[leidenfrost]

IMHO it's because in the phone world only a handful of people look good naturally. Another handful learns to compensate by using really complex lighting setups (akin to a real photographic studio).

And the rest of us are left behind. We can even look "approachable enough" for some people by showing your way to approach the world, how we talk, how we move. But all of that is way harder to capture on a static photo.

I personally look terrible in front cameras, and I have a hard time creating any kind of profile in a dating app.

[formerphotoj]

One might go so far as to say in the real world (IRL), only a handful of people look good "naturally."

Try looking at everyone around you in public-EVERYONE. The beautiful people in the media sense are an incredibly small minority. I would argue even in places like L.A., sure lots of glam, but take the population as a whole and wow, such a small percentage. I'm speaking as a former pro photog, FWIW. I look at everyone.

[aredox]

Has there been studies about what criteria/effect make some people "photogenic" compared to "in person"? I am not talking about post-prodeffects or maquillage, but the fact that some physical traits seem better after lens distortion than viewed witht the naked eye in person.

[baobun]

This is very little about looks. Those handful of good-looking people aren't necessarily feeling sexier, happier, or more fulfilled.

[polynomial]

They do have an appreciably different dopamine regulation. So they're feeling something.

(Not defending or apologizing for anyone's lifestyle here.)

[baobun]

?

[polynomial]

meaning they themselves may feel "happier" when they are on their digital dopamine treadmill

there is some subtext here about saying others are "not happier"

[baobun]

The person I was replying to was lamenting about "naturally good-looking people", you're talking about chronically online people.

Different conversations.