Biology of an organism or tissue producing or emitting light. There are plenty of scenes that are easier to photograph in than others. A photogenic scene may be a certain landscape at a certain time of day in a particular season with just the right type of cloud cover. Another photogenic scene might be a particular outfit in front of a particular wall, in a nice patch of light.
They can be hard to catch. Much like with any other subject, the picture needs to be well lit and well composed.
You may need to pay attention to your shutter speeds and apertures, contrast ratios and depth of field and countless other variables—but light and composition are the main things in most photographs.
The face photographs used in Experiment 1 were also used in this experiment. In addition, we took photographs of four other male students in the same department, which resulted in photographs of seven men and seven women. These prepared pictures were used in the other-face condition. For the self-face condition, face photographs were taken and edited just before the experiment. The self-face pictures were only used with the matched participant. In addition, pictures of mirror-reversed self-faces were made of each participant with the same software.
Participants performed the experiment individually. Before the task, participants were shown an A-4 sheet of face photographs used as other-faces were printed one unedited picture for each person and were asked to indicate the individuals they did not know. Only pictures of known people were used in the face recognition task. For each participant, nine face photographs were taken, and the experimenter edited the pictures while the participants waited for about 25 minutes. When the edit was complete, participants returned to the experiment room and performed the same face recognition task described in Experiment 1 twice.
Normal and mirror-reversed pictures of self-face were used in the first and the second session, respectively. There were 36 trials in each session, including 18 self-face and 18 other-face trials. The other-face photographs were randomly chosen from known people and proportion of gender was controlled. The experiment lasted approximately 1 hour for each participant, including the waiting period. The rates that men and women selected each type of face picture are given in Figure 4.
An angular transformation was applied for the analyses. The significant main effect of gender was a result of the angular transformation the total number of selections by men and women was equal before transformation, but, after transformation, the total number of selections by women was more than the total number of selections by men.
In addition, we also examined if the gender of other-face influenced facial memory. In summary, neither the gender of participants nor the gender of other-face interacted with other factors i.
The rates of selection of self-face and other-face with non-reversed pictures by women and men in each condition for Experiment 3.
Moreover, we added the factor of session into the above ANOVA to examine the effect of session normal vs. In fact, none of the participants reported noticing that mirror-reversed pictures were presented in the second session when asked after the experiment. The rates of selection of self-face and other-face with mirror-reversed pictures by women and men in each condition for Experiment 3.
In this experiment, we examined influences of gender and mirror-reversed pictures on the observed bias in self-face recognition; neither gender nor mirror-reversed pictures affected recognition of the self-face and other-face. Although some previous studies have reported gender biases in face recognition e.
As mentioned in the Introduction, there is possibility that because we view our faces in a mirror and faces are flipped horizontally in photographs, they appear different. This is probably because people are very familiar with their self-face in both mirrors and photographs.
Although the difference between the dynamic face in the mirror and the static face in a photograph might influence attractiveness, left and right reversal does not. The results from Experiment 3 differ from those of Experiment 1 in two ways.
First, selections on unmodified pictures were equal for self- and the other-faces in this experiment, but less for self than other in Experiment 1. These differences may have arisen due to the differences in participants and procedures.
In Experiment 1, all the participants were in the same small-class lecture and were very familiar with each other. In contrast, the participants in Experiment 3 were from the same department but in different years; they knew each other, but were not that familiar with the others in the photographs, resulting in poorer performance in face recognition of the other-faces.
Furthermore, photographs of the self-face were taken just before the experimental task in Experiment 3, possibly resulting in better accuracy in self-face recognition than in Experiment 1. This suggests that people may be more generous with unfamiliar people. Future research should be conducted on this issue. To confirm that the size of eyes and mouth influences attractiveness for both Japanese men and women, we asked students who did not know the participants of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 to select the most attractive face from pictures with different sizes of eyes or mouths.
The other-face photographs in Experiment 3 were used. In each trial, seven pictures with different sized eyes the first investigation or mouth the second investigation were randomly presented on a monitor, and participants were asked to select the most attractive one using a mouse. For each other-face subject, three sets of photographs were used randomly. The proportions of face selections of pictures of women and men with different sized eyes are given in Figure 6 a.
Women and men both favored larger eyes, although the degree was somewhat different larger eyes were favored in women more than in men. The average correlation between the proportions of selections and modification levels were. A Fisher's z-transformation was applied for the analyses. The rates of selection of the most attractive face from pictures with different sizes of eyes a or different sizes of mouth b for women and men.
The proportions of selections of pictures with a different sized mouth are given in Figure 6 b. Faces with smaller mouths were selected as attractive, and this tendency was more remarkable for female faces. The average correlations between the proportions of selections and modification levels were —.
In this experiment, we asked the participants to select the most attractive face from pictures with different sized eyes or mouths. The results clearly showed that large eyes and small mouths were viewed as more attractive, especially in women, in Japanese culture. Therefore, when people selected pictures with larger eyes or smaller mouths for the self-face, they were remembering their own faces as more attractive than their real face.
The results from Experiment 1 and 2 provided clear evidence that there are differences in face memory for the self and others. Specifically, participants were able to recognize the unmodified faces of their classmates, but tended to choose the modified pictures with larger eyes and smaller mouths of their own faces. As confirmed in Experiment 4, larger eyes and smaller mouths are considered to be more attractive in Asian cultures; therefore, these results may be interpreted to mean that people think of themselves as more attractive than they really are.
Herein, we have proposed several possible reasons for the memory distortions of the self-face. The memory distortions we observed may be the result of over-attention to the self-face. Indeed, previous work has indicated that self-reference stimuli, including faces, hold attention more than other stimuli e.
After the experiments, the participants reported that the self-face trials were easier to do than the other-face trials, but they took longer during these trials. Although the participants made more cautious decisions during the self-face trials, their recognitions were less accurate. Therefore, it may be that too much attention and overexposure to the self-face may result in the subjective expectation of being more attractive.
Thus, during the long retention interval of the self-face, positive information e. In addition, the positive biases of self-face recognition might not be specific for self-face recognition; it might also apply to the faces of people to whom we are strongly attached. Furthermore, previous research has demonstrated that holistic processing leads to better face recognition than featural processing e. In research examining self-face processing relative to familiar face processing, featural processes have been demonstrated to contribute to the self-face recognition e.
In addition, Keyes and Brady examined interhemispheric cooperation in the recognition of self-, friend-, and stranger-faces, and concluded that the representation of one's own face emphasizes both global and local information.
From the results of these studies we infer that the featural processing of the eyes or the mouth in this study was influenced by positive beliefs about self. We also examined the interaction between gender and bias in self-face memory, but did not observe any gender differences. Both women and men chose slightly magnified eyes for the self-face more often than for others.
As shown in Figure 6 a , although large eyes were preferred more in women than men, this feature was correlated with attractiveness for both genders. In conclusion, both females and males remember their own faces as being more attractive than their real face.
Few people are actually ugly. Most people fall around average-looking. Also, depending on the camera angle and how close the lens is to you , cameras can distort your features so — for instance — your nose or arm looks bigger than it really is. Pictures can also catch you in action , capturing a split-second ugly expression that no one would have ever noticed in person. A post shared by gisele gisele on Jun 7, at pm PDT.
Don't have any pictures I've shot plenty of models who don't look all that special in real life, but look great in print. Everybody learns not to judge by meeting somebody One of the most remarkable examples I ran into was Janice Schmidt, at the time the oldest Playmate of the Month ever.
I met her, had dinner with her, took a couple of rolls, screwed her six ways from Sunday, just kidding about that last one and was at no time in the presence of a beautiful woman, not even somebody I'd look twice at on the street.
The shots I took of her were sensational, very hot. A good make up artist and good light man can help out, but it's too complex a situation to have an easy solution. It's kind of like the beautiful sunsets everybody takes pictures of.
Then get home and they have this picture of a little sun over a dark sea. It's a real quality and not a big deal unless somebody is really starstruck. You may also be using only one expression when you look in the mirror, and so different expressions in your pics seem wierd.
My husband hates what he calls my mirror face. Of course, people are also way too hard on themselves. I blame cosmo. Further comments on that issue are in the tavern for those who are over JosephB Senior Member. Heh, Alan -- my wife has what I call her "picture face" -- this really big smile and deer-in-the-headlights stare.
Every time you point a camera at her, she does it, no matter what. Something I found interesting -- one of my first shoots as an art director was for a line of small appliances -- the pics were for packaging, displays etc. We hired a hand model for the shoot.
While we were setting up, we used the photographer's assistant for a stand in. Her hands looked perfectly fine to me, well manicured etc. Her hands look awful. And really, most people's hands don't photograph well at all. The hand model's hands didn't look that much different, but looked great in the photos. Part of it had to do with how she held things, but otherwise, it was pretty hard to discern just what made her hands more photogenic.
Some of the models I've worked with look great in person and in photos. Some look better in photos. It's hard to pinpoint just why that is. Some also know just what to do in front of the camera, and are great at taking direction. Of course, the photographer has a whole lot to do with it too. The most attractive models, in and out of photos, that I've worked with are women I've hired through an agency that specializes in "real people.
They are more "what you see is what you get" as opposed to the fashion models who tend to look more different in photos than in real life. Probably one of the best and most fun shoots I've been on -- the model was a dog. The dog's trainer could pose the dog pretty much any way you would want, and the dog would hold the pose it until the trainer told her to move. It was pretty amazing. She was easier to work with than any human.
0コメント