I have worked as a photographer for more than thirty years and am a Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society (RPS), with my own successful photography business. I have also completed an MSc in digital colour imaging. On numerous occasions I have been amazed that the person I have met and thought had attractive facial features appears un-photogenic in a photograph. Conversely with some of the groups I have photographed it has been the person I least remembered in the group who turns out to be most photogenic.
I have
recently conducted a survey of portrait photographers and have come to
the conclusion that the same phenomenon happens to them, and that even
experienced photographers sometimes fail to recognise a photogenic or
non-photogenic subject in the flesh. I have become fascinated to discover
exactly what happens to a three-dimensional face, which seems to me photogenic,
when it is 'flattened' by the optical image formation process. I suggest
that the following areas would need to addressed in this research investigation:
· Review of existing literature in photography, art history and
visual studies.
· Review of techniques used by the 'old masters' for painting flattering
portraits.
· Review of what has been accepted as photogenic since the birth
of photography.
· Determine suitable metrics for describing facial features in
2D and 3D, particularly as used by surgeons for facial reconstruction.
The use of 3D holography in portraiture could be considered in comparison
to conventional 2D prints.
· Practical experiments to test all the 'old wives tales' promulgated
by photographers, concerning how to make a subject look better in a portrait
photograph. Analyse the geometry of the lighting and optics used in each.
· Experiment with 3D imaging using a prototype camera rig which
allows the inter-ocular distance to be varied, thereby allowing different
stereo effects to be measured. This might further advance existing techniques
for facial image processing in "photo-fit", computer graphic
rendering and video-conferencing applications.
· Psychophysical testing would need to be employed in some of the
experiments, using a calibrated high-resolution display under controlled
viewing conditions to present various test images and their modifications
to a panel of observers.
A vital question to answer would be whether a photogenic portrait depends more on the image or the observer. If it is image-based then factors such as lighting, contrast, sharpness, naturalness, motion, as well as the reproduction medium (gloss, size, density range, colour gamut, etc.) will need to be analysed. If it is observer-based then factors such as age, experience, expectation, context, associations (cultural, social, ...), gender, fashion and social class will need to be investigated. Skin colour and its accurate reproduction could also be a factor, which should be examined using the 'colour calibrated' apparatus in a psychophysical laboratory.
Richard
Davis, FRPS, MSc
March 2007
Tel: 0208 883 8638
photos@campos-davis.com
There is a blog site at;
http://campos-davis.blog.co.uk
where you can have your say about why you think a photographic portrait is or is not photogenic. Please visit the blog and leave me some feedback. Also of you are a professional photogtapher and are interested in this subject then you can take part in my survey by emailing for for a survey form.
Main web site of Campos & Davis Photos