13 ms·

Don't Be Ugly By Accident

twoshortwords 16y ago
I like OkTrends because they use heaps of data to arrive at interesting conclusions. But they often arrive at wrong (or at least incomplete) conclusions. For instance, this bit: "the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures". That's certainly true. Think about the person behind the camera, though. If they own a dSLR, they're more likely to be good at composing photographs. This, too: "a 28 year-old who used a flash is as attractive as a 35 year-old who didn't". Most people don't know how, or even when, to use a flash. Using a flash properly can and does lead to a better photograph, but it takes a lot of practice. Therefore, if you want to have an attractive picture, have somebody that's good at taking pictures take it.
- nevinera 16y ago
  >If they own a dSLR, they're more likely to be good at composing photographs. That's a very valid point, selection bias is the most-missed bias in studies of every stripe. But they're not beginners: >And we also found similar numbers looking only at people who uploaded all three types of photos. They didn't show a graph of that data, because this is an article rather than a formal study. Getting similar results in an intersection study is an excellent way to show that selection bias was at least not overwhelming - depending on the sample size, it might not even be significant. The conclusion they made was pretty well supported, and seems like something you would agree with - the details they give are quick guidelines, but it boils down to "photographic skill matters".
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    > similar numbers looking only at people who uploaded all three types of photos Um.. we’re talking about the skill of the photographer here, not the skill of the model.
- powrtoch 16y ago
  It's true. Every time I read one of these OK Cupid analyses, I hear alarm after alarm in my head about bad statistics analysis. But I always read them anyway, because as long as you step back and think about it carefully, the data really is interesting. An example of another minor quabble, iPhones are expensive. I would expect that owning one correlates with nicer clothes, makeup, and just more/better status symbols in general. It's no news that money is attractive.
  - bho 16y ago
    You'd be surprised at how many people who own iphones own one outside of their means. There are tons of people working two jobs or never eating out just to pay their cell phone bill.
    - elai 16y ago
      $50/dollars more per month causes that much discomfort?
      - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
        If you're working on minimum wage...yes. That is a fairly significant proportion of their income. 40 x 7.75=$310 (before taxes)=$1240...so $50 is about 4% of their total monthly income, not a small amount to squander.
    - powrtoch 16y ago
      I wouldn't be too surprised. I spent one summer working in a warehouse. Suffice to say the cars (and their respective rims, sound systems, etc) were not within reasonable spending habits for my fellow $8/hr workers. And their families :( But the point stands: signaling wealth is what counts.
    - usaar333 16y ago
      Of course, there are. The question though is whether there is enough of a correlation with third variables to lead one to believe 'possessing iphone' = 'possessing more sex partners' is likely not causal? As GP and other commenters point out, there are enough.
- Splines 16y ago
  > Using a flash properly can and does lead to a better photograph, but it takes a lot of practice. I recognize that my P&S camera isn't fast enough to take pictures in low light without the flash, but are there other situations where I should be using a flash? Generally, using a flash makes my pictures look "cheap" (better than blurry, I suppose). Even when there is strong backlighting and I need to use the flash to balance it out, it still looks wrong. Much to my wife's consternation, I usually tend to push the no-flash as much as possible (I've missed quick-moving children and other shots because of this). I suppose if I used the flash I would have actually captured the moment, but I don't think I've really seen a picture I've taken with the flash that I've found to be remarkable looking.
  - zokier 16y ago
    Directing flash directly at the subject produces usually unpleasant results. Try reflecting it via some surface (white roof/wall works well)
    - Splines 16y ago
      I use a P&S, so my options for flash direction are pretty limited :) Good tip though if I ever find myself in the possession of a more sophisticated camera.
      - potatolicious 16y ago
        In a "normal" room (i.e., a room of normal ceiling height), using the ceiling is a solid bet. If your camera has TTL flash metering (and which self-respecting DSLR doesn't?) that'll help you take "perfect" pictures, every time. (Note: "perfect" means people will ask you how you did it, and be suitably impressed at your photography skizzles) Firing flash along the axis of the lens is a poor idea almost always. Also, your pop-up flash has an effective range of ~10 feet (depending on camera), so popping it beyond that range (which I see many people do) is basically pointless. In fact, if there are objects near, what the camera will do is expose for those objects, leaving your main subjects, who are too far away, in shadow. This is why you'll see those crazy pictures where everyone is real dark and has glowing eyes. But all in all, the solution is to get a faster lens - there are many point and shoots that have premium, fast lenses. Going for those will allow you to skip the flash for a lot more occasions, making better pictures overall.
- Gormo 16y ago
  They're not correlating the use of a flash with photographs being "better" in some general way; they're correlating the use of a flash with specific ratings of the attractiveness of the people in the resulting photos. If the data is accurate, then the correlation is real. It might be that most people don't know how to use a flash; it might also be that natural light makes people appear more attractive, or that the position of the light source (i.e. not in the same place as the camera) does the same. Building a reliable causality model out of correlations can be extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean that anything short of a complete causality model is worthless. In this example, dispensing with the flash would still likely improve the ratings of most users' photos (other things equal, of course), even if they might squeeze a bit more out of the result by mastering the nuances of flash photography.
aes 16y ago
Judging from the following statistic, iPhone has officially won the smart phone war: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/camera/SexAndSmartPhonesByAge.png http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/camera/SexAndSmartPhonesByAge.png
- symesc 16y ago
  I'm already jumping to conclusions about girls with iPhones here at work.
  - Marticus 16y ago
    I likely jumped to those conclusions long, long ago. However, I do like OKC in that they take tons of data and make actual conclusions about it. Regardless of whether or not it's eventually proven wrong, or (as stated above) there are some obvious discrepancies not taken into consideration, it's still cool to see overall trends in human psychology based on something so simple as how a photograph was taken.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    I was rather surprised to see that (that subset of) women outnumbered men in terms of sexual activity. I wonder what their overall trends are like.
- olefoo 16y ago
  The interesting question is what's at the root of the correlation? My guess is that it's one or more of: 1. iPhone users tend to have more money as a group and that correlates with more sex. 2. as a group they tend to be more concerned with appearances and sensual experience and sensation seeking. 3. as a group they are more impulsive.
  - starkfist 16y ago
    4. Nobody wants to have sex with the Android wielding sysadmin
    - 16y ago
aw3c2 16y ago
As you can see, the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures. Argh, no! That is correlation. More complex cameras are probably used by more experienced photographers. I would bet a high percentage of those are made by professionals.
- gamache 16y ago
  No one said anything about causation. Reexamine the sentence, adjusted to the passive voice: As you can see, the general pattern is that better pictures are taken by more complex cameras. This does not conflict with your hypothesis.
  - jedbrown 16y ago
    The following sentence, "Interchangable lens cameras (like digital SLRs) make you look more attractive than your basic point and shoot cameras" implies causation.
    - Terretta 16y ago
      Notice the f-stop graph later on? There's part of your causation.
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  More complex cameras have greater dynamic range, thus better capturing both shadow detail and not blowing out or washing out the highlights (lightest parts) of the image. They also have better image sensors which means less degradation in low light situations, less graininess, and with better lenses, less distortion. My take, anyways...
  - olefoo 16y ago
    I just got a Panasonic GF-1 this spring, and it has refreshed my passion for photography. I did a lot of research beforehand and I'm glad to see that OKCupid is confirming my choice. A fair bit of the credit has to go to the 20mm Pancake lens that Panasonic makes, it's one sweet piece of glass, and it lets you make excellent portraits, where the subject is in focus and the background is blurred. Like this photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/laprice/4757480230/in/set-72157624287094139/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/laprice/4757480230/in/set-72157... Amazon has a deal on that combo right now too http://amzn.to/brBxsE http://amzn.to/brBxsE
nat 16y ago
Shouldn't the conclusion here be "make friends with people that own Panasonic m4/3rds or nice dSLRs"? None of their example photos look like self portraits.
- dkarl 16y ago
  I just bought a remote for my camera precisely because my friends and I don't spend a lot of time taking pictures of each other. Sometime this week I'll spend the evening looking off camera like I'm having spontaneous fun with a bunch of people, when I'm actually alone, posing in my apartment, taking picture after picture trying to get my posture and facial expression just right. Strangely enough, this strikes me as hilarious instead of depressing, and I'm actually looking forward to the challenge. I'm also looking forward to the laughter and teasing when I show off the results to my friends.
- kscaldef 16y ago
  True, but you'd be surprised how many self-taken photos there are on OKC; either the notorious MySpace shot or the truly sad "self-portrait in bedroom full-length mirror".
  - lurkinggrue 16y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised and I bet a ton of them are girls giving that damn duck face.
  - starkfist 16y ago
    Is the self portrait in a bedroom mirror really more sad than these photos that look like they were semi-professionally staged? In my experience with OKCupid "good" photos are often the least "accurate."
    - kscaldef 16y ago
      The self-portrait in mirror says to me: I have no friends who have ever taken a picture of me, and I'm so embarrassed about this online dating thing / have so little self-esteem that I can't ask someone to take a couple pictures of me, or even go outside and use the delay feature of my camera to get a decent self-portrait. Is that a somewhat harsh assessment? Yeah, probably, but it's the 0.5s reaction, which is, for-better-or-worse, how a lot of the decision is made. And, yes, the semi-professional glamour shots can be an issue too, but in my experience they are much rarer. And at least in that case the person has enough self-esteem to try to look good.
lurkinggrue 16y ago
So they are saying better quality photo's taken with quality equipment can result in more dates on a dating site? As a photographer this makes me want to shout "Duh."
- paulgb 16y ago
  As a photographer you obviously know that better equipment takes better pictures, but without the data, assuming that better pictures result in more dates is a blind assumption. Just look at another of their posts which found that "myspace-style" self-shots worked better: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile-pictures/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile...
pchristensen 16y ago
I've had the same kinds of thoughts about photos on real estate listings. So many pics look flat out terrible but could easily be fixed with as little as changing the white balance setting. Seeing some of the basic photographic mistakes in a business so dependent on photography is depressing.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  Go to ebay and just watch how those items with a solid white background and at least somewhat professional photographed, as opposed to the crappy cell-phone shot pictures of items. Better picture=more money.
hayroob 16y ago
Women like unavailable men, so the iphone is where it's at.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Surely if they like unavailable men they should prefer Palm Pre: I heard there's like a couple in the whole world. ;P (it's just a joke: pity for the Pre. I kind of liked the innovative feeling they brought with them)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
confuzatron 16y ago
Surely, for Hacker News, a more suitable headline would be "Study shows iPhone users more likely to suffer from viruses than Android users".
gojomo 16y ago
Talk about burying the lede! iPhone users have more sex. Has OkCupid done any investigations of relationship pseudoscience/superstition (astrology, biorhythms, etc.) using their data?
- kristofferR 16y ago
  Yup, they have: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/how-races-and-religions-match-in-online-dating/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/how-races-and-religions-ma...
qhoxie 16y ago
While I usually enjoy articles from okcupid, I found this one pretty disappointing, especially given I've seen good statistical analysis from them in the past. This is just a series of classic correlation versus causation mistakes. Even beyond the purely statistical view of the issues here, it is clear to anyone with some basic knowledge of photography that most of their conclusions are flawed. Hopefully they'll correct some of the wording to remove logical implication or just do a better job next time.
nooneelse 16y ago
I'm intrigued by this spike of picture taking at 4AM. Apparently it is second only to noon in number of pictures. ?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
paulgb 16y ago
Early-20's BlackBerry/Android owners fear not, statistically you will have more new partners in the next few years than iPhone owners. http://twitpic.com/2diasv http://twitpic.com/2diasv
mr_twj 16y ago
Higher definition will just reveal the ugliness of ugly people more so. It's called "De-noise": drag slider in the pretty direction.
notahacker 16y ago
can't believe there's no metric for people that have (as a bare minimum) played with contrasts in Photoshop...

I like OkTrends because they use heaps of data to arrive at interesting conclusions. But they often arrive at wrong (or at least incomplete) conclusions. For instance, this bit: "the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures". That's certainly true. Think about the person behind the camera, though. If they own a dSLR, they're more likely to be good at composing photographs. This, too: "a 28 year-old who used a flash is as attractive as a 35 year-old who didn't". Most people don't know how, or even when, to use a flash. Using a flash properly can and does lead to a better photograph, but it takes a lot of practice. Therefore, if you want to have an attractive picture, have somebody that's good at taking pictures take it.

nevinera 16y ago
>If they own a dSLR, they're more likely to be good at composing photographs. That's a very valid point, selection bias is the most-missed bias in studies of every stripe. But they're not beginners: >And we also found similar numbers looking only at people who uploaded all three types of photos. They didn't show a graph of that data, because this is an article rather than a formal study. Getting similar results in an intersection study is an excellent way to show that selection bias was at least not overwhelming - depending on the sample size, it might not even be significant. The conclusion they made was pretty well supported, and seems like something you would agree with - the details they give are quick guidelines, but it boils down to "photographic skill matters".
- jacobolus 16y ago
  > similar numbers looking only at people who uploaded all three types of photos Um.. we’re talking about the skill of the photographer here, not the skill of the model.
powrtoch 16y ago
It's true. Every time I read one of these OK Cupid analyses, I hear alarm after alarm in my head about bad statistics analysis. But I always read them anyway, because as long as you step back and think about it carefully, the data really is interesting. An example of another minor quabble, iPhones are expensive. I would expect that owning one correlates with nicer clothes, makeup, and just more/better status symbols in general. It's no news that money is attractive.
- bho 16y ago
  You'd be surprised at how many people who own iphones own one outside of their means. There are tons of people working two jobs or never eating out just to pay their cell phone bill.
  - elai 16y ago
    $50/dollars more per month causes that much discomfort?
    - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
      If you're working on minimum wage...yes. That is a fairly significant proportion of their income. 40 x 7.75=$310 (before taxes)=$1240...so $50 is about 4% of their total monthly income, not a small amount to squander.
  - powrtoch 16y ago
    I wouldn't be too surprised. I spent one summer working in a warehouse. Suffice to say the cars (and their respective rims, sound systems, etc) were not within reasonable spending habits for my fellow $8/hr workers. And their families :( But the point stands: signaling wealth is what counts.
  - usaar333 16y ago
    Of course, there are. The question though is whether there is enough of a correlation with third variables to lead one to believe 'possessing iphone' = 'possessing more sex partners' is likely not causal? As GP and other commenters point out, there are enough.
Splines 16y ago
> Using a flash properly can and does lead to a better photograph, but it takes a lot of practice. I recognize that my P&S camera isn't fast enough to take pictures in low light without the flash, but are there other situations where I should be using a flash? Generally, using a flash makes my pictures look "cheap" (better than blurry, I suppose). Even when there is strong backlighting and I need to use the flash to balance it out, it still looks wrong. Much to my wife's consternation, I usually tend to push the no-flash as much as possible (I've missed quick-moving children and other shots because of this). I suppose if I used the flash I would have actually captured the moment, but I don't think I've really seen a picture I've taken with the flash that I've found to be remarkable looking.
- zokier 16y ago
  Directing flash directly at the subject produces usually unpleasant results. Try reflecting it via some surface (white roof/wall works well)
  - Splines 16y ago
    I use a P&S, so my options for flash direction are pretty limited :) Good tip though if I ever find myself in the possession of a more sophisticated camera.
    - potatolicious 16y ago
      In a "normal" room (i.e., a room of normal ceiling height), using the ceiling is a solid bet. If your camera has TTL flash metering (and which self-respecting DSLR doesn't?) that'll help you take "perfect" pictures, every time. (Note: "perfect" means people will ask you how you did it, and be suitably impressed at your photography skizzles) Firing flash along the axis of the lens is a poor idea almost always. Also, your pop-up flash has an effective range of ~10 feet (depending on camera), so popping it beyond that range (which I see many people do) is basically pointless. In fact, if there are objects near, what the camera will do is expose for those objects, leaving your main subjects, who are too far away, in shadow. This is why you'll see those crazy pictures where everyone is real dark and has glowing eyes. But all in all, the solution is to get a faster lens - there are many point and shoots that have premium, fast lenses. Going for those will allow you to skip the flash for a lot more occasions, making better pictures overall.
Gormo 16y ago
They're not correlating the use of a flash with photographs being "better" in some general way; they're correlating the use of a flash with specific ratings of the attractiveness of the people in the resulting photos. If the data is accurate, then the correlation is real. It might be that most people don't know how to use a flash; it might also be that natural light makes people appear more attractive, or that the position of the light source (i.e. not in the same place as the camera) does the same. Building a reliable causality model out of correlations can be extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean that anything short of a complete causality model is worthless. In this example, dispensing with the flash would still likely improve the ratings of most users' photos (other things equal, of course), even if they might squeeze a bit more out of the result by mastering the nuances of flash photography.

aes 16y ago

Judging from the following statistic, iPhone has officially won the smart phone war: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/camera/SexAndSmartPhonesByAge.png http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/camera/SexAndSmartPhonesByAge.png

symesc 16y ago
I'm already jumping to conclusions about girls with iPhones here at work.
- Marticus 16y ago
  I likely jumped to those conclusions long, long ago. However, I do like OKC in that they take tons of data and make actual conclusions about it. Regardless of whether or not it's eventually proven wrong, or (as stated above) there are some obvious discrepancies not taken into consideration, it's still cool to see overall trends in human psychology based on something so simple as how a photograph was taken.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  I was rather surprised to see that (that subset of) women outnumbered men in terms of sexual activity. I wonder what their overall trends are like.
olefoo 16y ago
The interesting question is what's at the root of the correlation? My guess is that it's one or more of: 1. iPhone users tend to have more money as a group and that correlates with more sex. 2. as a group they tend to be more concerned with appearances and sensual experience and sensation seeking. 3. as a group they are more impulsive.
- starkfist 16y ago
  4. Nobody wants to have sex with the Android wielding sysadmin
  - 16y ago

aw3c2 16y ago

As you can see, the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures. Argh, no! That is correlation. More complex cameras are probably used by more experienced photographers. I would bet a high percentage of those are made by professionals.

gamache 16y ago
No one said anything about causation. Reexamine the sentence, adjusted to the passive voice: As you can see, the general pattern is that better pictures are taken by more complex cameras. This does not conflict with your hypothesis.
- jedbrown 16y ago
  The following sentence, "Interchangable lens cameras (like digital SLRs) make you look more attractive than your basic point and shoot cameras" implies causation.
  - Terretta 16y ago
    Notice the f-stop graph later on? There's part of your causation.
patrickgzill 16y ago
More complex cameras have greater dynamic range, thus better capturing both shadow detail and not blowing out or washing out the highlights (lightest parts) of the image. They also have better image sensors which means less degradation in low light situations, less graininess, and with better lenses, less distortion. My take, anyways...
- olefoo 16y ago
  I just got a Panasonic GF-1 this spring, and it has refreshed my passion for photography. I did a lot of research beforehand and I'm glad to see that OKCupid is confirming my choice. A fair bit of the credit has to go to the 20mm Pancake lens that Panasonic makes, it's one sweet piece of glass, and it lets you make excellent portraits, where the subject is in focus and the background is blurred. Like this photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/laprice/4757480230/in/set-72157624287094139/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/laprice/4757480230/in/set-72157... Amazon has a deal on that combo right now too http://amzn.to/brBxsE http://amzn.to/brBxsE

nat 16y ago

Shouldn't the conclusion here be "make friends with people that own Panasonic m4/3rds or nice dSLRs"? None of their example photos look like self portraits.

dkarl 16y ago
I just bought a remote for my camera precisely because my friends and I don't spend a lot of time taking pictures of each other. Sometime this week I'll spend the evening looking off camera like I'm having spontaneous fun with a bunch of people, when I'm actually alone, posing in my apartment, taking picture after picture trying to get my posture and facial expression just right. Strangely enough, this strikes me as hilarious instead of depressing, and I'm actually looking forward to the challenge. I'm also looking forward to the laughter and teasing when I show off the results to my friends.
kscaldef 16y ago
True, but you'd be surprised how many self-taken photos there are on OKC; either the notorious MySpace shot or the truly sad "self-portrait in bedroom full-length mirror".
- lurkinggrue 16y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised and I bet a ton of them are girls giving that damn duck face.
- starkfist 16y ago
  Is the self portrait in a bedroom mirror really more sad than these photos that look like they were semi-professionally staged? In my experience with OKCupid "good" photos are often the least "accurate."
  - kscaldef 16y ago
    The self-portrait in mirror says to me: I have no friends who have ever taken a picture of me, and I'm so embarrassed about this online dating thing / have so little self-esteem that I can't ask someone to take a couple pictures of me, or even go outside and use the delay feature of my camera to get a decent self-portrait. Is that a somewhat harsh assessment? Yeah, probably, but it's the 0.5s reaction, which is, for-better-or-worse, how a lot of the decision is made. And, yes, the semi-professional glamour shots can be an issue too, but in my experience they are much rarer. And at least in that case the person has enough self-esteem to try to look good.

lurkinggrue 16y ago

So they are saying better quality photo's taken with quality equipment can result in more dates on a dating site? As a photographer this makes me want to shout "Duh."

paulgb 16y ago
As a photographer you obviously know that better equipment takes better pictures, but without the data, assuming that better pictures result in more dates is a blind assumption. Just look at another of their posts which found that "myspace-style" self-shots worked better: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile-pictures/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile...

pchristensen 16y ago

I've had the same kinds of thoughts about photos on real estate listings. So many pics look flat out terrible but could easily be fixed with as little as changing the white balance setting. Seeing some of the basic photographic mistakes in a business so dependent on photography is depressing.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
Go to ebay and just watch how those items with a solid white background and at least somewhat professional photographed, as opposed to the crappy cell-phone shot pictures of items. Better picture=more money.

hayroob 16y ago

Women like unavailable men, so the iphone is where it's at.

nanairo 16y ago
Surely if they like unavailable men they should prefer Palm Pre: I heard there's like a couple in the whole world. ;P (it's just a joke: pity for the Pre. I kind of liked the innovative feeling they brought with them)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

confuzatron 16y ago

Surely, for Hacker News, a more suitable headline would be "Study shows iPhone users more likely to suffer from viruses than Android users".

gojomo 16y ago

Talk about burying the lede! iPhone users have more sex. Has OkCupid done any investigations of relationship pseudoscience/superstition (astrology, biorhythms, etc.) using their data?

kristofferR 16y ago
Yup, they have: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/how-races-and-religions-match-in-online-dating/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/how-races-and-religions-ma...

qhoxie 16y ago

While I usually enjoy articles from okcupid, I found this one pretty disappointing, especially given I've seen good statistical analysis from them in the past. This is just a series of classic correlation versus causation mistakes. Even beyond the purely statistical view of the issues here, it is clear to anyone with some basic knowledge of photography that most of their conclusions are flawed. Hopefully they'll correct some of the wording to remove logical implication or just do a better job next time.

nooneelse 16y ago

I'm intrigued by this spike of picture taking at 4AM. Apparently it is second only to noon in number of pictures. ?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

paulgb 16y ago

Early-20's BlackBerry/Android owners fear not, statistically you will have more new partners in the next few years than iPhone owners. http://twitpic.com/2diasv http://twitpic.com/2diasv

mr_twj 16y ago

Higher definition will just reveal the ugliness of ugly people more so. It's called "De-noise": drag slider in the pretty direction.

notahacker 16y ago

can't believe there's no metric for people that have (as a bare minimum) played with contrasts in Photoshop...