Having met a few of them in the flesh, can I just say that there seem to be a good few people on here whose photographs do not do them justice - far from it.

Can I suggest that a (semi-)professional photo might be a very good investment as far as self-esteem is concerned? I've met up with some really gorgeous looking people from this site, but I bet they don't think of themselves in those terms.

Tee hee - we know who you mean Ron - and thank you kind sir for the compliments!

As one of those who Ron met, am delighted to accept the compliment... (very uncharacteristically). This OMPTD is having an impact!

In regard to professional photographs - am not sure about this one - I often find that people are far more gorgeous in the flesh, as you get the measure of the whole person...

And who do we think we mean, Fiona? That's flown right over me, and I was there!!

... us of course!

Actually Julia, if you don't mind my saying, I think you are one of those people who looks far lovelier in real life than in photographs - certainly the ones you've posted on here. I suspect I am too as I'm usually caught mid-grimace!

I take your point, but so often people put up a less-than-flattering photo of themselves because they don't believe they're photogenic. A good photographer should be able to bring out something of that gorgeousness to which you refer.

Interesting article on the reasons why people don't like to be photographed in today's Body & Soul section.

I am so glad that you brought this subject up Ron. As you are probably aware, I have been on a bit of a 'mission' to get these fabulous ladies to be more positive about themselves for a while now.


From a purely technical point of view, it is worth noting that the old saying that: The camera never lies' is a load of tosh!!

I believe part of the reason some folks hate photos of themselves is that unless care is taken, any picture that you have taken or had taken of yourself is unlikely to be a true image. It will vary considerably from the image seen in a mirror.

Any prof. photog. will take great care to select the appropriate lens for the type of photo taken. For most 35mm style cameras, a lens length of 70 - 80mm will give a pretty accurate portrait image when the camera is moved so that the subject fills the frame. Shorter lens lengths (Most cameras are typically sold with an 18 - 55mm lens included) will distort the image making the subject appear wider than they should. They will also make the subject widen out at the bottom if the camera is only very slightly tipped upwards, so it is extremely important to have the camera perfectly vertical.

As stated before, select the proper lens length and then move the camera to get the image size that you desire. Do not 'zoom' the lens to make the image fit. This will result in a distorted image.


Boring technical discussion over. I think a proper portrait photo would do some of the girls no-end of good. They then might actually see how 'AbFab' they are!

As a demonstration of what I was saying here are two pics of the same thing taken at different lens length settings.





Which one is the most accurate?

Just spent an hour with a photographer from The Times. Waiting with baited breath for the results ....

Another AbFab 'Member of the month'?

Brilliant, congrats!

Thanks but v nervous about what I said in the interview and (said in whisper...) how I'll look in the picture!!! Kept thinking about your positive attitude and yellow card...!

LOL

No worries!

Based on the piccie on here, and what you have written in the forums, I am sure that you have nothing to worry about.


Did he/she get you into lots of 'silly' situations/positions!

When they came here, he must have taken 200 pics. Same thing in Edinburgh!

'She' took what seemed like hundreds. So cringe-making having to pose and, yes, even try to smile! Hope there will be at least one or two that are suitable. We'll see next week. I didn't realise how much effort went into one photo, multiplied by the dozens that are in the paper on a Saturday or Sunday. BTW what 'positions did 'he/she' get you into then...?

LOL

Nothing too sinister!

At the time I had lost 5stone 2lbs and the worst was, he had me holding the scales up by my face 'squeezing' them to show 5 Stone 2lbs. Have you any idea how much finger tip pressure that took???!!! And then he wanted me to smile too!! I must have ended up looking 'constipated' as they did not use that one!!

LOL


Anyhoo...off to a diferent kind of 'pictures' now. Ruth and I are going to see either Mama Mia or Wall-E. Won't know 'til we get there which one.


Will check back in later.

Hasta la vista...........

Cool Steph will look out for the article.

Well done Steph - how exciting - let us know which one it will be.

They'll ring you up and tell you what they've written and you can change anything you don't like.

OK guys, you have a point! I actually don't mind being photographed, but will look out the article on-line. I'll ponder it some more....

Well done Steph, you kept that quiet on Monday!!

Didn't get the email til Tuesday and she didn't ring til Thursday!

Well done Steph! At least they sent a photographer to you! I get my husband to take mine and email them the photo! We hung a sheet up in the conservatory as a background, but when the photo was taken I realised I should have ironed it first! I was really nervouse even then, so goodness knows how nervous I'd have been if they sent a photographer up. Looking forward to seeing you in print.

That'll explain why then!!

I suppose the photographer visited only because I live relatively close by, but not sure which is the worse option! Your picture is lovely Sue - your husband must have done something right!!

Your day ahead sounds very exciting, Julia. It's a gorgeous day. Have fun!

I seem to only have half the story here - are you the August Member of the Month Steph? Well done if so. I'll get someone to keep the B&S for me to read in case I can't find an internet cafe on holiday. I don't think you get the suppliments abroad - I remember feeling gutted when there was no Saturday su doku page last summer!

Oooh, I'll pick the lens size on the left for a photo of me please

Where are you off on your hols, Jaki?

Correct!!

Taken at 70mm.

The one on the right was taken with the lens set at 18mm. Just imagine the difference in a portrait photo. It becomes more pronounced, the larger the subject!

Next time you are having a picture taken, make sure the lens is set to the correct setting and tell the person to 'move their behind' to get the photo right, not zoom the lens!!

You may just start liking some photos of yourself......Here's hoping so!

Aha - I wondered if you'd been keeping it to yourself on Monday! Can't wait to read what you've told them - hope you haven't spilled too many beans - now what did we talk about last week?

The photo on the left looks a lot slimmer than normal for sure.

No; The one on the left is 'normal'. The one on the right is distorted due to being taken at a very wide angle. look at the grout lines of the tiles on the windowsill. You can see that the vanishing point of the perspective is way too close to the viewer. In the pic on the left the lines converge in a much more normal way.This lens setting would give you a fairly accurate portrait providing, as stated before, the camera was not tilted.