Thank you! As a STEM student this is an amazing resource and speaks to my systemizing mind. I can get great used gear on eBay for quite a bit cheaper than even one photoshoot would cost in my area
I am not sure how this came upon my feed, but it was interesting to read through on a technical side, and good advice for portraits in general! I would also agree with one of the comments above - by far, what comes off as attractive is the person doing something, interacting with someone, or caught in a candid (smiling) moment. Those photos might be harder to come by or take, but do seem possible if you approach it from a similar lens. I am only a pool of (1) woman, but for what it’s worth I believe most of my female friends would agree.
You are right: you can’t have six photos of the exact type above. Only the primary photo should be maximizing Photofeeler, the rest should be showing the person in various contexts, including them being in the middle of an activity or conversation. These are easier to capture than the primary, although they should still follow the same key principles (good lighting, sharp focus, reasonable crop, context appropriate outfit, etc).
I largely agree with the technical details of this post, but have two small, somewhat-related thoughts.
First, I don't think Photofeeler is necessarily as good as people make it out to be. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Photofeeler, as far as I can tell, doesn't default you to the opposite sex when voting on dating photos (or I just set that setting years ago and forgot), nor can I find a setting that allows me to only allow women to vote on my dating photos. I also just went through about 20 votes, counting 15 men and 5 women. This sounds about right: men are probably more likely to use this app because they're male-brained, maybe a bit more analytical with numbers and optimization, women don't want to get creeped on on there, etc. So in the end, if my percentages hold, 75% of votes on my pictures are from a certain subset of men rating my photos and 25% from a certain subset of women. I don't know if I necessarily trust these results? After all, they are the same people who are asking for advice on their photos! If they knew what a good picture looked like, wouldn't they just take one themselves? I would much rather be able to directly access my target demographic and have them rate my pictures (or have Photofeeler reveal the demographics behind each vote) than trust some random people on the internet. That said, maybe there's some prediction market/wisdom of the crowd thing going on that is helpful? Disclaimer: I got an 8.5, 8.9, 9.2 STA score on a picture and it was by far my most liked on a dating app, so maybe there is something there.
Further, I think there's an incentive to just quickly click through buttons to maximize credits per unit time. I'm not sure if they are able to detect this? Like you said, it may weight their votes less than someone who varies their scores, but I think there may still be an impact.
Second, I think there can something icky about dating photos if done improperly or they're by themselves in that they (can) signal that your life isn't interesting enough to have candid photos and you have to resort to dressing up, posing, lighting, and angles to sell yourself as a package. Sure, you may not be the picture-taking type, but I'd argue if your life is interesting enough, you'd want to get pictures on the reg of the cool, fun shit you're doing, or you'd simply adjust your habits to take more pictures.
I think there's more nuance to these arguments than I let on, but they feel directionally correct.
> nor can I find a setting that allows me to only allow women to vote on my dating photos
You can definitely select both the gender and the age range of the voters, see screenshot of the UI: https://imgur.com/a/9bK2T0x
> Disclaimer: I got an 8.5, 8.9, 9.2 STA score on a picture
I would try re-rating it after selecting your target age and gender, the result will then be far more robust. I also recommend at least 20 votes when evaluating which primary pic to choose.
> Further, I think there's an incentive to just quickly click through buttons to maximize credits per unit time
Thanks! Completely missed/forgot that part of the UI because I haven't added a test in a few years.
Your PF article looks great. Will read in more detail later.
I think what I'm trying to get at with the "icky" part is that dating pics shouldn't be used as a crutch for other parts of your life that are also important in dating.
Thank you! As a STEM student this is an amazing resource and speaks to my systemizing mind. I can get great used gear on eBay for quite a bit cheaper than even one photoshoot would cost in my area
Awesome!
good post
I have some nitpicks but this is overall a very good resource, nice job
Happy to address the nitpicks. I’m currently rewriting the guide with brand new photos.
I am not sure how this came upon my feed, but it was interesting to read through on a technical side, and good advice for portraits in general! I would also agree with one of the comments above - by far, what comes off as attractive is the person doing something, interacting with someone, or caught in a candid (smiling) moment. Those photos might be harder to come by or take, but do seem possible if you approach it from a similar lens. I am only a pool of (1) woman, but for what it’s worth I believe most of my female friends would agree.
You are right: you can’t have six photos of the exact type above. Only the primary photo should be maximizing Photofeeler, the rest should be showing the person in various contexts, including them being in the middle of an activity or conversation. These are easier to capture than the primary, although they should still follow the same key principles (good lighting, sharp focus, reasonable crop, context appropriate outfit, etc).
Any suggestions for tripod height?
1.5m is sufficient, you don’t need anything taller than that.
Where do you aim to have the lens relative to the subject's height? Eye level?
No, the lens should always be below the eye level, to make the subject appear bigger.
I largely agree with the technical details of this post, but have two small, somewhat-related thoughts.
First, I don't think Photofeeler is necessarily as good as people make it out to be. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Photofeeler, as far as I can tell, doesn't default you to the opposite sex when voting on dating photos (or I just set that setting years ago and forgot), nor can I find a setting that allows me to only allow women to vote on my dating photos. I also just went through about 20 votes, counting 15 men and 5 women. This sounds about right: men are probably more likely to use this app because they're male-brained, maybe a bit more analytical with numbers and optimization, women don't want to get creeped on on there, etc. So in the end, if my percentages hold, 75% of votes on my pictures are from a certain subset of men rating my photos and 25% from a certain subset of women. I don't know if I necessarily trust these results? After all, they are the same people who are asking for advice on their photos! If they knew what a good picture looked like, wouldn't they just take one themselves? I would much rather be able to directly access my target demographic and have them rate my pictures (or have Photofeeler reveal the demographics behind each vote) than trust some random people on the internet. That said, maybe there's some prediction market/wisdom of the crowd thing going on that is helpful? Disclaimer: I got an 8.5, 8.9, 9.2 STA score on a picture and it was by far my most liked on a dating app, so maybe there is something there.
Further, I think there's an incentive to just quickly click through buttons to maximize credits per unit time. I'm not sure if they are able to detect this? Like you said, it may weight their votes less than someone who varies their scores, but I think there may still be an impact.
Second, I think there can something icky about dating photos if done improperly or they're by themselves in that they (can) signal that your life isn't interesting enough to have candid photos and you have to resort to dressing up, posing, lighting, and angles to sell yourself as a package. Sure, you may not be the picture-taking type, but I'd argue if your life is interesting enough, you'd want to get pictures on the reg of the cool, fun shit you're doing, or you'd simply adjust your habits to take more pictures.
I think there's more nuance to these arguments than I let on, but they feel directionally correct.
> nor can I find a setting that allows me to only allow women to vote on my dating photos
You can definitely select both the gender and the age range of the voters, see screenshot of the UI: https://imgur.com/a/9bK2T0x
> Disclaimer: I got an 8.5, 8.9, 9.2 STA score on a picture
I would try re-rating it after selecting your target age and gender, the result will then be far more robust. I also recommend at least 20 votes when evaluating which primary pic to choose.
> Further, I think there's an incentive to just quickly click through buttons to maximize credits per unit time
See this article for my response to this and other criticisms: https://getdatingphotos.com/how-photofeeler-works
> there can something icky about dating photos if [...] you have to resort to dressing up, posing, lighting, and angles to sell yourself as a package
Such beliefs are self-sabotaging and I recommend avoiding them.
Thanks! Completely missed/forgot that part of the UI because I haven't added a test in a few years.
Your PF article looks great. Will read in more detail later.
I think what I'm trying to get at with the "icky" part is that dating pics shouldn't be used as a crutch for other parts of your life that are also important in dating.
Excellent article
This is good but you also might want to mention smiling can help
I think I do, in 'iterative posing'? You need to try both serious, smirk and full smile.
Or just take 8 shitty selfies and simply prompt AI with it to make something professional and romantic-looking.
You could do that yes. Personally I wouldn’t though - for all the obvious reasons.
Neither is you in your natural clothes, environment, I guess