Cinematogenic
the video equivalent of photography is cinematography.
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
31 points (66.3% liked)
Showerthoughts
30055 readers
635 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or in modern times videogenic maybe.
VHSgenic is the proper term
And then there are people with a radio face
sound good, visually (not quite) pleasant
I’m in this picture and I don’t like it
Well of course you don't like being in pictures
Telegenic.
I think telegenic would be that they look good at a distance.
That's weird in my humble opinion but okay then.
An ex told me i look better in the dark.
This is a showerthought?
Do you take your dictionary with you to the shower?
Plot twist this person is a LLM
Plot double-twist: this LLM is a person
You just created an ethical dilemma
But what are people called when a picture of them looks good in a movie??
Are there actually photogenic people who look worse on video or irl?
If they’re photogenic surely they just look good all the time, I can’t think of any examples of photogenic looking worse on video.
Photos are generally composed, so someone can easily be photogenic from conventional photography angles and always look good.
Video is often never composed frame-by-frame to the level of a photo, so it's a lot more likely to get less than flattering angles, which would lead to this.
I think someone being video-genic would probably be less common than photogenic because it implies you effortlessly look great from any angle
I’ve never seen someone who looks good in photos but not videos, but I suppose it could happen if they only have one or two really good angles. Most people look different through a camera lens or in real life, though, some better in one or the other, some good in both, but still different.
People who look good in moving pictures but ugly in stills are usually called "actors." And it's those damned paparazzi giving us all those ugly stills.
Ooh double burn lol
I think if someone looks good in photos but not on video, they probably just have a skilled photographer.
I’ve really never seen someone who looks good in video but not still images or vice versa. The only way I could really see that is if someone only has one or two good angles but looks odd in the rest, so video would be more likely to reveal the bad angles.
I was in college for TV production almost 20 years ago, and this was the same time Facebook was just launching and only available to college kids. Between pictures on Facebook and looking at videos of my classmates in our projects, I was surprised to discover that the girls I thought looked best in person didn’t usually look as good on the monitors, and the girls that looked best on screen usually didn’t look as good in person. This carried through to my TV career. I noticed basically no one looked quite the same on screen as they did in person; some were better on screen, some were better in person, some looked good in both but they still looked a little different between the two of them.
I’m not sure what exactly causes the difference but suspect there’s a bit that comes from lighting, makeup, and angles, but mostly it comes from the lens. There’s a distortion that comes from the lens depending on the angle of the lens (wide-angle to telephoto) but also there tends to be a flattening of features through the lens. A lot of times the people who look good facing a camera have very pronounced features (prominent cheek bones, longer nose, lips that protrude more, etc.) but they don’t look pronounced in the image, they look pretty normal. In real life, though, they often look a little odd because the features are so pronounced. Conversely people who look good in person often seem to have flatter features in an image, which can look a little dull.
Some of that can be addressed with lighting and makeup, to help show better depth, but that takes a lot of time and equipment and especially for TV news that often isn’t available. A still photographer might have more options for that, so maybe that’s where someone could look good in a photo but not a video.
The only other area I could see someone being better in a photo than video is someone who looks good with the distortion of the extreme wide angle of a phone’s selfie camera. If they’re mostly taking pictures with that they might not seem as good in other media with more normal lenses.
All in all, it made me discount pictures in trying to decide if someone’s attractive or not. I’d rather look better in person than in a photo, and I’d rather be with a partner who looks better in person than a photo.
I never look good in pictures and videos, so that means I look better in person! lmao
That’s not…
You know what, yes, that’s exactly how it works. If you don’t look good in pictures that definitely means you look amazing in person!
this is good insight.
it gives some other perspectives of "why" and sometimes "how" some or most people look "certain way" on the camera producing images. wether they look particularly good (a model, for example), or particularly "dull/bland" like "not camera friendly" experience.
thank you for sharing your experiences.