Yesss same.
The picture thing is usually because I'm rather tall and whenever someone else takes a picture of me it's slightly from below and you can see my big jaw and slight double chin.
But I'm generally unphotogenic as well lol
The two common things that happen are:
1. The photographer doesn’t have the equipment or ability to take a flattering or honest photo of you. This leads many people to think they are photogenic when in fact they just might be being photographed wrong. The cameras lense distorts features, it can “flatten” or exaggerate the way things look, and by nature of how it works can capture light in ways that make features look harsh or pronounced. It’s also not an actual 3D image and so is more an approximation of 2D in 3D which leads to...
2. Psychology. Most people see their reflection more than their photo. We tend to grow to like that which we become familiar with. It’s why companies and artists go out of their way to make sure a new song is played everywhere. Right up to the point (and sometimes after) you swear you’ll end it all if “that song” plays just once more... each repeat increases your chances of starting to like it. Same with foods and other things- the term “acquired taste..”
So you see you backwards and distorted mirror reflection enough and even if you think you’re “ugly,” it becomes familiar and the self image you identify as “you.” When you see a photo, which distorts you in ways that the mirror does not- that doesn’t flip your features right to left- that’s a whole new you. Your brain dissociates “you” from the person in that picture and as such- is less inclined to like it. That doesn’t mean you are not photogenic or even bad looking- it just means that you aren’t attracted to yourself. Now- I’m not saying that every person who looks bad in a photo is super model material- but I am saying that mirrors and photos don’t “tell the whole truth” and do so differently. So fun facts.
Taking tests is- in many places more important than “being smart,” as anything but a remark oriented observable trial will generally involve a test to quantify your ability. So I’m not sure the comparison is apt. A photographer (of humans) is like a teacher in that way- they control the lighting, the posing, the camera settings, and can clean up in post. An attractive person can learn basic posture and have a good photographer- learn their angles- etc. and look GREAT in photos. An unattractive person can look good through luck or the same means in photos- and both can be photoshopped and filtered to be unrecognizable in person. A smart person bad at tests can learn to be good at tests easier than a not smart person who is good at tests can “become smart.” While beauty is subjective to an observer as it’s prinary definition- intelligence does have subjective qualities but exists in demonstratable and various capacities. Tests however tend to be rigidly quantifiable inmperformace and...
“Pass or fail.” So I might say it is more apt to compare one who is attractive but not photogenic to one who is skilled in a field or a “good worker” but who has poor interview and/or interpersonal skills. Likewise I might compare one who is poor at tests but intelligent to one who is great at measuring but terrible at drafting. They have the requisite skills to complete the task, and can apply those skills to other things, but cannot put a specific quantifiable use to the skill or ability.
Grades: summa cum laude LSAT: Did you even write your name?!
The picture thing is usually because I'm rather tall and whenever someone else takes a picture of me it's slightly from below and you can see my big jaw and slight double chin.
But I'm generally unphotogenic as well lol
1. The photographer doesn’t have the equipment or ability to take a flattering or honest photo of you. This leads many people to think they are photogenic when in fact they just might be being photographed wrong. The cameras lense distorts features, it can “flatten” or exaggerate the way things look, and by nature of how it works can capture light in ways that make features look harsh or pronounced. It’s also not an actual 3D image and so is more an approximation of 2D in 3D which leads to...
2. Psychology. Most people see their reflection more than their photo. We tend to grow to like that which we become familiar with. It’s why companies and artists go out of their way to make sure a new song is played everywhere. Right up to the point (and sometimes after) you swear you’ll end it all if “that song” plays just once more... each repeat increases your chances of starting to like it. Same with foods and other things- the term “acquired taste..”