The term “photogenic” was proposed in the early twentieth century by the ideologist of the French “leftist” cinematographers Louis Dellecom. He recommended to divide people into photogenic (winning on the picture in comparison with nature) and non-photogenic (losing the best external qualities and charm during photographing). Since then, photogenicism has almost taken over the world, turning into one of the main engines of the fashion business and turning into a cult of supermodels that have made photogenic their profession.
As a rule, photogenic means a certain structure of the face. But there is another view: photogenic is the ability to live in front of a camera, not to pretend, but to be natural. Sincere indifference on the face will always look better than a faked smile. The main enemies of good photos are the clamor and enslavement in front of the lens. The most pressing is the face, arms, and shoulder girdle. To relax, photographers semi-officially advise “for example, a glass of champagne” (but it’s important not to overdo it, otherwise the pictures will be another story).
However, relaxation should not be confused with laxity – good photographs lie somewhere in between the natural behavior and knowledge of their winning poses and angles. So, the position is slightly sideways to the camera and the forward-facing leg allows the stars to look indecently slender under the lenses on the red carpet.
A slightly overturned head excludes the risk of a double chin. Well, the simple formula “chest up, belly in itself, a priest back”, proposed by the master of the genre nude Konstantin Oschepkov, is suitable for everyone.
By the way, the most famous Novosibirsk photographers, even with persistent interrogation, continue to stubbornly deny the existence of photogenic, arguing that there are no non-photogenic people – there are inept photographers. And although there is no practical benefit from this thesis (besides, it is hard to believe), it is possible to draw conclusions from it, which are very flattering for self-esteem. It turns out that the blame for unsuccessful photos can always be easily dumped on the photographer.
What can we do before we face the lens? To begin with – remember the miracles that make up make, and use them to the fullest. If you are not going to resort to the help of a make-up artist, it is worth taking in the main risk factors that can spoil the photo.
• If you are going to be photographed by a professional photographer in the studio, you need to remember that the bright light of the lamps can suddenly reveal little flaws in ordinary illumination: pimples, enlarged pores or sosudiki.
• Finally, the color. Even if the blue or green shadows look great on you in everyday life, the flash may suddenly reveal an inaccurate feathering. In addition, colored shadows are delicate, and the risk of giving the portrait some provincial naivety and vulgarity is very great.
So, very few people can do without tonal funds and powder. To a complexion was flawless, you will have to apply a fairly dense layer of tonal. In this case, you need to ensure that the color of the face does not differ from the skin of the neck. Obligatory finishing touch – to walk on the face of a large brush with loose powder.
“For a photo shoot, it’s better to choose professional means with reflective particles,” says Victoria Panafidina, the make-up stylist at Unton-style studio. – Sometimes, it would seem, the disguised flaw in the photo suddenly “crawls out.” With professional means this will not happen. ”
With rare exceptions, which only confirm the rule: makeup for photography should be matte.
“When it comes to professional fashion photography, make-up can be glossy and matte – depending on what image you want to create. But the danger of glossy, glossy textures is that they can look like a fat, glossy skin. Therefore, glossy, radiant makeup should be separately agreed with the photographer in advance, “continues Victoria Panafidina. In any case, the glossy effect is well suited for an ideal, problem-free, healthy skin. If there are small flaws, it is better to choose a matte effect.
Experiments with radiance and mother-of-pearl may unexpectedly distort facial features in the photograph (this applies not only to make-up, but also to shiny “Lycra” pantyhose, which in the picture can spoil even the ideal legs).
For so popular today, black and white shooting in retro style make-up can be a little coarser, more contrast. There are more opportunities for correction of facial features, such as narrowing the nose at the expense of dark powder from the side or underlining the cheekbones with rouge. But to better feel what happens in the future monochrome picture, it is better to take, for example, shadows of natural shades. Also, do not forget that with a contrasting black and white shooting sensually scarlet lips will turn into a coal-black mouth of a gothic vampire.
Today, girls are increasingly resorting to the services of professional photographers – not for the sake of model career, but exclusively for home use. In Novosibirsk, a qualitative professional photo session will cost from 3000 rubles and above, not including the preliminary services of a make-up artist. However, if money is a pity, there is an alternative. Polystav on the Internet, local forums on photography, you can find an advanced (key word!) Amateur photographer who needs a model. Here the result is not so predictable, but you can take a chance – and win.
And finally. To all the above advice, perhaps, do not take too seriously. You can, of course, follow the example of the genius of pure beauty Marlene Dietrich and build all the lighting in your home so that your features are always served (and imprinted) in the most beneficial way. But do not forget that we do not have to look perfect on any photo – in institutions we were taught quite different occupations. “If it turned out ten percent of successful photos (although” a successful photograph “is a relative term) is a very good result,” says Konstantin Oschepkov. You can see that it’s silly to get upset when you see yourself being ugly on one single photo. In addition, a girl who can laugh at her own photograph with a comical grimace or a hamster roll hidden behind her cheek