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:
- We collected 552,000 example user pictures.
- We paired them up and asked people to make snap judgments, like so:
- 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.
- 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.
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.


sacundim and others, you miss the point, this is not about what photo is artistically or technically the best, this is about how people perceive the person on the photo and feel attracted to him/her.
Let’s see, this also means the average (median?) Android user is a virgin until 20… as an Android owner and a self-professed nerd myself, and the friend of many other 20-something Android owners, I think there’s a correlation between open-source phone -> preferred by nerds -> who are likely to have fewer sexual partners (although they’re not all virgins, most nerds I know tend to strongly lean towards monogamy).
Actually the DOF isn’t about f/x.x number but absolute physical size of the aperture. Ie. f/2.0 on 50mm is the same as f/8 on 200mm (f being the focal length). That’s why portraits are usually taken with little longer focal lenghts.
Above you can also see the reason why I’m flying far below even the Android users. So don’t get too excited about that photography. It just isn’t hot.. ever.
The word DATA is PLURAL.
Dude, this is skewed by the quality of photographers taking the images. For instance, f4 and larger aperture lenses are (mostly) not bought by casual shooters. Although I prefer lotsa DOF, I think you will find that better togs tend to open it up all the way. So the photographer quality certainly does bias your findings.
Now I know what my problem is… I need an iPhone!!! I have a really ancient phone because all I care about it texting and calling. But gosh I guess girls look at it and think I’m too poor or something.
Cameras don’t shoot people, photographers shoot people.
I personally think photography is hot. And DOF is not just about aperture and focal length. There’s also object/subject distance from the camera.
iPhone 4 user here, btw.
I like too look at pictures….
ie I feel like I learned something I may only use this information a few times in my lifetime but thanks for putting it out there!
Actually, DOF isn’t just about physical size of the aperture. And f/2 on 50mm isn’t about the same as f/8 on 200mm. The DOF of f/2@50mm is 0.91ft, while the DOF of f/8@200mm is 0.22ft assuming both cases are 10feet away from the subject.
DOF is about the camera sensor size (crop vs. FF) + aperture size + focal length + distance to subject.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Did the analysis of the reactions to the photo control simultaneously for camera type and aperture? Are the numbers the the diagram with the relative advantage or disadvantage of various aperture settings after controlling for camera type?
Or, in other terms, to what extent is “larger apertures take more attractive photos” just an artifact of the fact that the best photos are taken with interchangeable lens cameras, and it’s mostly only those cameras that have large aperture lenses?
Interesting stuff here, and I don’t mean to go statistical on your a$%…wait, that’s exactly what I mean to do.
First, you start off by saying “more complex cameras take better pictures.” This is not exactly what your data shows. You found that pictures judged as more attractive (“better”) were taken by the “more complex” cameras. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are better pictures because of the cameras. It could mean that people who are more into photography tend to use the complex cameras. The same sort of logic can be applied to much of what you were talking about.
Also, are any of the results statistically significant? Yes, I said that. Did you do any sort of statistical analysis? Sure, graphs are pretty, but that doesn’t mean you will always get the same trends. Without doing the analysis, you really won’t know.
But, once again, it’s interesting stuff. Just needs a little more rigor…yes, firmness, gotta have the data nice and tight.
My girlfriend got a Kodak easy share and ever since then I’ve been complaining that I look 10 years older in every pic she takes. Now I know I’m not crazy.
I agree the flash makes me ugly but its not jsut about the harsh shadows its also about them turning my skin purple and my eyes red in the picture. Also camera phones stink even the better ones with the 5-8MP cameras cause they have cheap lenses. I need someone with a $400 camera to take my picture for okc. Seriously I look so much better in person than on here. Most people I have met have looked worse than their photos.
lloeki: people *will* react better to better photos. A correctly composed, lighted and focused photo will get a better impression than one where the subject is 3% of the frame, in the dark and out of focus.
You can trust me on this—I have a Panasonic Micro Four Thirds camera, a 58mm f/1.2 lens and an iPhone!
Interesting point regarding the amount of sex users have, related to the type of smartphone they use. However, I do not think that sex with themselves should count, in which case, I am sure the iPhone user average would plummet.
You should’ve at least cross referenced the amount of sex partners of smartphone users with their sexual orientation. It’s a well established fact that homosexuals have more partners on average.
Not that I’m assuming that most iphone users are gay, I just think this type of research is too important to make sloppy mistakes by leaving potentially significant factors out.
That says nothing about the amount of sex, just the number of sexual partners. Therefore, Android users favor committed relationships over one-night stands, have fewer STDs, and in reality actually have more sex than iphone users.
This blog is awesome, I just can’t get enough of it. Unfortunately, this post is VERY full of shit ‘=( Cameras don’t take photos, people take photos.
ok. but the funny part about good photos, is that once you get out on a date, and you see the real deal – you get dissapointed.
Flash@ These findings are not meant to prove which camera takes the highest quality pictures. It’s not trying to make anyone look good or bad either.
Biased? It’s actually the opposite. If you were to selectively only choose who *you* deemed to be better photographers, that would be biased. This study is indiscriminate.
The thesis of this study was summed up in the second-to-last paragraph:
“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.”
I think this study is effectively in demonstrating the value of the thesis.
More sexual partners does not mean more sex.
Maybe iPhone users just stay single longer than Android users. Or maybe they prefer one-night stands to long-term relationships.
Personally, my “number of partners” graph has been very flat (long-term relationship). Then again, I don’t have a cell phone, so maybe I’m just strange.
There is a very strong correlation between cameras with interchangeable lenses and cameras that are capable of producing shallow depth of field. As such, your findings on camera class and depth of field likely have a common underlying (partial) explanation.
Why only smart phones? I just turned 30 on Monday. I kill that average and my phone is a piece of crap. Could it be that scumbag > materialistic conformists?
I actually found this post very interesting. Give Me More lol
The evidence supports the conclusion that iphone users are more promiscuous, not that they have more sex.
I have to say, when looking at the women’s pictures for each f value, the most attractive ones were on the complete other end. Do most users look at the prettiness of the picture or do they look at how attractive the person is inside it? The most important factors in whether I’ll find someone attractive are body shape and activities depicted; a girl shown drunk will be much less likely to receive a message from me than a girl shown at a nerd con. I suspect that there are some very distinct groups of users here on OKC.
Well the iphone thing should be obvious. When I was on the Apple website, the asian girl in the ads was with a white guy. By the time I got to the store, she was hooking up with someone else: http://bit.ly/9Avc1m
Curious about how well other variables are controlled for in these numbers. For instance, when comparing phone model, are you controlling for income? Higher-income people have more sex. Is the iPhone over Droid preference just a reflection of that?
Similarly, when talking about f/stop values, are you simply re-encoding the preference for more expensive cameras? Point-and-shoot digicams often won’t use a narrow depth of field ever, so it may be that the boost in perceived attractiveness for shallow depth of field is partly driven by eliminating these models.
@Kevin – “The word DATA is PLURAL.”
Not only are you a grammar nazi, you’re wrong. “Data” is an aggregative singular, otherwise known as a singular mass noun like hair, information, and sugar. This is so because these all have implied measure words.
The reason you don’t say, “My hair are blonde,” is because the measure word “head” is implied, and it’s proper to say, “My (head of) hair is blonde.” Similarly, if you’re referring to data as a set, the measure word “set” is implied.
This is quite common with words that have been adopted from latin (agenda, media)…I’m not sure how the myth of the plural data got started over the last couple of decades, but it’s dead wrong.
In your face!
Of course those who control their camera by taming the flash etc, don’t need this site
The biggest thing missing here is a good point of reference for what those “attractiveness” numbers mean. That is, is +0.10 the difference between an awesome picture and an average one, or just a somewhat noticeable difference? Yes, they’re definitely relative, but a few simple stats would help place ballpark meanings. The graphs with age on the horizontal axis make it look like attractivness tends about like -0.01 per year. But what’s the standard deviation within a given age category? Or what does the plot of ratio of MyBestFace voters who choose photo A vs. attractiveness(A)-attractiveness(B) look like?
Kevin: correct, the word DATA is plural. It’s the plural of anecdote. Right?
It seems to me that in the sex partners vs. cellphone analysis,a potentially crucial intervening variable has been neglected: attractiveness. What if better looking people just prefer iphones? That would explain the difference in sex partners, but would also show that phone choice actually has nothing to do with sex. It doesn’t seem too implausible to me. More attractive people might be more generally interested in fashion (they’re more likely to get bigger rewards out of improving their style, and they probably also get more comments about their appearance). If more attractive people are more into fashion, then it seems entirely possible that they’d prefer the phone which is most effective as a fashion accessory – the iPhone.
It looks to me like they’ve got all the data they need to test this. So, are iphone users rated as better looking, oktrends? Inquiring minds want to know!
I think this is as much a result of conditioning as anything else– we have been so trained that people who are in professionally-taken photographs are beautiful, that our standard is aligned with an ideal that is based on professional photography.
I know it’s a “no, duh”. Maybe it’s a chicken-and-egg “no, duh”.
I also find the phone platform speculation curious– as it’s a little bit like saying Porsche drivers have more sex partners than those who drive American cars or Japanese cars. The iPhone is a very narrow product, where as Android and Blackberry are OSs across a pretty wide variety of hardware, carriers, and therefore, across a wider socio/geographic/economic swath.
I’d like to see that drilled into.
What about webcams? I would imagine they’d be comparable to phone cameras.
Christ, that’s more planning than I do in a month. Are you taking a picture for the internet or building a bridge?
Women get more sex. Period. Call me a pig again.
Most photographers and painters know that the golden hour, when the sun is low in the sky after dawn and before dusk, gives a warmer, softer, friendlier light. Makes buildings and landscapes look nicer, too — softer shadows and lower contrast, interesting sidelights. On a human face your’re more likely to see the full eye orbit illuminated, with no hard shadows under brows, nose, chin.
The time of day has to do with color temperature and the direction of light. Noon is the worst strait overhead big shadows. 56k temp blue on Sony camera, very open aperture means deep depth of field. I could go on. Ken burns is obsessed with sunrise and sunset, high color temps mean warmer tones and lots of blurry backgrounds.
Shared this with my facebook friends! very interesting.
I love all of these research papers that you have been writing. I would be really interested in seeing how a person’s trustworthiness is judged in photos and their message rate.
Jeff (the Android dude who has had less than 10 partners and is trying to prove something),
Get an iPhone. There’s no reason you can’t have mad pussy AND a classy phone.
With love,
Casey
More than 10 partners, with an iPhone. (Thanks, Stevie!)
a contributing factor as to why the best times of day to take pictures was in the late afternoon or morning periods has a lot to do with the sun and how the lighting effects the photo. in those two times the sun isnt causing the harsh lighting conditions that it does like it would at noon. its just like if you use a flash you look older and less attractive. with softer light you get better features on the subject that cant be achieved in “noon” like lighting conditions.
Hey guys, the iPhone statistic made it on the radio today. In Chicago’s north ‘burbs, on 101.9FM WTMX “The Mix”, the quiz question today was “At age 30, a woman with an iPhone will have 12 of these.” I couldn’t get through to win, though, just busy signal after busy signal. :-/
Brilliant post. I love reading them
Makes me realize how shitty my camera is.. though I knew to begin with.
People are actually calling this a “study”?!! At best, these are loose correlations. This is simply a good example of why one semester of statistics and access to Excel are such dangerous partners. Knowing how to plot a graph doesn’t make you a statistician or a researcher. Your “findings” are colloquial and meaningless.
I found the study funny, interesting, and yet slightly disturbing. I’m an iPhone user at age 26 and I’m not promiscious at all…
That being said, I think the correlation between attractiveness and time of day is irrellevant.
Most self-photos are taken with camera phones in a spur of the moment or a need to create a new picture (like for a dating site for example….ahem).
In the end I find that the reason people who take self-portraits with camera phones get less responses is because one the quality isn’t as good, but most of the time people who are dating online DON’T have anyone there to take a photo for them. I’m not accusing anyone or making wild assumptions, just making a rather blunt point.
It doesn’t boil down to the phone, but rather like someone else said, the photographer. Are you going to go out to a “Golden Hour” scenic area to get a nice low f-value picture with your timed camera alone? Or are you going to take a spur of the moment picture in your back yard alone?
I think we know the obvious answer.
Some of that is pure bullshit about the smartphone and sex thing.. its not the phone…. its the person, look at the old days when smartphones dont even exist!
and
Its not the camera, its the photographer!
More sexual partners doesn’t equal more sex. Clearly iPhone users are more persuasive, while Android users are better lovers. (They have less partners due to more satisfaction!)