| people don't – and for very real reasons... | | | | as a square, has absolutely NO depth (thickness) at all. |
| I've been taking professional photographs for about | | | | This means that it is completely invisible when looked |
| thirty years. Ever since I started, I've heard a constant | | | | at from the side view. But what's this all got to do with |
| comment. It is always said something like "I just don't | | | | why you don't look good in photographs? Simple: |
| take good pictures" or "the camera just doesn't like | | | | people are three dimensional, and photographs are |
| me." Almost invariably, when this statement is uttered, | | | | only two dimensional. |
| everyone within earshot gives a chuckle, or | | | | Anytime that you lose a dimension, your view is |
| immediately starts assuring the speaker that they | | | | penalized, per se. If I take a head-on photograph of a |
| really do look good. Sometimes it's true, but often it's | | | | cube, it appears as a square. I can do some 'tricks' to |
| not. Some people do not photograph well – it's | | | | fool the viewer, such as make sure there is a shadow |
| that simple. | | | | showing that the square is actually a cube, or taking |
| To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever been | | | | the photo at an angle which shows at least one other |
| able to compose a list of physical features that cause | | | | side of the cube. But no matter what I do, the picture |
| someone to photograph well, or photograph poorly. | | | | will always be a two dimensional view of a three |
| Game show guru Monty Hall believed that the secret | | | | dimensional object. Needless to say, there is a |
| was in the size of the head. He insisted that all of the | | | | substantial difference between a square and a cube. |
| hosts of his shows had large heads. Obviously, this | | | | And there is a substantial difference between seeing |
| worked for him – his unmatched success | | | | someone and seeing a picture of that same someone. |
| attests to that. | | | | In people, all sorts of things affect how we perceive |
| Hollywood stars and starlets are very persnickety | | | | them. Many of these things are only present because |
| about how they are photographed. There are extreme | | | | of the third dimension. The distance between the ears |
| cases, such as actor Alan Ladd. Mr. Ladd was quite | | | | and the tip of the nose, the depth of the eye sockets, |
| short, and insisted that trenches be dug throughout the | | | | the distance the nose and chin protrude from the face, |
| sets to make him always appear taller. When a trench | | | | and so on. None of these elements of a person's |
| wouldn't do, he had stools. Barbra Streisand goes to | | | | appearance are necessarily discernable in a |
| great lengths to ensure that only one of her profiles is | | | | photograph, and yet they are easily seen in person. |
| photographed. Note that she will always have her | | | | Some people are attractive because of the 3-D |
| escort on her right arm – to cause | | | | elements. Others do not depend on 3-D elements so |
| photographers to shoot her from the left side – | | | | much for their attractive appearance. And some |
| her best side, according to the singing actress. | | | | people have such a string feature that is visible in 2-D, |
| If you've looked at enough photographs, and seen | | | | that any loss of 3-D is not very noticeable. Paul |
| enough TV and movies, you've been struck by one or | | | | Newman, for example, was quite famous for his |
| two anomalies. Someone who is frightfully unattractive | | | | striking blue eyes. Blue is not dependant on dimension. |
| looks great in a photograph, or, someone who is | | | | Try to find a professional photograph of comedian |
| stunningly attractive looks horrible. What causes this? Is | | | | actor Jimmy Durante that did not emphasize his |
| the photographer lacking skill? Bad lighting, perhaps? | | | | notoriously prominent proboscis. In a frontal view, he |
| Did the subject have a bad day? Of course these | | | | was just a mediocre looking fellow, but when his face |
| things could be true, but there's actually a very real, | | | | was photographed to accentuate his large nose, he |
| constant explanation for this phenomenon: dimensions. | | | | became quite unique. |
| We humans live in a world of three dimensions: front | | | | If you or someone you know doesn't photograph well, |
| back • left/right • up/down. Since we | | | | take heart. You might try getting a digital camera and |
| have stereo vision, we can see all three of these | | | | shooting picture after picture – each one |
| dimensions. Using geometry, we can see how the | | | | showing just a modest shift of the angle of the head. |
| dimensions are arrived at. A straight line is one | | | | Don't just change the angle side-to-side, but up and |
| dimension: front back. To create the second dimension, | | | | down as well. Looking slightly upward changes |
| make a line at a right angle to the first line, and do so | | | | everything, as does looking slightly to one side. Do this |
| until you have a square. This is two dimensional. Now, | | | | in full, but not direct light – such as under your |
| make squares at right angles to the first square until | | | | porch, or on a cloudy day. Don’t use the flash! If |
| you have a cube – that's three dimensional. | | | | this doesn't achieve the desired result, try the same |
| Voila! | | | | thing, but have a prominent light source. You can do |
| We suspicion that there are more dimensions. Using | | | | this by pointing a light directly towards yourself, or by |
| the first three dimensions as the guide, if you took a | | | | sitting in a darkened room, with only one light source in |
| cube and made cubes at right angles to it, ultimately | | | | the room. |
| you'd have a 4-D cube – sometimes called a | | | | The techniques above will help to exaggerate the |
| hypercube, or "tesseract." The problem is, we can't | | | | illusion of 3-D in the 2-D medium of the photograph. Do |
| even imagine a tesseract, much less make one. It's all | | | | this enough, in enough positions and with enough lighting |
| theoretical. Some things in geometry are hard to grasp, | | | | changes, and you just might be able to get back those |
| but a tesseract is impossible to grasp. | | | | good looks the camera's 2-D limitation has stolen from |
| One of the problems we have in understanding | | | | you. Good luck! |
| geometry is simply this: a two dimensional object, such | | | | |