[Dang3r]

Originally Posted by Biorin

Glad to know I smell like an orangutan in heat.

Uuuuh, too much information

[nyalpine90]

sup
where's every1?

[shockin330i]

At work

[nyalpine90]

same here, a noreaster suppose to hit NY
waiting for it to begin!

[shockin330i]

Originally Posted by nyalpine90

same here, a noreaster suppose to hit NY
waiting for it to begin!

What's that?

[nyalpine90]

its like high wind with rain..i always thought it was high wind with snow.

THUNDERSNOW

lol

[shockin330i]

Originally Posted by nyalpine90

its like high wind with rain..i always thought it was high wind with snow.

THUNDERSNOW

lol

Learn something new everyday. I can't say I've ever experienced that before.

[nyalpine90]

Originally Posted by shockin330i

Learn something new everyday. I can't say I've ever experienced that before.

i prefer warm climate then multi-layer climate

[Axius]

No interview on Weds, they want someone with a degree for some reason.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Axius

No interview on Weds, they want someone with a degree for some reason.

Go get a degree. Problem solved.

http://www.photoshop.com

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Biorin

Comment wasn't intended for ego fluffing, but I think hard to say someone is or isn't photogenic if you haven't seen them in person. Also consider that you see a collection of the bet photos on social media, vs the average.

Originally Posted by Aatish

I agree on the whole in person vs. online stance.

Well then, allow me to play my favourite role - the devil's advocate (though I really don't like the wording)

I disagree. Given that the definition of photogenic is more or less that someone appears attractive in photographs / video, I do not think you need to see them in person.

If they are attractive in a photo, then they are photogenic. Maybe they are an absolutely hideous person in terms of personality and so they are not attractive overall, but they would still be photogenic. Physically, they are attractive.

Now I don't have instagram and don't care to get it, so I haven't seen a pic of Biorin or the famous mustache, but I would agree that Instagram and others would only host the best pics available.

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Well then, allow me to play my favourite role - the devil's advocate (though I really don't like the wording)

I disagree. Given that the definition of photogenic is more or less that someone appears attractive in photographs / video, I do not think you need to see them in person.

If they are attractive in a photo, then they are photogenic. Maybe they are an absolutely hideous person in terms of personality and so they are not attractive overall, but they would still be photogenic. Physically, they are attractive.

Now I don't have instagram and don't care to get it, so I haven't seen a pic of Biorin or the famous mustache, but I would agree that Instagram and others would only host the best pics available.

I think that photogenic means that you look good relative to you, not relative to anyone else. I know a girl who I actually think looks even better in photos than in person. I've been told some of it is due to facial structure - some shapes look better from certain angles, etc. One of my best friends is a pro photographer, and declared that it's impossible to get a good photo of me. She even made me discuss the word "penis" for a solid minute in hopes that it would allow my personality to shine through. No dice.

[nyalpine90]

Originally Posted by Biorin

I think that photogenic means that you look good relative to you, not relative to anyone else. I know a girl who I actually think looks even better in photos than in person. I've been told some of it is due to facial structure - some shapes look better from certain angles, etc.

rear angle is best

good looks always fades away, its all about personality.

like a hot chick with zero persona is fugly

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by nyalpine90

rear angle is best

good looks always fades away, its all about personality.

like a hot chick with zero persona is fugly

Completely agree. It's like that Cragislist ad (most likely a fake) about a hot woman wondering why she can't get a good guy with decent income, etc. The (most likely fake) response from a man then calls her a depreciating asset whose looks will only fade.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Biorin

I think that photogenic means that you look good relative to you, not relative to anyone else. I know a girl who I actually think looks even better in photos than in person. I've been told some of it is due to facial structure - some shapes look better from certain angles, etc. One of my best friends is a pro photographer, and declared that it's impossible to get a good photo of me. She even made me discuss the word "penis" for a solid minute in hopes that it would allow my personality to shine through. No dice.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photogenic
Definition is "suitable for being photographed especially because of visual appeal" or
"tending to look good in photographs"

I did not see anything suggesting relativity

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photogenic
Definition is "suitable for being photographed especially because of visual appeal" or
"tending to look good in photographs"

I did not see anything suggesting relativity

Dictionary.com has it as "forming an attractive subject for photography or having features that look well in a photograph:"

You can have lovely features that do not look well in a photograph.

I thought this was an interesting discussion. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=545431

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Biorin

Dictionary.com has it as "forming an attractive subject for photography or having features that look well in a photograph:"

You can have lovely features that do not look well in a photograph.

I thought this was an interesting discussion. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=545431

Off to war we go my friend.

If you are an "attractive subject for photography" or have "features that look well in a photograph", then does that not support my original point that you do not need to actually meet the person - it is judged on the photograph alone whether that individual is attractive in that photo (photogenic).

Certainly I would agree that you can have lovely features that do not look good in a photograph - but as a result, because you do not look good in a photograph, you would be unphotogenic.

I do not think it is a relative position - a person either is, or is not, attractive in photos and is therefore photogenic, or is not. It does not mean that the person is actually attractive in real life - even physically. Someone may photograph well and be attractive in the photo (photogenic), but when you meet him or her, you are surprised to find they are not attractive physically. This does not change the fact that they are photogenic.

Now, for those three little words that if uttered from you, would make my day...



"You are right"

[Axius]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Go get a degree. Problem solved.

http://www.photoshop.com

lol, Moddy actually suggested the same thing. Might just have to get back into sex work, idk.

Originally Posted by Biorin

I think that photogenic means that you look good relative to you, not relative to anyone else. I know a girl who I actually think looks even better in photos than in person. I've been told some of it is due to facial structure - some shapes look better from certain angles, etc. One of my best friends is a pro photographer, and declared that it's impossible to get a good photo of me. She even made me discuss the word "penis" for a solid minute in hopes that it would allow my personality to shine through. No dice.

Agreed. Not a fan of pictures of myself because it takes away from the sexiness that is me IRL. Don't wanna put on a facade to future mates.

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Off to war we go my friend.

If you are an "attractive subject for photography" or have "features that look well in a photograph", then does that not support my original point that you do not need to actually meet the person - it is judged on the photograph alone whether that individual is attractive in that photo (photogenic).

Certainly I would agree that you can have lovely features that do not look good in a photograph - but as a result, because you do not look good in a photograph, you would be unphotogenic.

I do not think it is a relative position - a person either is, or is not, attractive in photos and is therefore photogenic, or is not. It does not mean that the person is actually attractive in real life - even physically. Someone may photograph well and be attractive in the photo (photogenic), but when you meet him or her, you are surprised to find they are not attractive physically. This does not change the fact that they are photogenic.
Now, for those three little words that if uttered from you, would make my day...


"You are right"

I think we are both in agreement on the majority of this, especially what I have bolded.

My argument is this: imagine you see a photo of someone, and find them quite attractive. However, you meet them, and find them to be absolutely breathtaking. While they looked good in the photo, it is incomparable to how they look in real life. I would say that this person is not photogenic. They may be so attractive that even a bad photo of them is appealing when compared to most, but the photograph is still unflattering compared to their true looks. That, to me, is what makes it relative.

[nyalpine90]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/tv...rank/85247533/

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Biorin

I think we are both in agreement on the majority of this, especially what I have bolded.

My argument is this: imagine you see a photo of someone, and find them quite attractive. However, you meet them, and find them to be absolutely breathtaking. While they looked good in the photo, it is incomparable to how they look in real life. I would say that this person is not photogenic. They may be so attractive that even a bad photo of them is appealing when compared to most, but the photograph is still unflattering compared to their true looks. That, to me, is what makes it relative.

I can support this argument. I've seen several pics of a girl and thought she was hot. Then i got a video of her and.... er ma gush... even better.

[Biorin]

...and now we're onto PornHub: True Confessions.