nerves ruined their shots.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:23 PM on February 29, 2012

Best answer: Hi. I'm a photographer and I've done a photoshop study of facial composites.

Some points.

1. People look different depending on how you photograph them. Take for example these two pictures of the same girl. [1] [2] Pay close attention to her cheekbone structure - or rather the appearance of her cheekbones in each photo. In the first one she seems to have a flat, broad face. In the second, a distinctively narrow face. This is all down to angle, lighting, etc.

Some girls try to exaggerate this by taking a photo from a) overhead (which narrows your features) or by tilting their head down slightly and turning about 30 degrees away from camera [example] and b) by making the duckface.

2. Science tells us that our brains store the "diffs" between two people. That is - we store in our mind not the whole face, but just the distinctive features. This is why we can instantly recognize caricatures - because caricatures are how the brain stores faces.

3. A LOT can be done with the camera that most people don't understand and most photography teachers don't teach. And a LOT can be done with lighting, and that's taught much more often. If you watched the Academy Awards, remember that bit where they had a bunch of actors in a black room talking about what inspired them? During that segment Tom Cruise looked entirely flat - like he'd gotten a bad nose job - and I thought he'd done something horrible to his face, but then he came out to present the award and he was the same cocky big nosed jerk as ever.

I've watched tons of episodes of Top Model (America and UK) because there are about ZERO resources out there to teach photographers how to work with models and a (not often but) recurring theme is when they first start photographing the girls they'll say thing like

"she is not photogenic, I did not expect that"

or

"you really have to learn how to work your angles"

or

"your face just doesn't translate to print"

All of that said, here's what I think makes for a photogenic person.

1. High cheekbones or at least angles that can catch the light differently. Many people who are pretty in person look "flat" in a photo because the light hitting their skin doesn't catch many angles & bounces back uniformly and therefore looks flat. Many Asian people have "flat" faces that are lovely but don't always translate to photographs. The lovely Rhi is an exception (though I've seen photos of her where her face looks more flat). Photography is all about catching light & if your the contours of your face don't do that, then you will look flat in photographs. Or Lauren - mentally remove the subtle highlight and shading on her cheeks

2. Distinctive features. These photos (taken from a site that seems to return a 404 now) show what celebs would look like after drastic plastic surgery - and I see this a lot with Hollywood stars - they lose their distinctiveness when they get too much work done. Someone who looks too "generic" (again, look at my photographic composites) will be hard to remember in another photograph. Look at[this composite] - the brunette on the left is everybody and nobody and in real life she'd easily be the prettiest person in the room, but in a photo you'd be hard pressed to remember her - e.g. on a magazine cover.

3. The je ne sais quoi factor. When they look into your eyes, are you drawn in? Many of my best photos are the ones that are caught in-between moments. In 50 photos, the one I'll pick will be the one where they were adjusting themselves & not thinking about their posing. They concentrate too much on being a model otherwise. Here are some examples of happy accident photos. [1] [2] [3] (note: these girls are fine models and I recommend any of them, and some models are better at some things & fail utterly at other things - it's all a matter of personality I guess.) Compared to the ones who nail it every time.

> very little skin hair and very smooth skin

A while back I was lucky enough to shoot the reigning Miss New York (she came in 5th in the Miss America pageant). She was absolutely lovely. She was working with another model - a skinny European girl who was really good at doing the haute couture poses that she was jealous of, but she had the most amazingly flawless skin (which in nearly every photo I've seen of her was too covered up by makeup). I agree being nearly hairless is a huge benefit - especially with certain types of lighting that will accentuate every single hair you have, whether it's peach fuzz or not. For example the lovely Emma has peach fuzz on her arms, but it looks out of control in this photo simply because of the lighting and if I'm taking a hi res photo and zooming in to it in photoshop I'll see every single hair and pore and believe me you never look at people the same way again after spending a day in photoshop.

> This is tricky to answer because (absence the "cheats" of professional lighting, makeup, and photo retouching), it's largely dependent on the skills of the photographer.

Agree. If you want to see what makeup can do, check out a Kevyn Aucoin book and I've talked a bit already about light & shadow and alluded to some tricks of the camera.
posted by MesoFilter at 4:38 PM on February 29, 2012 [10 favorites]