# be photogenic / photograph well



## beppo

What's a colloquial expression for being or not being photogenic? Can you say that "you come out well or bad in a picture" ?


----------



## difficult cuss

Not photogenic...."has a face for radio", "best seen with the lights out", or as a friend's very posh mother once said of a TV presenter "she has an unfortunate face".


----------



## MissFit

You could say "you take a good/bad picture" or "you photograph well/badly."   But why not just say "you're (not) photogenic."  It's concise, descriptive, and it's not an obscure word at all.


----------



## beppo

thanks MissFit


----------



## Brave Heart

Hi all, 

I have this sentence: "He's not very photogenic", which I believe is good English.

I'm just wondering if the word "photogenic" might be a big word in an informal conversation with a friend. Is it not?

Thanks.


----------



## cycloneviv

"Photogenic" is absolutely fine to use in casual conversation.


----------



## anothersmith

It's fine here in the U.S., too.


----------



## Brave Heart

Thanks guys. I appreciate your help.


----------



## Harry Batt

On the negative side when the photo turns out badly you would not likely say, "Oh, this photo is non-photogenic." The reaction would be something of this order, "Geez! This looks worse than my driver's license." [implied photo]


----------



## Brave Heart

Thanks Harry Batt. I appreciate your help. 

It's amusing to find that, in the US as well as in Japan, the photo of one's driver's license tends to look awful.


----------



## Yoni

Fine in England also.


----------



## Yoni

Harry Batt said:


> On the negative side when the photo turns out badly [implied photo]


 
Yes, but if you take the negative to a photo lab and they make a print out of it, who knows - it may turn out fine ...

(G D & R)


----------



## Brave Heart

Thanks Yoni. I appreciate your help.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Don't you think it's the *person *who is or isn't photogenic, not the *photo*?


----------



## Brave Heart

Hi Thomas Tompion. Yes, I guess everyone in this thread agrees with you on that point.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Brave Heart said:


> Hi Thomas Tompion. Yes, I guess everyone in this thread agrees with you on that point.


 
It was the remark *'this photo is non-photogenic'* which prompted my observation, Brave Heart.


----------



## namlan

- She photographs very well.

- Instead of this , can I say "She is very photogenic."?

Thanks a lot!

NamLan


----------



## cyberpedant

"She is very photogenic." Is even better, as it is unambiguous.


----------



## katie_here

or how about 

"She is very photogenic, the camera loves her".


----------



## NHHL

John: You know what? Mary has a lovely face, that's why she photographs very well.
Susan: I second that.

- Are "She is very photogenic" and "She photographs very well" interchangeable in this context?

Thanks so much!


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Yes, they mean the same.


----------



## Cypherpunk

NHHL said:


> John: You know what? Mary has a lovely face, that's why she photographs very well.
> Susan: I second that.
> 
> - Are "She is very photogenic" and "She photographs very well" interchangeable in this context?
> 
> Thanks so much!



I hate to disagree with GWB, but I think this is regional. Many people in the Midwest and South would give you a blank look, if you said _she photographs well_. They would not understand why being pretty has anything to do with taking pictures well.
I would definitely use _photogenic_ over _photographs well_.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Cypherpunk said:


> I hate to disagree with GWB, but I think this is regional. Many people in the Midwest and South would give you a blank look, if you said _she photographs well_. They would not understand why being pretty has anything to do with taking pictures well.
> I would definitely use _photogenic_ over _photographs well_.


 
Whether, because of regional indiosyncracies, you would prefer one to the other does not change the fact that in this instance, they both mean the same.


----------



## Cypherpunk

Not when someone thinks you said _something else_.


----------



## Ynez

GreenWhiteBlue, I just learnt that meaning of "photograph". I would not have understood _she looks good in pictures_, but _she is good at taking pictures_.

The meaning is in the dictionary, though (4):



> –verb (used with object)
> 2.	to take a photograph of.
> –verb (used without object)
> 3.	to practice photography.
> 4.	to be photographed or be suitable for being photographed in some specified way: The children photograph well.



dictionary.com


----------



## ewie

They mean the same to me too ... and I'm fairly certain I'd use both


----------



## Gwan

Cypherpunk said:


> I hate to disagree with GWB, but I think this is regional. Many people in the Midwest and South would give you a blank look, if you said _she photographs well_. They would not understand why being pretty has anything to do with taking pictures well.
> I would definitely use _photogenic_ over _photographs well_.


 
I can understand how it might cause confusion (although I, too, see the phrases as interchangeable). But in your region, would anyone use the phrase _she photographs well _if they actually meant _she takes good photographs_, though?


----------



## dreamlike

*I don't photograph well / I'm not very photogenic*

Hi,

I think that both sentences mean exactly the same thing - _I don't exactly look very attractive in photographs, so I'd rather you didn't take a picture of me. _
Is there any difference between the two? Perhaps I'm missing somethng. I think they might differ minutely - "I don't photograph well" being less formal. 

Which of the two is more common and you yourself would be more likely to use? 

*At the family reunion 
*- Common, join us. We're going to take a picture. 
- I don't photograph well. / I'm not very photogenic


----------



## Copyright

I think they both mean pretty much the same, but I wouldn't use either. I would say, *I'd rather not have my photograph taken. *


----------



## panjandrum

I think you have understood this, and the difference, correctly 

There is also a slight difference in where each statement places the blame.
"I'm not very photogenic," seems to be admitting a flaw.
"I don't photograph well," suggests that the fault lies with the photographer and/or the equipment


----------



## dreamlike

Thanks for your answers. 

Copyright, I think that it would be good to provide a reason for one's reluctance to having his/her photograph taken. 

Panjandrum, let's take the sentence "Some people just don't photograph well" - which is a general statement. Would you find the photographer and/or the equipment at fault for such state of affairs? Different people might be photographed by different photographers, with different gear used to take each of the pictures.


----------



## Copyright

I think panjandrum has offered an excellent distinction, which occurred to me but I glossed over. I will say, however, that as soon as you offer a reason, you leave yourself open to counter-arguments from the photographer and from others. If you want to be persuaded, that's fine. But if you really don't want to be photographed, I would advise against giving a reason for it.

_"I'm really not very photogenic."
"I think you're beautiful. Now smile."

__"I really don't photograph well." 
"That's because you've never been photographed by me. Now smile."

_Leaving you with having to come up with something else, and perhaps sounding less kind than you would like to.


----------



## DocPenfro

In my experience, "I'm not very photogenic" is a euphemistic way of saying "I think I'm not very attractive and I'd rather not have formal confirmation of this."  An expert portrait photographer can make any face look appealing, or at least 'interesting', by the right combination of lighting, angle and a chance expression.


----------



## Loob

dreamlike said:


> - Common, join us. We're going to take a picture.
> - I don't photograph well. / I'm not very photogenic


I wouldn't use either in that situation, for the reasons already discussed. I'm much more likely to use both "don't photograph well" and "not very photogenic" in relation to third parties (people or objects), not to myself.

What I would say is "I hate having my photograph taken".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not sure about some of this.  I don't mention it often on the forum, but I am a photographer, and people in my shop talk a lot about this or that person being photogenic or not.

There is an old man in the village who is extraordinarily photogenic.  The baker's wife was agreeing with me about this recently.  The man is extremely ugly in the conventional sense and doesn't like having his photo taken, but every time I photograph him, it comes out well.  He doesn't look beautiful, of course, but the photo seems magically to  project his personality and mood.  I think that's what the baker's wife and I were agreeing about.  He photographs well; he's very photogenic.

In the case Loob is talking about, I also would say 'I hate having my photograph taken', but then I've better reasons for saying that than Loob.


----------



## dreamlike

DocPenfro said:


> In my experience, "I'm not very photogenic" is a euphemistic way of saying "I think I'm not very attractive and I'd rather not have formal confirmation of this."



Either that or a person really photographs badly, and thus does not relish the prospect of having her/his photograph taken. I know of some girls who are exquisitely beautiful, but pictures don't reflect their beauty. Come to think of it, I know one girl who is really pretty, but at the same there's something wrong with her face muscles, and her expression always comes out really strange.

In Poland, people rarely say "I hate having my photograph taken", they are far more likely to use of one the expressions in question. I think that all these expressions leave exactly the same room for persuasion, so it doesn't really matter which one you decide you use.

You made a very interesting point, Thomas. I think it all boils down to the question what do "photogenic" and "photographing well/badly" mean. Well, I mean we all know the traditional meaning - but even if beauty is not the person's strongest suit, her/his pictures can have a certain appeal.


----------



## suzi br

If I don't want to have my photo taken I find it easier to be assertive and take copyright's option rather than open up a discussion point about my looks!   It's a tricky social context, a bit like being dragged to the dance floor, people think you will always go along with their plans and  can get offended if you say no!


----------



## dreamlike

I think it largely depends on a person rater than on the expression you use. "*I'd rather not have my photograph taken" *can trigger exactly the same discussion (_"Oh? And why is that?_") as "I don't photograph well" or "I'm not very photogenic", if you face some really pushy individual.


----------



## Copyright

_"I'd rather not have my photograph taken."
"Oh? And why is that?"
"Because I wouldn't."
_


----------



## dreamlike

I don't like being brusque to people so I would probably try to explain it nicely first, and, facing tough opposition, resort to some more persuasive words


----------



## PaulQ

I don't photograph well / I'm not very photogenic
Is an entirely different and unrelated concept from
I'd rather not have my photograph taken.

I three-quarters agree with Panjandrum #3 but see both I don't photograph well and I'm not very photogenic as (i) opinions and (ii) a little indicative of shyness or a lack of self-confidence but may reach a point of being factual. The speaker may, nevertheless agree to being photographed.

I'd rather not have my photograph taken. Is a statement by way of assertive request without a reason or opinion.


----------



## Loob

Don't forget, dreamlike, that you asked:





dreamlike said:


> Which of the two is more common and you yourself would be more likely to use?
> 
> *At the family reunion
> *- Common, join us. We're going to take a picture.
> - I don't photograph well. / I'm not very photogenic


Copyright, suzi, TT and I have all indicated that we'd use neither in that context: Copyright and suzi would use "I'd rather not have my photograph taken"; TT and I would use "I hate having my photograph taken".


----------



## dreamlike

Yes, I forgot about that for a moment  

Thanks for all your help again.


----------



## ewie

(You also forgot to search for previous threads again, DL)

*Moderator note:* This thread has been cobbled together from five smaller ones ~ there's a surprising amount* of agreement on the subject

(*Nothing like 100%, obviously.)


----------



## dreamlike

Does my feeble memory qualify as extenuating circumstances, Ewie? 

We had a very fruitful discussion here and made a mention of many things that weren't mentioned in previous threads, so I feel somewhat justified. But only a tiny bit


----------



## pwmeek

There is another phrase that implies the quality of being *photogenic*: "The camera loves her/him." It implies that photographs (or movies) of the subject generally turn out well.


----------



## dreamlike

Thanks, pwmeek. I think I heard it used a couple of times. Can we, by extension, say "The camera doesn't love her/him" meaning "He/she doesn't look attractive in photographs"?

I think it would be perfectly intelligible. That being said, it doesn't sound too good.


----------



## pwmeek

dreamlike said:


> Thanks, pwmeek. I think I heard it used a couple of times. Can we, by extension, say "The camera doesn't love her/him" meaning "He/she doesn't look attractive in photographs"?
> 
> I think it would be perfectly intelligible. That being said, it doesn't sound too good.



Possibly, "The camera hates him," (parallel construction) although I have never heard this.

Also, the implication is more that photographs turn out as well or better than expected (or worse, in this case), than actual beauty or attractiveness. However, *photogenic* _is_ almost always used with the connotation of beauty, or even (incorrectly) as synonymous with beautiful.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

pwmeek said:


> [...]
> Also, the implication is more that photographs turn out as well or better than expected (or worse, in this case), than actual beauty or attractiveness. However, *photogenic* _is_ almost always used with the connotation of beauty, or even (incorrectly) as synonymous with beautiful.


This makes it hard to account for the quite common epithet _ugly but photogenic_.


----------



## panjandrum

This thread has stopped addressing any of the original questions and has therefore been closed.


----------

