Although it is clear that eidetic imagery exists, psychologists still do not know why it occurs, what brain mechanisms may be responsible, or why it is found in such a small proportion of the population. Having just renewed two government-issued IDs, I have been harshly reminded of what NOT to do when being photographed: stare straight-on at the camera, do a …
Perhaps something about the shadow it casts? High cheekbones, a strong jawline and deepest eyes will make side and angles shots good too. See more. In contrast, a true eidetic image doesnt move as you move your eyes, and it is in the same color as the original picture. 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.
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. First, an eidetic image is not simply a long afterimage, since afterimages move around when you move your eyes and are usually a different color than the original image. Discover new insights into neuroscience, human behavior and mental health with Scientific American Mind.
"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. How do you take a good selfie if you are not photogenic? facial mask grid based on golden sections. The answer is because I believe the word "photogenic" is one of the biggest ways people are justifying their way out of a portrait session. It looks like the Cleese program is more about the first question, but maybe it also touches on mine? I think anyone can look stunning, provided the photographer poses them in a way that shows off their uniqueness and their humanity. 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. All posts copyright their original authors. What makes them special will vary from person to person, and it will need to work with the other features. 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.
In addition, they can scan it and examine different parts of it just as if the picture were still physically present. :D (--> reference to America's Next Top Model, in case you haven't heard of that before.).
These are mostly casual photos. Head/neck ratio is the thing I've noticed that makes people who are attractive in motion look really funky in still photos. I tend to look sort of peeved and bloated. Clint Eastwood's steeley squint wouldn't work to well with an easygoing smile.
After all, a perfect memory is what is usually implied by the commonly used phrase "photographic memory." Your Tinder dates are always surprised when they meet you. 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.
The way the word is used is very similar I've noticed to the way people use the word talent. 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. One of the most compelling reasons to have professional portraits done is to make you feel amazing about yourself. Subscribers get more award-winning coverage of advances in science & technology. Lidded, almondine, round, narrow, intense, cool, warm - the eyes catch attention, and they need to be something special. 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. I've done some photoshoots with models (as the photographer) and I will second the following: 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. But check there, too, if that's available to you. If this is true, then it means that adults are more likely to disrupt the formation of eidetic images and are thus much less likely to be identified as having eidetic imagery, even if they really do possess the ability.Can you acquire eidetic imagery through learning?
Therefore it flattens all of the features on our faces and distorts our appearances. That's the part that I think is bullshit. Most of the people I know who are crazy attractive yet look inexplicably bleh in photos have big noses. It is very interesting to me how many people in this world believe in the idea of photogenic. 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.
After 30 seconds have elapsed, the picture is removed from view, and the person is asked to continue to look at the easel and to report anything that they can observe. I have some other friends who are very attractive in person but consistently look terrible in photos. Unlike common visual images created from memory, most eidetic images last between about half a minute to several minutes only, and it is possible to voluntarily destroy an eidetic image forever by the simple act of blinking intentionally. When a person talks themselves out of session by saying they aren't photogenic, that person is robbing themselves of the confidence boost they could greatly benefit from. It's about what facial features translate better to print. Ask MetaFilter is where thousands of life's little questions are answered. Strictly visually speaking, some people are beautiful in person but not in photos. What these people fail to realize is that everyone can be coached to look great in a photograph. If a person is photogenic, it does not necessarily mean that he or she is beautiful. Also, it is not possible to control which parts of an eidetic image fade and which remain visible. Furthermore, once gone from view, rarely can an eidetic image ever be retrieved. Although it is certainly controversial, some researchers also believe that eidetic imagery occurs more frequently in certain populations of the mentally retarded (specifically, in individuals whose retardation most likely stems from biological, rather than environmental, causes) and also among geriatric populations.
Scientific American is part of Springer Nature, which owns or has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many of them can be found at.
To my knowledge, however, there have been no attempts to try to teach the ability to anyone. If you accept that a person can be taught or shown how to look better in a photograph than you must also accept that someone out there was once not "photogenic" and learned how to look good in front of the camera. In biology, the word photogenic describes an organism that produces light. Channing Tatum, for example, looks like a Lego minifig (cylindrical peg for a head) when photographed. When people vocalize to me that they wish they looked more photogenic in pictures I immediately want to get them in front of my camera and prove to them that there is no such thing as photogenic! 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. Now you might be asking yourself why I'm making such a big deal out of this word. There are some people that are easier to photograph. And a small nose. Good skin makes a big difference as well. This is why there are relatively few top earning professional print models. It's almost as if people believe that you either have a natural aptitude to look amazing in photographs or you don't.
What I'm hearing when people say they wish they were photogenic is that they wish they could look effortlessly beautiful like the person they are viewing in my portfolio. Personally, I doubt it.