Photos you wouldn't be seen dead in

JohnR · « **on:** 14 Nov 2007, 12:15 pm »

How about a thread for ghastly photographs (not your own, of course!). My entry, just spotted -

nathanm · « **Reply #1 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 04:35 pm »

I think there's a rack of papers at the average grocery store dedicated to such pictures!

One thing I've always wondered about the celebrity paparazzi pictures is how many of them are overexposed junk simply because there's thirty other flashes going off the same as yours? I know it's just a fraction of a second but still, when you get a bank of those guys it's like a fireworks display. Hmmm.

IronLion · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 04:42 pm »

While I think a few of these photos may make people look bad because of multiple flashes in one exposure, I don't think the majority of them are because you would have to deliberately underexpose your shot and bank on other people's flashes for proper exposure, which would be tricky to say the least.

If anything, I think its interesting to consider how there are probably paparazzi out there who are paid to take ugly photos of people ,and how they can configure their gear to best achieve this; for example, putting the flash unit as close to the lens as possible so that the results look like a point and shoot camera with the flash right next to the lens or near it, but with the resolution and sharpness of professional gear.

Quote from: nathanm on 14 Nov 2007, 04:35 pm

I think there's a rack of papers at the average grocery store dedicated to such pictures!

One thing I've always wondered about the celebrity paparazzi pictures is how many of them are overexposed junk simply because there's thirty other flashes going off the same as yours? I know it's just a fraction of a second but still, when you get a bank of those guys it's like a fireworks display. Hmmm.

nathanm · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 06:27 pm »

I was speaking of two unrelated issues. I don't think that multiple flashes have anything to do with unpleasant looking people, I was thinking more of a shot which is technically blown out because your flash happened to sync up with someone elses' and got 2x or more light, that's all. I wonder how many shots that happens on.

The photo above is bad mainly because of awkward facial expression, but certainly punch flash of any kind doesn't do anyone any favors even if it is properly exposed.

It's pretty easy to get an unflattering photo of just about anyone. The supermarket rags just have a cruel, inverted photo editor job where only the most ugly photos are chosen. I also suspect that some of them are doctoring celebrities to look fatter, wrinklier and more awkward just as the other mags are doctoring to make people look good.

nathanm · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 06:39 pm »

I wouldn't wanna be caught dead in this photo for one. I wouldn't want to be standing back there and have anyone think that I was in any way involved in a protest with this yokel, or that I shared a country with such a dimwit.

MaxCast · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 06:45 pm »

Who'd want to get a pic take with a Cardinals fan

AdamM · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 07:31 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 14 Nov 2007, 06:27 pm

I don't think that multiple flashes have anything to do with unpleasant looking people, I was thinking more of a shot which is technically blown out because your flash happened to sync up with someone elses' and got 2x or more light, that's all. I wonder how many shots that happens on.

I bet it barely happens ever at all. Flashes are pretty quick.. The average strobe duration is 1/20,000 of a sec on the very long side, down to 30 millionths of a sec on the short side. That's not much room in even one second for the chance of overlap.

We experience the flash as existing for much longer than it really does due to that persistence of vision thing us feeble humans have . Image sequences played much above 1/16th of sec glue together in our brains.

IronLion · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 07:36 pm »

I've had it happen before; as quick as the flash burst itself is, whats really relevant in this particular case is the shutter speed you or the people around you are using. I've caught multiple flashes before using 1/30 and 1/60 shutter speeds; even slower shutter speeds would obviously catch more flashes in the right situation.

Quote from: AdamM on 14 Nov 2007, 07:31 pm

Quote from: nathanm on 14 Nov 2007, 06:27 pm
I don't think that multiple flashes have anything to do with unpleasant looking people, I was thinking more of a shot which is technically blown out because your flash happened to sync up with someone elses' and got 2x or more light, that's all. I wonder how many shots that happens on.

I bet it barely happens ever at all. Flashes are pretty quick.. The average strobe duration is 1/20,000 of a sec on the very long side, down to 30 millionths of a sec on the short side. That's not much room in even one second for the chance of overlap.

We experience the flash as existing for much longer than it really does due to that persistence of vision thing us feeble humans have . Image sequences played much above 1/16th of sec glue together in our brains.

AdamM · « **Reply #8 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 07:45 pm »

Quote from: IronLion on 14 Nov 2007, 07:36 pm

I've had it happen before; as quick as the flash burst itself is, whats really relevant in this particular case is the shutter speed you or the people around you are using. I've caught multiple flashes before using 1/30 and 1/60 shutter speeds; even slower shutter speeds would obviously catch more flashes in the right situation.

Yes, that's the crucial point! I guess most people are probably synching at 1/125.. or 1/60. Which would allow a decent enough window... Too early.. brain not working...

<gropes for coffee> So while they're not physically overlapping they are in regards to the sensor.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 10:39 pm »

Photos you wouldn't be seen dead in.....

I would at least be wearing my Audio Circle shirt....

some young guy · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Nov 2007, 10:59 pm »

i think i'll stay away from this one:

...and i'm also uninterested in this one (not that there's anything wrong with it):

Turnandcough · « **Reply #11 on:** 15 Nov 2007, 12:20 am »

Quote from: lonewolfny42 on 14 Nov 2007, 10:39 pm

Photos you wouldn't be seen dead in.....

I would at least be wearing my Audio Circle shirt....

Wow! If you showed just a little more enthusiasm you could probably land a job on The Price is Right.
...plus this beautiful 17 cu ft Amana refrigerator...

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Nov 2007, 12:35 am »

Quote

Wow! If you showed just a little more enthusiasm you could probably land a job on The Price is Right.
...plus this beautiful 17 cu ft Amana refrigerator...

Naaaa....Since 'ole Bob has retired....I can't be that enthusiastic....

nathanm · « **Reply #13 on:** 26 Nov 2007, 05:02 pm »

The thing about a model, it's got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When it comes at you it doesn't seem to be livin'...

This one totally gives me the creeps. Can't remember where I found it, though. Somewheres on the interweb...

8thnerve · « **Reply #14 on:** 26 Nov 2007, 05:10 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 26 Nov 2007, 05:02 pm

The thing about a model, it's got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When it comes at you it doesn't seem to be livin'...

This one totally gives me the creeps. Can't remember where I found it, though. Somewheres on the interweb...

AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Step aside Chucky!

Grumpy_Git · « **Reply #15 on:** 27 Nov 2007, 05:01 pm »

Nathan

That would imply that you have it saved on your computer, I find that fact even more scary than the photo!

Nick.

goldlizsts · « **Reply #16 on:** 27 Nov 2007, 05:32 pm »

Quote from: lonewolfny42 on 14 Nov 2007, 10:39 pm

Photos you wouldn't be seen dead in.....

I would at least be wearing my Audio Circle shirt....

I thought you had taken off the A/C shirt because it wouldn't fit!!!!!!!!!!!

jqp · « **Reply #17 on:** 28 Nov 2007, 02:11 am »

DON'T LET THEM STEAL YOUR SOUL !

jqp · « **Reply #18 on:** 28 Nov 2007, 02:15 am »

Hey at least give us the most flattering shot

jqp · « **Reply #19 on:** 28 Nov 2007, 02:11 pm »

Notice the disclaimer 'Pic digitally altered' (wonder what the original looked like)