Don’t Be Ugly By Accident!

August 10th, 2010 by Christian Rudder

If you're anything like me, you usually think of your pics in terms of content: Here's me smiling. Here's me looking tough. Here's me in Hawaii with that wacky turtle. And so on. Today, however, we'll analyze photography from a numerical angle—we'll discuss flash, focus, and aperture instead. We feel like people don't really think about these things when they choose a profile photo, and yet, as we shall see, their misuse can seriously mess you up.

As always, our data comes from dating site OkCupid, one of the largest, and most interesting, datasets on the web. This article aggregates 11.4 million opinions on what makes a great photo.

. . .

Our experiment:

  1. We collected 552,000 example user pictures.
  2. We paired them up and asked people to make snap judgments, like so:
  3. We collated these millions of judgments with the time of day each picture was taken, what the shutter speed was, and so on. Almost all modern cameras embed this stuff in a special header, called EXIF data.
  4. We made graphs.

Here are our findings:

1. Panasonic > Canon > Nikon.

The type and brand of camera you use has a huge effect on how good you look in your pictures. This is a plot of the most popular makes:

As you can see, the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures. Interchangable lens cameras (like digital SLRs) make you look more attractive than your basic point and shoot cameras, and those in turn make you look better than your camera phone. I'm not sure what's going on with Kodak all the way to the right there. They might want to consider making sharing more difficult.

Beyond the advantages or shortcomings of any specific brand, the more-complex-is-better trend bears out at all ages:

And we also found similar numbers looking only at people who uploaded all three types of photos. Putting such a triplet together dramatically illustrates the difference:

oh, also—iPhone users have more sex.

File this under "icebreakers, MacWorld '11". Finally, statistical proof that iPhone users aren't just getting fucked by Apple:

The chart pretty much speaks for itself; I'll just say that the numbers for all three brands are for 30 year-olds, so it's not a matter of older, more experienced people preferring one phone to another. We found this data as part of our general camera-efficacy analysis: we crossed all kinds of user behaviors with the camera models and found we had data on the number of sexual partners for 9,785 people with smart phones. We dropped what we found into Excel, and voila. Here's the plot by age:

Just so you know, the names and the actual photos are removed when we do this kind of research; we just see the stats in aggregate. Everything is anonymized. Now let's leave brands and gadgets aside and look at how purely photographic phenomena can affect your precious face.

2. The flash adds 7 years.

This is another simple finding that needs little explanation.

Soft light can hide wrinkles, blemishes, devil eyes. The hard light of a flash often brings them out. As I illustrate with the dotted lines below, you can calculate the equivalent "aging" effects of a flash by counting years horizontally between the 'flash' and 'no flash' lines. For example, a 28 year-old who used a flash is as attractive as a 35 year-old who didn't. Trace the dotted lines to see what I'm talking about. Don't piss off Ming.

One thing we observed is that most flash exposures—even from SLR's—appeared to be direct flash. That's where the flash was fired directly at the subject, producing harsh shadows. If you have access to a flash that can bounce off the ceiling or walls, that could work much better.

3. Blot out all other reality.

We found that the best pictures have a very shallow depth of field, meaning that the subject is in crisp focus while the rest of the picture is blurry, like this:

I'll spare you my explanation of the optics behind this and instead let a graphic from the 10,000 word wikipedia page fill you in:

Thanks, hivemind, you genius! Basically, you get this sharp/blurry effect from having a wide-open aperture: low f numbers on your camera, like f/1.8, f/2.2, etc. For two pictures taken at the same distance, the lower f number will give you a shallower depth of field.

The widget below plots the aggregate attractiveness, by f number, of our user photos in a little color-coded array, alongside examples of each type of photo, so you can easily see how the depth of field affects things. For obvious reasons, we restricted this analysis to photos by cameras capable of a wide range of apertures.

show women show men

It's my opinion that because the photos with the low f numbers feel more intimate and personal, they get a better viewer response.

4. There are peak times of the day to take a good picture.

Below is a minute-by-minute distribution of when people are taking their pictures. This plot also does a good job of showing off the sheer number of photos we analyzed for this piece:

Of course, the most interesting thing isn't when people are taking their photos, but when they are taking their best photos:

It seems that, broadly speaking, late night and late afternoon are optimal. I can't really say why that is, but I can irresponsibly theorize that photos taken in the former bracket tend to be more provocative, those taken in the latter tend to be pleasantly lit.

As noted, the plotted timestamps are adjusted by time zone and for daylight savings, and when you overlay the path of the sun through the sky during our theoretical "day", you see peaks just after sunrise and just before sunset: evidence of the golden hour.

. . .

In conclusion, the data strongly suggest that if you're single, you (or someone you know) should learn a little bit about photography. Technique can make or break your photograph, and the right decisions can get you more dates.

It's actually not that hard. Use a decent camera. Go easy on the flash. Own the foreground. Take your picture in the afternoon. Then visit the nearest Apple store. Done.

374 Responses to “Don’t Be Ugly By Accident!”

  1. iflikefixer says:

    What about film shooters?!

  2. Kagan says:

    Smartphone stats are definitely BS. More partners != more sex. I’d consider having more partners an indication of less sex.

    Also, I’m a male Android owner with far more than 12 partners in my past. I guess I don’t fit the bill. I suppose you could accept that as an admission of having less sex as well, considering my first statement, but I’ll leave my “how many times/day for how many months” details for another argument.

    And finally, you can’t really assume that the smartphone OS shows how many partners the actual users of those phones have had. All this proves is that iPhone owners who actually use -OkC- have more partners. For all we know, perhaps the Android users who do not use OkC have the same or more partners than iPhone users? But I guess this leads back to how mis-leading OkC’s studies can be sometimes.

    Oh, and there’s the rule of three. Take the number of partners a man has had and divide it by three to get the real number. Multiply by three for women.

  3. Alex says:

    “Why is sexual success measured in promiscuity? I think someone who has sex 5 times a week with the same person is more sexually successful/satisfied than someone who has sex with say 4 different people in a year, around 1 or 2 times a week on average.”

    I presume that’s because they are not trying to measure happiness or overall satisfaction, they are trying to measure attractiveness. People who successfully attracted many other partners are probably more attractive than those that got only one, even though many of those with only one partner could be actually attractive but stayed forever in one great relationship.

  4. Lurlock says:

    One issue nobody’s brought up is that there’s a good chance that the owner of the camera is not necessarily the subject. For instance, my photo was taken with an iPhone, but I don’t own one; a friend took the picture. I myself have a point-and-shoot, which currently has hundreds of pictures on it, none of which I personally appear in, because guess what – I was the one holding the camera. In fact, I think it’s far more likely that the subject of any given photo is NOT the owner of the camera, with the exception of those MySpace-style shots where you hold the camera out at arm’s length or pictures taken in front of a mirror, which are generally of poor quality all around (though not necessarily less effective, as a previous article pointed out).

  5. Paul Hjellming says:

    As for the brand of camera, isn’t it also possible that people who buy nicer cameras know how to shoot better pictures that make them look more flattering? Confounding variables….

  6. Kar says:

    Of course, they don’t bring up that if you’re using a really nice SLR, you’re probably wealthier than the camera phone user, and you probably have more leisure time, which means you probably work out more, and also quite possibly may have access to more flattering clothes, makeup, and scenery…

  7. Kari says:

    of course, they don’t bring up that if you’re using a really nice SLR, you’re probably wealthier than the camera phone user, and you probably have more leisure time, which means you probably work out more, and also quite possibly may have access to more flattering clothes, makeup, and scenery…

    ideaing.wordpress.com

  8. James Roper says:

    The iPhone stats don’t show that iPhone users have more sex, they show that iPhone users friends have more sex, because people don’t take pictures of themselves with their own camera, other people take pictures of them with their cameras, and then share them via Facebook, Flickr etc.

    Also, I would guess that the reasons digital SLR photos are more attractive is that they are more often taken by professional and serious amateur photographers at weddings, birthdays, anniversaries, photo shoots etc, where you have probably put a lot of effort into how you look. In contrast, photos taken by cameras are usually candid shots from every day life where you haven’t put any real effort into how you look. The cameras themselves have nothing to do with it.

  9. jeff says:

    I do not own a smart phone or even a cell phone and i happen to be 30 and i have had more partners then listed for the iphone people…so it not the phone that gets ya laid thats for sure.

  10. Duh says:

    The reason the DSLRs take more attractive pictures is because they’re owned by professional photographers. Duh.

  11. Jeff says:

    Couldn’t a lot of these results be explained a number of ways? For example, maybe those who own digital SLR cameras are actually better at taking pictures in general, hence them owning a higher end camera. Or perhaps those who have the money to buy digital SLR cameras are more likely to hang out around those of approximately the same social status, who can afford nice clothes, makeup, hair styles, etc. and that’s what makes a person more attractive looking on average?

    Not to mention the quantity of sexual partners has nothing to do with the quantity of sex one has had.

    All very interesting though, regardless. ^_^

  12. Phil says:

    I’m curious if the “Photo Attractiveness by Time Taken” data was normalized by the “Number of Photos by Time Taken” numbers. If not, then attractiveness between midnight and 4am would increase and the golden hour peak would flatten.

  13. Anarcissie says:

    It is clearly an error to suppose that more sexual partners equals more sex or better sex.

  14. Joe says:

    Oh, to know f/4.5 girl…

    In addition, this data has opened up an entirely new marketing avenue for SLR manufacturers.

  15. ShazamSF says:

    It makes sense that women have more sexual partners than men considering it’s easier for women to get laid.

  16. amar says:

    This is a brilliant analysis and it’s very cool that okcupid shared it. ❏

  17. Victoria says:

    Balderdash! I have a Kodak Easyshare that is a dream. I get incredibly high quality pictures with high resolution making them especially easy to work with in Photoshop. It’s just the market image – Kodak is ‘old school’ and attracts morons. I of course and not a moron, but then again, I didn’t choose or buy the camera. Too bad. Maybe those morons could learn to use this nifty little treat. Or maybe iPhone types could take a look at less glitzy/more quality equipment. But then again, I own a Leica, too.

  18. zentraveler says:

    I know this ‘study’ is trying to be entertaining and controversial, and indeed it is interesting. This may be too much to expect from a blog, but I hope your next ‘study’ will attempt to be more logical in distinguishing correlation from causation! It really is alarming that some people seem to have believed your claims.

  19. MG says:

    Did you happen to do any comparisons on original image size? That is to say, images taken on VGA (640×480) cameras vs. pictures scaled down from 12MP (4000×3000) cameras?

    I guess I’m wondering whether higher MP ratings do in fact, in some instances, render a better final product with superior detail or image quality (assuming the person uses decent software to scale things down).

    I’d be interested. I think that MegaPixels are a bit of hype, since they’re mainly only good for print or for enlarging photos…

    Any thoughts / follow-up, OkTrends?

  20. prophet says:

    So who is the guy in the “depth of field” picture?

  21. Peter says:

    “I hope no one goes out and buys a dSLR because they think they’ll automatically be more attractive in their photos”

    Give them five minutes with their new camera and this blog post, and they will.

  22. Mark says:

    @CK – I had the same thought, but I suspect people in long-term relationships are quite a lot less likely to be using OKCupid.

  23. djspaz says:

    Is it possible that, say, people with more expensive cameras are better photographers?

  24. Tim says:

    What’s quite surprising is the correlation between depth of field (shallow) and attractiveness. Only because the outright winner is the micro 4/3 format which is renowned for having twice (less shallow) the depth of field at a given field of view compared with full frame (35mm) cameras, and about 1.4x for APS-C.

  25. Asherr says:

    I take great pictures but it’s still difficult to take self portraits. I think the lesson here should be to find a friend with a good camera and a little expertise in photography.

  26. Hrrm says:

    Speaking of “Don’t be ugly by accident,” what’s that “index.php” doing in the URL?

  27. dissss says:

    Where is the breakdown by focal length (at least for SLRs)?

  28. Dion says:

    What can I say? iPhone users are sluts and Android users have long-lasting relationships.

    Nothing unusual here. Just look at the iPhone 4 to find out what kind of trick Steve Jobs is doing to brainwash the minds of uneducated povos.

  29. Dion says:

    Well, nothing unusual here. iPhone users are sluts and Android users have more stable, long-lasting relationships.

    You only have to look at the iPhone 4 to see what sort of brainwashing Apple has done to these uneducated povos.

  30. Claire says:

    This is really cool :)

    As a scientist though, I’m experiencing a learned anxiety response induced by the lack of error bars on your graphs! ;) Std. error please?

  31. Vidar says:

    What are the numbers on the photo attractiveness scale? Does 0 mean 50-50, while 1 means chosen every time (and -1 never)?

  32. Keefer says:

    … Kinda funny that the few f1.2 lenses on the market are really only good for filling niche purposes and generally take worse photos than their f1.4 ( and remarkably less expensive ) counterparts.

  33. GTruster says:

    Very interesting analysis…but still…based on a previous entry…no matter what your camera is, the best way to get messages for females is stated below:

    “In terms of getting new messages, the MySpace shot is the single most effective photo type for women.”

  34. Pingback: Riipas Blog

  35. Harry says:

    Those poor women that go sexing around for finding a possible partner … they didn’t find there owne godess yet .
    There not happy with themselfs and so they can make no one happy either.

    But over here the amount of sex is rated to the amount happyness ??

    I am sorry but the world press is trying to show you that nice pictures of beautifull women = more sex and thus more happyness is fake and this won’t bring you happyness………. through a lens … whatver lens it maybe (you owne eye??).

    Happyness is in yourself your hart and giving love (not sex) to anyone and yourself.

  36. Simon Bohr says:

    Im a danish photographer whoI teach photography for young students, and this blog is so educationel so I come back to it again and again when I teach.
    oh sweet jebus, thank you SO much for posting this. I owe you big time!!!

  37. Jo says:

    To all those moaning about time zone and and the point of the sun in the sky at various locations around the world… it’s irrelevant! Only in a world where all cameras were set to the same time zone would this matter! As people have the correct time, for their own time zone on their camera, the fact that the sun is setting on the other side of the world doesn’t bear relevance.

    However, there will be some discrepancies on those holiday shots. I mean, who remembers to change the time zone on their camera when they go abroad?!

  38. John H says:

    @RachelC it’s even more limited than that.

    “It’s not that All women have more sex than men. Women with smartphones have more sex than men with smartphones”

    Women with smartphones who use a specific dating site, have had more sexual partners in their lifetime, than men with smartphones using the same site.

    So there’s a selection bias towards people who are currently single, or are currently looking for opportunities to cheat on their partner.

  39. Paul M says:

    great article, thanks

    you didn’t say who or what apple-product-owners have more sex *with*, or whether they have to pay for it (being apple owners, they of course obsessed with looks/style and are willing to pay for the better experience)
    :-P

  40. Alex says:

    I’d be interested in how much sex Nokia users are having:P

  41. Edwin says:

    This is just working the other way around.
    I advice people just to take a workshop photohraphy!
    Do not look at the statistics, but just do some research online what makes a good portrait!

  42. SwissJon says:

    The interesting point in these figures (to me) is that in general SLR type cameras take better pictures than PaS which take better pictures than Phone cameras. Now I happen to be in the fortunate position to own and use all 3. And largely that’s true, take the SAME photograph with each and you will get a better photo in that order.

    However there are also environmental conditions to consider. When I take my dSLR out, I’m on a mission to take a good photograph. I will take my time to arrange the shot and frame the picture correctly.

    When I take my PaS with me it’s because the bulk of the dSLR is impractical, my PaS fits in my pocket, so I slip it in my pocket and take it with me on occasions when I’m doing something where there might be something happening that I want to remember. I don’t spend so much time arranging and thinking about the photo, I just go “Oh.. there’s something nice” and whip out the camera, point and shoot!

    I tend to use the camera on my mobile phone when I don’t have either of the other two with me. The photos I take with it are necessarily candid, and usually involve people who don’t realise they’re being photographed until afterwards.

    So while the photos taken by a dSLR might be much much more attractive than those on my iPhone for example (and yes, I do get lots of sex) you might argue that the photos on my iPhone are much more reflective of reality as we experience it.

    I would like to see three more sets of stats here. I would like to see attractiveness rating matched up against size/weight of camera, because my incling is that there is a correlation here, as much as there is with a dSLR/PaS/Phone. (Convenience of a lighter camera giving a more candid shot) And I would like to see if there is any correlation between time taken arranging photo to taking it against the attractiveness rating. (I’m not sure if you could easily measure this) And finally I would like to know if there is a correlation between the price of a camera and the attractiveness.

    And finally, since my wife also owns an iPhone, I would like to know if she has had more than one sexual partner since we met. (And if so, what’s her name??)

  43. CH says:

    Maybe the numbers regarding the sexual activity would have been different if it would have been clear that it’s only about sex with other people?

  44. TJ says:

    The kind of person who owns an f/1.4 lens is likely to know a lot more about photography than a person who doesn’t, even if both own the same DSLR camera body.

    You can often tell the difference between a keen photographer and the mere conspicuous consumer from the lenses they choose. The latter very rarely buy fixed lenses and tend to invest a bigger proportion of their budget in the body rather than the lens. In fact, I have met several DSLR owners how don’t even know what f stops mean.

    Also, using a big aperture means you’re less likely to need a flash.

  45. Joseph Y. Choi says:

    Panasonic micro4/3 cameras, like the GF1, come with a lens that has an aperture of F/1.7 (or something like that).

    Nikon and Canon dSLRs generally come with a F/3.5-5.6 lens, yielding a photo with a considerably less blurred-background.

    Excuse my categorization, but I don’t think many of those that would be hanging out on a dating site would have a portrait or fast lens with a dSLR to make good pictures.

    SO, Panasonic = Nikon = Canon, and it all comes down to the photographer (and the lens… and okay fine, the camera).

  46. occam says:

    It’s a great post but unfortunately pretty fictional. I don’t argue with the facts, only with the conclusion.

    Panasonic > Canon > Nikon –
    OkCupid’s conclusion: “the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures”
    Occam’s razor conclusion: people using better cameras know how to take better pictures. It’s not the camera – it’s the photographer!

    iPhone users have more sex –
    OkCupid’s conclusion: “iPhone users aren’t just getting fucked by Apple”
    Occam’s razor conclusion: iPhone users have more sexual partners, not more sex.
    That’s probably true and has to do with the fact that BlackBerry users are typically family business men, Android users are more tech-savvy and less care for their appearance while iPhone users are more attentive to style (others as well as their own) and thus more seductive.

    The flash adds 7 years –
    OkCupid’s conclusion: “The flash adds 7 years”
    Occam’s razor conclusion: Just like before, people who know how to use the flash properly are probably better photographers. It’s not the flash – it’s the photographer!

    Blot out all other reality –
    OkCupid’s conclusion: “the best pictures have a very shallow depth of field”…”that because the photos with the low f numbers feel more intimate and personal, they get a better viewer response”
    Occam’s razor conclusion: No! again, people who know how to properly produce and use very low depth of field are professionals! that’s why their pictures are better. This can clearly be seen in the examples. It’s not the depth of field – it’s the photographer!

  47. Andy says:

    I was thinking the same thing as kimberly–there’s a selection bias in favor of people with an SLR actually knowing how to frame a great picture and in favor of anyone who actually knows how to mess with the aperture settings also being able to compose better pix. I’m a little surprised you OKC math geeks didn’t talk about selection bias and casuation. geek demerits for you!

  48. Gz says:

    @Jo

    > To all those moaning about time zone and and the point of the sun in the sky at various locations around the world… it’s irrelevant!

    It is very relevant. For example in the north currently the sun can stay over the horizon for over 20 hours, which makes the diagram moot. It should group the data by the local position of the sun, not by time. For example if I took a photo at 11 pm it’s was still very bright here during the last month. The diagram says it’s was dark.

  49. Criz says:

    Could we see the median and standard deviation for the phone type vs. sexual partners data set?

  50. Rabah Rahil says:

    Great study! really intriguing and needed :) So is the new iPhone the new tramp stamp?