Jo Walton ([info]papersky) wrote,
@ 2008-11-24 14:33:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Poll #1303467 Boskone want a picture of me for the programme book
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Which is the least awful picture of me?

View Answers

Lucy Huntzinger's
17 (12.9%)

Michael Swanwick's
53 (40.2%)

Cheryl Morgan's
32 (24.2%)

Can't you get Z to take a new one?
30 (22.7%)

Who would be least embarrassing to ask for permission to use their picture?

View Answers

Lucy Huntzinger
20 (19.4%)

Michael Swanwick
18 (17.5%)

Cheryl Morgan
15 (14.6%)

Zorinth
85 (82.5%)

Do I really look awful, or is it just in photographs?

View Answers

You really look awful.
0 (0.0%)

It's just in photographs.
17 (13.9%)

Lots of people look awful in photos, don't worry about it.
82 (67.2%)

You look awful, but I like you anyway!
1 (0.8%)

This is the Fifth.
22 (18.0%)

Pictures, huh?

View Answers

I like pictures of authors and GoHs etc.
78 (62.4%)

I don't like pictutures of aithors, GoHs etc.
1 (0.8%)

I only like pictures of authors, GoHs etc if they look nice.
2 (1.6%)

I'd rather have a picture of some mountains any day.
17 (13.6%)

Why do they never have pictures of tickybox?
75 (60.0%)


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]truepenny
2008-11-24 07:39 pm UTC (link)
For the record, I don't think you look awful in any of those photographs.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]stevenagy
2008-11-24 09:49 pm UTC (link)
Ditto.

You look like a person.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]shewhomust
2008-11-24 07:43 pm UTC (link)
I like Lucy's picture best; and most photographers are pleased if you like their pictures enough to want to use them. Asking Z. might be even less embarrassing; it might (or might not) be harder work - I don't know about his schedule.

Personally, if I'm going to be at an event with an author whose work I like, I'd like a clue about who to look out for. But if you hate it that much, you could at least ask your contacts whether, for example, a swatch of the right shade of blue might be acceptable.

Were the thar cakes all right in the end? I hope so...

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

[info]papersky
2008-11-24 07:47 pm UTC (link)
The thar cakes were like little treacle rocks because I left them in too long, but it's not your fault! Z won't eat them, but [info]rysmiel is getting through them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]txanne, 2008-11-24 11:39 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]mrissa
2008-11-24 07:48 pm UTC (link)
"Nice" is an approximation. I only like pictures of authors, GoHs, etc. if they look like the good end of their own range. I want photos to both look like the people in them and also not feature them making any faces that are totally normal when seen in motion and kind of weird when still.

This icon is labeled "eep!", because of faces that look different when in motion and when still.

(Reply to this)


[info]kalmn
2008-11-24 07:48 pm UTC (link)
i like pictures of goh's so that i can recognize them when i am trapped on an elevator with them. i nearly managed to badmouth tanya huff's books to her face accidentally (as opposed to the panel i was on later when i was doing it on purpose) because she doesn't look a thing like the picture she gave the concom.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cantkeepsilent
2008-11-24 08:07 pm UTC (link)
Vat hyu need is a big hat vit hyu name on it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dd_b
2008-11-24 07:51 pm UTC (link)
I don't expect you'll get anything but pleased agreement from any of the photographers if you ask for permission to use their picture of you for this. Asking for favors is always somewhat fraught, of course.

The correct answer to question 3 was unaccountably omitted; it is "Many people are unhappy with how they look in pictures, but often other people think that they both look fine, and that some of the pictures are good photos of them."

I haven't seen Z's pictures of you enough to have any idea if that's a good idea, so I didn't consider that option in question 1. Possibly that's the best option. Of the pictures you linked to, I think Lucy's will work best cropped down for this, probably.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

[info]noveldevice
2008-11-24 08:06 pm UTC (link)
iawtc (at least regarding people's perception of their appearance in photographs) (and about the photographers' permissions, for that matter).

(I have never seen [info]papersky, so I cannot answer a question so fraught with anything but a non-answer. But I didn't think any of the pictures looked particularly awful.)

(This is a comment composed entirely of cheeseparenthetical statements.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]papersky, 2008-11-24 08:15 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]davidgoldfarb, 2008-11-24 08:39 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]heleninwales, 2008-11-25 02:43 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]grimmwire, 2008-11-24 08:44 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]papersky, 2008-11-24 09:15 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]antonia_tiger, 2008-11-24 10:18 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]beamjockey, 2008-11-25 01:50 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rivka, 2008-11-24 08:54 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]coraa, 2008-11-24 08:55 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]jonquil, 2008-11-24 09:11 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]casacorona, 2008-11-24 09:37 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dd_b, 2008-11-24 09:40 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dd_b, 2008-11-24 09:43 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]marykaykare, 2008-11-24 09:44 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]fairmer, 2008-11-24 10:55 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]green_knight, 2008-11-24 11:00 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]bibliotrope, 2008-11-25 12:30 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ase, 2008-11-25 04:00 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]cristalia, 2008-11-25 03:31 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kate_nepveu, 2008-11-25 04:37 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]lenora_rose, 2008-11-26 12:57 am UTC (Expand)
photos - [info]pir_anha, 2008-12-01 06:56 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]browngirl, 2008-11-24 08:16 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kightp, 2008-11-24 09:08 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]beamjockey, 2008-11-25 01:51 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]fjm, 2008-11-25 08:11 am UTC (Expand)

[info]fjm
2008-11-24 07:54 pm UTC (link)
I like Swanwick's best.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

[info]dd_b
2008-11-24 07:55 pm UTC (link)
Good! What with everybody voting for it and nobody commenting in favor of it, I was starting to wonder.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]jonquil, 2008-11-24 09:12 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dd_b, 2008-11-24 09:58 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sphyg, 2008-11-25 11:38 am UTC (Expand)

[info]jenett
2008-11-24 07:55 pm UTC (link)
I think I photograph really badly, almost all of the time - but a friend of a friend (also a friend of DDB's) did some photos of me, and pointed out that the fact I have very few distinct planes in my face (which is slightly about weight, but actually, was true way back when I was a teenager, too.) This makes photographing them well really tricky, but it turns out there's some stuff that works fairly reliably.


- Stuff that's 3/4 view, or something other than 'straight flat on' tends to work *far* better - it brings out the differences and contrasts in the structure better. This is why I like Swanick photo. (And Cheryl Morgan's is the same way, though I think the 'where your line of sight seems to be going' makes it not as great for an author photo: it does something weird to the overall image composition.)

- And lighting helps a lot - having part of my face in shadow, for example, also helps, or strong light plays up the angles.

- I think having gotten the glasses helped, too - it adds a particular kind of depth, even though my frames are fairly minimalist and not obvious on their own ("raisin" metal, rimless on the bottom)

(Reply to this)


[info]adrian_turtle
2008-11-24 07:57 pm UTC (link)
I'm not a huge fan of pictures in general, but I have to acknowledge the value of making the GOH easy to recognize. (Furthermore, I have to acknowledge that different congoers recognize people according to different, even incomprehensible, criteria. The nice people I used to live with apparently had a couple of conversations with you in Denver without parsing a connection between your nametag and the name on the cover of _Tooth and Claw_.) I think the 3 pictures you link to above are not the best pictures of you I've seen. Would this be suitable?
http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2007/09/farthing-party-photos/
And how is it for you to ask DDB for a picture? "Who is least embarrassing to ask for a picture?" is not a meaningful question, without specifying the person doing the asking. (Me asking Zorinth for anything at all does not suggest similar levels of embarrassment as you asking him for the same thing. Obviously.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]papersky
2008-11-24 08:11 pm UTC (link)
It's a great picture of my hair and shirt but I hate my face in it.

I was looking for things that were recent, so I didn't go back as far as last year's Farthing Party -- two of those were Denver and one was Boreal. I should look at those.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]adrian_turtle, 2008-11-24 09:52 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]beamjockey
2008-11-24 08:12 pm UTC (link)
Kelley, Jo Walton, WSH

You may crop this (or ask me for a higher-resolution version). But I prefer Swanwick's, because it's full of glee.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

[info]kalmn
2008-11-24 08:14 pm UTC (link)
yes. quite full of glee. i like swanwick's, too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]arkuat, 2008-11-25 08:31 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]beamjockey, 2008-11-25 01:42 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]renesears
2008-11-24 08:14 pm UTC (link)
I like the Swanwick one because of your smile in that one. But I've never seen you in person, so take my $.02 with at least one grain of salt.

(Reply to this)


[info]calimac
2008-11-24 08:21 pm UTC (link)
You look good in a hat.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]timprov
2008-11-24 08:24 pm UTC (link)
Agreed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]timprov
2008-11-24 08:23 pm UTC (link)
I like both Lucy's and Swanwick's, but I don't think either of them are really great. Lucy's is probably a little bit better, but it's hard to tell without seeing the full size.

How about this one? How big are they printing this, anyway?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]papersky
2008-11-24 08:39 pm UTC (link)
What do you think of

http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2007/09060-fp2/09080-sat?pic=ddb%2020070908%20010-025

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]timprov, 2008-11-24 09:19 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]auriaephiala
2008-11-24 08:26 pm UTC (link)
There are books out which JUST talk about how to take good portraits. It's much harder than you'd think.

And that's also why models get paid so well -- most people (including me) aren't really, really photogenic.

One of the tips mentioned in these books is (as [info]jenett mentioned) that a 3/4 view of a face tends to be the most flattering. And because you are so naturally expressive in person, showing you smiling or laughing works best.

I voted for the Swanwick picture, which looks like you and makes you look approachable and interesting.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]papersky
2008-11-24 08:39 pm UTC (link)
Do you like this one

http://dd-b.net/cgi-bin/picpage.pl/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/2007/09060-fp2/09080-sat?pic=ddb%2020070908%20010-025

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)
(no subject) - [info]auriaephiala, 2008-11-24 09:20 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]badbookworm
2008-11-24 08:44 pm UTC (link)
I have no idea what you look like in real life, but there's definitely an opposite to photogenic. I know, because I am it. BUT, I think all three of those photos look fine. I think I like the Swanwick one best - you look like someone I'd go up and talk to.

(Reply to this)


[info]athenais
2008-11-24 08:46 pm UTC (link)
Athenais is always happy to give permission for photos to be used in program books and the like as long as she is given photo credit. However, she thinks the DDB photo 1 is the very best of the ones you've listed as you are smiling, not making funny faces, moderately close up and look really quite charming and you-ish in it.

(Reply to this)


[info]stevenagy
2008-11-24 09:48 pm UTC (link)
No one really ever looks good in pictures unless they're paid to. And then there's airbrushing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]dd_b
2008-11-24 09:59 pm UTC (link)
And the Photoshop "liquify" filter!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]pameladean
2008-11-24 10:28 pm UTC (link)
It's not going to change your mind, but I like both the Huntzinger and the Swanwick photos. (I like David's best, but am perhaps a touch biased.) The third one is also not awful, but has an expression best seen in passing; it's kind of like the middle book of a trilogy.

P.

(Reply to this)


[info]tiger_spot
2008-11-24 10:41 pm UTC (link)
I like both Swanwick's and Morgan's, but I think the expression in Swanwick's is a more traditional sort of expression for author-type photos. I also like the first DDB photo, with your hands up.

(Reply to this)


[info]aardvark179
2008-11-24 11:05 pm UTC (link)
There's something about Cheryl's picture that makes you look as if you've just been asked to open a fête and are somewhat taken aback and possibly terribly offended by the suggestion.

(Reply to this)


[info]submarine_bells
2008-11-24 11:09 pm UTC (link)
your little quizzie really needs "I don't know" options for some of the questions. :-7

(Reply to this)


[info]sartorias
2008-11-24 11:17 pm UTC (link)
The Michael Swanwick pic is quite handsome.

(Reply to this)


[info]rolanni
2008-11-24 11:25 pm UTC (link)
I want to know why Jon Singer's glowering in the first picture.

I like the one of you giving your acceptance speech, except for the part where the name-tag says you're Harry Turtledove.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]papersky
2008-11-24 11:28 pm UTC (link)
That was the bit I liked!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]redbird
2008-11-25 12:45 am UTC (link)
You don't look awful in life, or in those photos.

I think you're one of those people who is hard to photograph well, and have seen so many bad pictures of yourself that you think they're all bad. (I thought much the same of pictures of myself for a long time.)

(Reply to this)


[info]velochicdunord
2008-11-25 12:45 am UTC (link)
Our eyes read light differently than camera sensors.. Proper lighting with colour balancing does wonders for most people. If you are needing better head shots, it's time to call a pro.

For really good author photos (if not taken by pro) have it shot outside on a cloudy day, while you are standing or sitting in a shady spot (so as to have even light).. Shoot it from 8 am - 10 am in the moring, or 2:30 pm t0 6:30 pm in the afternoon, at this latitude, about June. It's all about setting up the shot with multiple sources of light, so that you have a primary fill, secondary fill, and a highlight from the the other side to lend highlight to the hair and upper surfaces of the face.

(Reply to this)


[info]nolly
2008-11-25 01:01 am UTC (link)
It seems to me that photographers nearly always catch you in the wrong part of a facial expression. This is a common thing with unposed photos of animated people.
This one is not bad, whereas the one after it appears to me to have caught you mid-word, giving you an odd expression. Several in that series could work, I think,

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]embryomystic
2008-11-28 05:28 am UTC (link)
Oh, hey, I like that one. It's definitely unposed, but the freeze-frame isn't too unflattering.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…