Photogenic clichés

[akauya]

I think it's given that most of us hate the cliche that goes "she looks better than her pictures" when they talk about photoshopped or studio pics; that's just nonsense.

However, when it comes to ordinary snapshots, perhaps those taken with mobile phones, there are times when, in real life, some of the girls actually look a hell of a lot better than their pictures. This has happened to me last few times; for example recently with Amanda and Sami. In real life they do actually look a lot better than their pictures.

Personally I know I'm not photogenic. I may not look like an Adonis but invariably I look like Quasimodo's twin brother in most of my pictures.

I noticed that a few punters have mentioned that they found the girls better looking than their pics too, and I'm not talking about fluffy punters here.

Opinions?

[vorian]

Being photogenic is a real thing,  imo some girls do look better in the flesh, might have something to do with staged photos pro or am showing people as stiff and uncomfortable.  Does surprise me how few profiles have a picture of a prossie laughing naturally or simply smiling.

[akauya]

That's very true. One case in point is External Link/Members Only, she is pretty but hardly ever miles on her pics, especially her original ones, recent ones are a bit better. When I saw her in the flesh she was gorgeous and of course she smiled a lot which made her look even more pretty.

[anyfucker]

That's very true. One case in point is External Link/Members Only, she is pretty but hardly ever miles on her pics, especially her original ones, recent ones are a bit better. When I saw her in the flesh she was gorgeous and of course she smiled a lot which made her look even more pretty.

same for Scottish+Sarah  she finally has a half decent set of pics but has put her price up

[fredpunter]

I think it's given that most of us hate the cliche that goes "she looks better than her pictures" when they talk about photoshopped or studio pics; that's just nonsense.

However, when it comes to ordinary snapshots, perhaps those taken with mobile phones, there are times when, in real life, some of the girls actually look a hell of a lot better than their pictures. This has happened to me last few times; for example recently with Amanda and Sami. In real life they do actually look a lot better than their pictures.

Personally I know I'm not photogenic. I may not look like an Adonis but invariably I look like Quasimodo's twin brother in most of my pictures.

I noticed that a few punters have mentioned that they found the girls better looking than their pics too, and I'm not talking about fluffy punters here.

Opinions?

If sami looks better in the flesh than she does in her photos then she is a must see, I like the photos a lot!

To answer your question, its hard to capture character and fun and enthusiasm in a photo, and they ate the sort of thing that can greatly increase someone's attractiveness.

[Rochdull lad]

Yes; if she comes across as an enthusiastic WG when you actually meet her, then that can make her seem more attractive. 

Besides the number of WGs who have facial photos in their free Galleries is comparatively small so you can't always get a proper "feel" for how attractive [or not] she is until she opens the door to you.  Both my current Regulars have "free" face photos, although until a recent  re-vamp of her Profile, one didn't used to.

[CBPaul]

 invariably I look like Quasimodo's twin brother in most of my pictures.

  I know what you mean, the camera always gets me when I appear to be chewing a wasp.

I can't stand the photoshopped or professional pictures - an with 'my latest shoot' put me right off because I know she won't spend that long in makeup for me if I book an 60 minute slot.

The 'normal' photos are usually pretty crap with nervous poses and I'd say 7 of the last 10 I've seen made me think they are better looking in the flesh. It's not a fluffy thing either although it is so easily misconstrued as such.

To me the important thing is whether she is the girl in the photos, then how closely does she match them.

[pleasure]

I think it's just a natural reaction when you're there with a girl to think she's better looking.

You're there looking through a bunch of pictures on AW, you've seen a hundred girls that day already, you may well have been looking at porn too, where the girls are hotter than most of the prossies you've been looking through. It's pretty hard to be particularly impressed.

Then you turn up to an actual meeting. The girl is right there in front of you in the flesh, half-naked, all her attention (hopefully) focused on you. I think it's natural to be more impressed by the girl at this point than when you were casually browsing through her gallery.

Maybe that's just me, but I think that's the reason why the cliché of "looks better than her pictures" almost always applies when I meet a girl - with the obvious exception of when the pictures turn out to have been from 10 years ago, or of a totally different girl.

[Sedlmayer]

Whilst it is a bit of a cliché, saying a girl looks better in the flesh than her photos isn't necessarily IMHO fluffy.
Look at it the other way - if a girl turned out to be less attractive than her pictures, you'd definitely mention it, wouldn't you?
A judgement upon how representative a girl's pictures are is always valuable in my book.

[hendrix]

The thing is, I really don't like most photoshopped pictures..the girls usually look like statues with no "real" woman there. ..so, as long as the girl is "attractive" by my standards and the pictures aren't completely misleading, I nearly always think she "looks better than the pictures"

[Sedlmayer]

The thing is, I really don't like most photoshopped pictures..the girls usually look like statues with no "real" woman there. ..so, as long as the girl is "attractive" by my standards and the pictures aren't completely misleading, I nearly always think she "looks better than the pictures"

Yep, me too - totally agree

[dilettante]

Yep, "her photos don't do her justice" (maybe she's "doing her justice" too if the local magistrate is one of her clients ...) - it's true that being photogenic is either a gift or something acquired at RADA, and if you stood a girl up and took a shot of her, she'd look better than the shot.

But that's not allowing for such acts of minor quasi-deception as submitting photos that are ever-so-slightly out of date or taken right at the end of a lengthy diet, even if actual photoshopping isn't involved - so from my experience, girls usually DON'T look as good as their photos!

[Sedlmayer]

Yep, "her photos don't do her justice" (maybe she's "doing her justice" too if the local magistrate is one of her clients ...) - it's true that being photogenic is either a gift or something acquired at RADA, and if you stood a girl up and took a shot of her, she'd look better than the shot.

But that's not allowing for such acts of minor quasi-deception as submitting photos that are ever-so-slightly out of date or taken right at the end of a lengthy diet, even if actual photoshopping isn't involved - so from my experience, girls usually DON'T look as good as their photos!

well, yeah - that kind of thing does also happen. It's called "punting" after all, and it's always Caveat Emptor.....

[aerofan5]

I have noticed that girls are wary and anxious at your first punt with them, and this causes them to appear less attractive than their photographs.

Once you have reassured them that you are a no-problem, genuinely nice guy, they relax and smile, and it transforms their looks immensely.

[Rochdull lad]

One reason why I almost arrange a first punt some days in advance is so that I can email the girl with a bit about me.

That's not just so I can assure her that I'm not "a no-problem, genuinely nice guy" [thank you for that phrase, aerofan; I might borrow it for future use! ]; but also to tell her my age and how my disability affects my ability to get into certain positions so that, if she's unhappy about anything, she can cancel the arrangement.

[domino131]

I think it's just a natural reaction when you're there with a girl to think she's better looking.

You're there looking through a bunch of pictures on AW, you've seen a hundred girls that day already, you may well have been looking at porn too, where the girls are hotter than most of the prossies you've been looking through. It's pretty hard to be particularly impressed.

Then you turn up to an actual meeting. The girl is right there in front of you in the flesh, half-naked, all her attention (hopefully) focused on you. I think it's natural to be more impressed by the girl at this point than when you were casually browsing through her gallery.

Maybe that's just me, but I think that's the reason why the cliché of "looks better than her pictures" almost always applies when I meet a girl - with the obvious exception of when the pictures turn out to have been from 10 years ago, or of a totally different girl.

I think this is pretty much it.  I think it's a totally different thing, psychologically, looking at a pic than it is looking at a real person right in front of you.  I'm sure I'm not alone in being a lot more hard to impress when it comes to photos.  In real life I've been attracted to people who I probably wouldn't have given a second look if I saw a photo.

I've known a few models in my time and I've had experience of posing for photos and the like, and there really is a weird thing about how 'photogenic' people are.  Some people who look good in real life don't come out so well on film, and some people just look totally different on camera (for better or worse).  A lot of it is about knowing how to pose - it's like people who have a natural stage presence.  I've known some very good looking people who just don't have the talent for modelling and end up looking kind of flat and uninteresting in their photos.