Printable View
So when I dress, and I look in the mirror I'm happy and I feel good and I feel complete. I like how i look, and how i present. I see all my female features.
And then i try to take a pic, or a selfie and it looks like an old guy wearing women's clothes. It's a disaster, it's awkward, I see all my male features.
Does anyone else experience this? And if so how do you deal with it?
play around with angles and lighting.
Focus on what you want to show off and take the emphasis off what you want to hide
I have a very prominent chin and I hate how it looks (in male or female mode) but I can usually find a better angle to lessen the impact of it
The lighting can make a big difference. You want soft light, which looks like it is coming from everywhere, or from all angles.
The Sun is the worst light source as it all comes from a single direction. Which is why you see photography crews carrying around big reflectors to add light from other angles. Which is expensive but worth it.
Wedding photographers use bounce flash to reflect light off the ceiling and walls. This is the best they can do to get candid photos.
There is also the golden hour when the sun is setting. This is a great time for photos.
Where I live there are days in which my yard will be illuminated by sun reflecting off the clouds overhead after the sun has set.
This is totally different from what the yard looks like in the middle of the day!
Marion
Lydianne's link provides the answer (specifically post #4 from Teresa)
Short answer: your camera lens is too small
I know exactly how you feel, just yesterday I was taking my annual Maria pic with the Xmas tree. Because my wife was working from home she decided to join in. After I was going through the pics I don't know why, I told my wife that I believe I'm looking in the mirror and seeing something else. My wife did encourage me by telling me things look different in pictures. I thought I looked like a ugly version of my sister and myself all in one. Pretty much a man in a dress
I try again this week, maybe you could try again to.
Something else critical that hasn't been mentioned yet...
You are taking a real-world 3D object -- and "mashing" it down into a flat 2D image.
Yeah, doing something like that is probably gonna have some weird effects. ;)
The camera is showing how you actually look at that moment. Lighting and such is just an excuse. You can adjust the lighting to get nicer photos, but in real life, others see you the way the photos show you. Best to use photos as teaching tools.
Videos are good teaching tools as well, especially for how to walk and carry yourself.
Try a DSLR if you have one (or even a pocket camera), it gives much better results than a phone perspective-wise.
Like Angela said, Teresa provides very good advice in the post linked by Lydianne.
Still, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what your eyes see is a reconstruction done by your brain, not an actual picture, so even a photo well taken with a good camera may disappoint you (I also think we dont look at ourselves like we look at others, for example I suppose you don't consider that pictures of other people are as disappointing as yours). A photo is a less lenient judge than your brain, you might think this is a flaw, but I consider it an advantage in the sense that it allows you to be realistic about your look, and help adjust things.
I experience the same thing you do, and it adds about 50 lbs to me lol.
All suggestions about lighting are good and lighting does help as Teresa has pointed out before. But one of the major points is included in Krisi's post. Perception is what it is about that which involves the brain and how it interprets what the eyes see. It comes down to psychology.
At the mirror you have been working on your looks and your brain likes to subconsciously impose a gratification for your effort - a positive perception of yourself. Keep in mind that what we see is only partly what is there and there is not a lot of objectivity in the image produced. "Processing" a seen view involves about 17 different areas of the brain that specialize in adding its bit of interpretation to the final image. It all happens in about 1/60 of a second and there is expectation built into what is perceived - that is bias in the perception. The image that the eyes produce and is sent to the brain is a pretty poor like the images from the very first digital cameras. But the brain's processing produces highly detailed interpretation using information taken from expectations of what SHOULD be there and not necessarily what is there.
But in a photograph which is a 2-dimensional representation of the world on a piece of paper the brain will interpret that differently. There is still a bit of bias built into the processing of the image in the brain, but the brain recognizes it as a photograph and not an instant reflection of something interpreted by a brain that has expectations and desires that are very active. The photograph is not actually telling the truth in the perception either, but it is closer to reality. Thus the connection between yourself and the photograph is different than the connection between a reflection of yourself by yourself. We see ourselves differently in each medium.
Tests with apes show this clearly. They may not be startled by looking at a photograph of themselves because it is interpreted differently. In fact, they may consider it to be just a piece of paper with colors smeared over it - boring. But if they look in a mirror and see their reflection they produce an immediate and very strong reaction. They may be startled or curious. They may look behind the mirror. Their perception is completely different and ours is as well even though we understand more about what is happening. The photograph shows much more honestly what you look like in that precise situation (lighting, background, body position, etc.) The mirror is more of a biased illusion.
Yes, I hate some of the photos the camera reveals! Taking self photos with a timer is a crap shoot. So what I do is come to the realization that I am a man in a dress. But some photos turn out good enough to share.Quote:
Does anyone else experience this? And if so how do you deal with it?
But iss your goal to get better photos or to reduce masculine features so you'll be more passable when going out?
The photos are showing you what you need to work on. There are ways of covering some male features. Start with long sleeves ;)
Angela,
You beat me to it !
So much is to do with camera angle and focal length , that is the problem with smart phone cameras they have to use wide angle lenses to achieve the selfies but it's not flattering .
Adelinapa,
We all have days like that , it still makes me smile when I rushed to my builder's merchant in light makeup my old wig , jeans and an old Tshirt and got called " Madam" twice by two different sales guys . I'm sure they just saw blond hair and boobs and registered female !
Sometimes the wig can be the problem , long hair isn't always sexy , it does take the right facial shape to take it , when I tried some long wigs on I looked more like Macbeth's witches . The same goes for the choice of glasses , some women's styles are unisex or masculine looking , the right frame can change the shape and look of the face .
My wife asked me once why I took so many pictures and I gave her this exact reason.
When I look in the mirror I see what I want (or hope) to see. I see a woman staring back, I see the form I want to be in and it's easy to do. When I take a picture I can step back and be more objective. I can criticize my appearance from the vantage point that others have. It's easier to see flaws and acknowledge them.
Everyone does this. It's not just us. My wife does it when she sees a picture from some event. Girlfriends I had in college who were (in my opinion) gorgeous all looked at photos and and picked apart every detail.
It's natural to do this. Don't get hung up on it. Use it to improve not denigrate yourself.
I definitely see it. The eye see what the mind wants to see. I first notice this in my male self as I do not take pictures of my female self. The women in my family top out at 5 foot six at the most. I am six foot in bare feet. My son is six foot four. Even pictures of me among other males I stick out. Six foot two can be a curse when it comes to blending. Although six foot two in the old days at 175 pounds attracted women, it is six foot and 200 pounds now. I deal with it by not getting too close to mirrors. I dress alone so there is no chance of me being placed next to smaller men and shorter women. I stay within my personal comfort zone. When I have the opportunity I do go for an evening drive and stroll in a very quiet and safe residential neighborhood.
I know what you mean and agree with others about lighting, angles, etc. I take most of my pictures with my iPad and always take a dozen or more. I find by using the extensive editing features, I?m able to modify each picture. It?s fun.
Different lighting produces different looks as does soft vs sharp focus, colors, background and a host of other things unique to indoors and human subjects.
I have three camera bodies, two lighting systems, tripod and experience working with digital images and layered graphics and could discuss f-stops, ISO and shutter speeds and the effects that changes would have. That would just cause confusion as most people use phones, point and shoot or tablets as cameras. If that is the level someone is at I would suggest finding a favorite automatic setting and work on posing and lighting. For anyone using an SLR I recommend prime lenses like my 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8. The 85 is considered a portrait lens and the 50 is like a wider angle version of the 85mm. Those lenses allow a person to set the camera on manual or aperture and play with the depth of field which is a big thing in portrait photos so as to get a soft focus behind the subject. Posing in such a way so as to flatter our good angles is a priority as well. Don?t be afraid to delete bad shots. That?s what the pros do, take dozens of images, cull out and delete the bad.
It's easy to look at yourself in the mirror and say to yourself "I look great.".
Our minds are the best filters.
But the camera does not lie.
I see an old guy in the mirror, but it gets worse with pictures!
Once in a while I look in the mirror and think, well not too bad for an old guy, then take a few pics, look at them and delete them all! Why is a camera so critical?
it also needs to be said that the mirror gives us an opposite perspective of ourselves...a 'mirror image' as it were, and that's all we've seen out entire lives. The camera doesn't give us that same opposite effect so I think we all tend to see ourselves a little bit different in photographs
My mirror shows the unvarnished truth.:daydreaming:
While, in photos I have some control over liting, angles, and background. I also edit small defects from ALL the pics I post here, FaceBook, and other online forums. And, u better believe that's A LOT!:devil:
I'm so hung up on my looks that if I see ANYTHING masculine in my pics they get deleted!:doh:
That's the MAIN reason I wear masks!:heehee:
Hi Adel :hugs:, Your Mirror & Camera can be your best friend or your worst Enemy, >Orchid**O:daydreaming:O**
I think for authenticity it would be a video .
It shows everything, how you move, walk everything.
I would tell Sherlyn ....if you want to see what I see take a video.
And those of you who remember Sher loved taking photos....then she loved making videos even more .
What you see in the photos is what others see of you. If you have the space and time set up a triple full length mirrors in a "U" formation. you see what you look like. It is why most fitting rooms in upper class photo and store establishments have them. You get a 180 degree look at yourself.
After taking the photos, bring them into the computer and flip them left to right (horizontal) and you will see what you would see look like in a mirror.
Another way is to hold the photo up beside your living self and look at both through a mirror, now you can see and compare both from the same relative point of view.
Some people have a different look when flipped.
To give you an example of what I am talking about, I provide this photo.
Attachment 317799
Here you can see me.
One is flipped, the other is not.
Can you tell which is flipped?
"You don't have to be a man to love a Lady."
One thing I need to do differently is the camera angle. I tend to shoot with the camera close to the floor, because that is what is handy. I need to try from up higher, maybe chest or head high and see if that angle is more forgiving. It probably won't make a difference. Still and old guy in a dress!
I wish the photos forum would allow made at home videos also. It it does, i do not know how to post one.
I think it's a situational weighting of all the theories that have been mentioned. Some will be more applicable than others in different situations.
But if, for a second, we humour those that think the photo is the definitive truth, then we would be faced with the following questions :thinking: :
1. A plain mirror reflects true to depth and size. A wide angle camera lens distorts proportion with reduction in distance. How can everything a camera shoots be true when the images differ at different distances?
2. Camera results vary with light quality. So how can they all be true in both good and bad light when the results are so different and detail gets lost so quickly with diminishing light?
3. Increasing resolution makes a huge difference. At what point do you decide when it becomes the truth?
4. If a camera only gives you a single frame, while other people viewing you in person are seeing you in motion with varying positions, distances, angles, lighting & shading, etc ( with their brains averaging out the images they receive ), how can that be best comparable to one still image?
5. Most of our cameras, which capture their images through a single lens, do not perceive depth in the same way that two-eyed vision does. If most people will be viewing us with two eyes, how can the single-lens still image be best representative of that?
6. You can hide imperfections or look better using clever camera angles, lighting and shading which cannot be hidden or accentuated in a mirror. Skin imperfections, for example.
However, that's not to say the mirror is the definitive truth:
1. If the image's difference from the mirror were entirely due to the inversion, crossdresser or otherwise, it would be universal knowledge that we could "fix" all our photos simply by inverting them.
2. The brain does fill in details with what it expects to see:
Imagine you were focused upon trying to smoothen down your brow bone area better. When you're finished and you look into the mirror, your eyes will tend to focus upon that area.
Now imagine that you hadn't properly blended a cheek highlight. It would be right there, but you could miss it because you're focused on trying to make ( or break ) the case for your brow line. Your brain would be filling in the fine details of everything else with what it expects would be there ( or with what it has seen from memory ).
. . But none of this matters.
Sure it is interesting, and I used to lament that I could not step outside my skin just for 5 seconds to see myself without a lens. At some point, you just gotta go with it :strugglin. If not everyone you walk past is bursting out laughing... or, my favourite, if they stop you for whatever reason, and their eyebrows go upwards instead of down,.... it's OK.
Just no complacency. Keep striving for more regardless of what your pics look like :straightface:.
- L.
Lighting, focal length, depth of field, and posing all will make or break a photo. They say the camera adds 10 lbs, and sometimes I think I have several cameras on me - haha. There is a degree to which seeing yourself in a photo is like listening to your recorded voice -- it's unappealing because it is a perspective you don't get. I can be OK with my mirror appearance, and even in many of the pictures. But, show me a video of myself and it's "eeewwwwhhh!"
You can post video, but you need to "store" or upload the video online elsewhere, Youtube for example, there are others, then post the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alice Torn
What Pumped is saying is you need to upload the video someplace else like You-Tube and you can LINK to is in these forums and it will appear in your post.
Just press the little button that looks like a film strip.
I could write a long explanation on the choice of cameras and the right lens to use for a particular job . In some respects digital cameras have confused what focal length to use , it all depends on the size of the sensor .
I worked with film cameras , when we referred to a standard lens we knew we would get a picture more or less the way the eye saw it . On 35mm film cameras 50mm was the standard lens , on 6cm x 6cm film format ( my workhorse ) 80mm was the standard lens and on my 5" x 4" camera the standard lens was 150mm .
If I wanted to flatter my portrait subjects I would use a focal length twice that of the standard lens because a longer lens will compress the features meaning on a close up the nose and chin appeared slightly smaller in proportion to the rest of the face , I always shot at eye level on a head and shoulders study which is the correct way to make the eyes stand out . On a full length portrait the most flattering position is shooting at waist height with the camera at right angles to the subject , so the body looks in proportion . I never ever shot portraits on wide angle lenses because they have the opposite effect that is why most people's selfies shot on smart phones are unpredicable or just bad .
Lighting is a whole new ball game , soft daylight and diffusers are possibly the most flattering not unless you want to achieve a dramatic effect . Digital is far more forgiving with light levels than film cameras but they're not perfect . I worked in the days before photoshop so I had to get things right at the shooting stage , any miscalculations were hopefully correctable in the darkroom .
There is a web site that I found called All About CD. It has a link on there called "20 Female Poses for Crossdressers to look Feminine & Beautiful". It has some tips on getting better pictures using various poses. It has pictures to illustrate what they are talking about. The problem with cameras is that they take a three dimensional world and put it into a two dimensional format.
A big part of the problem is that the cameras on phones, especially older models, are optimized for a focal length that’s longer than your arm, so selfies often turn out subtly bad. Try using the timer instead and take your photos from a little greater distance.
Deborah,
An image in two dimensions from the 3d World isn't the problem , light and depth of field ( depending on the lens ) can fool the eye which also applies to paintings .
I agree correct posing is important but you don't have to look at CDers sites , just look in any glossy magazine at models . I had to learn all this for correct positioning and posing at weddings , portrait work can be more flexible but there are some basics which either flatter a person or they don't .
Ha! Di has a very good point here. I always take a few videos in addition to pics and the video is always much closer to what I see in the mirror than the photos, even with the smartphone's camera. I don't know the exact reason but concur with Di, something to do with the fact that even standing still looking at a mirror you are a live figure like in a video, not a statue. Anyway try doing close video shots, you may like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Di
As for Sher I didn't know her but saw a nice holiday video of you two.
I'm surprised. I thought there would be a big difference in perspective based on the focal length of the lens. I did two photos, the position of the camera and myself the same in both, but in the first one I used the widest angle (18mm) on my DSLR zoom lens, and the second at the other extreme (55mm). Admitted, it isn't an immense change, but possibly enough. I don't really see a difference. (I cropped the 1st pose to help compare). Perhaps it has more to do with the distance from the camera.
p.s. My principle reason for the pics was to capture an image of my new patterned hose.
Geena,
This is part of ther problem with digital cameras , you don't know how to relate focal length unless you know the size of the sensor or the actual image size on the sensor .
18mm is fairly wide angle but 55mm is not much over standard lens , possibly a small telephoto . Also the smaller the image area the less pronounced depth of field is , that's why most video cameras have a deep depth of field .
Looking at your pictures again I can see a compression of the image on the 55mm setting , the rails on the balustrade appear closer and thicker .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geena75
Different people experience different results with that. Consider this response:
LINK: https://www.crossdressers.com/forums...=1#post4327417Quote:
Originally Posted by DIANEF
But ultimately, the end destination in terms of what we need to do, is the same.
I sort of estimate based on past experience. My old film SLR had the equivalent zoom lens of 35 - 70 mm. Comparing, it seems that around 35mm in digital is like the old 50mm was in film. I'm not sure of the exact conversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teresa
Geena,
The only guide I can give you is the FX / DX designation on digital SLRs . FX is far more expensive geared towards professionals , FX means full frame which relates to the full 35mm film format . DX as far as I'm aware is smaller but I don't know by how much , I'm inclined to think it could be equivelent to the old half frame format , some of the OLympus camera range were half frame like the PanF camera . This means a 25mm lens would be the standard lens so 55 mm would be a small telephoto , which makes sense of your figures on your digital camera .
After all these years I haven't updated to a digital SLR , the problem is I have some fabulous Nikon lenses that need to be fitted to Nikon FX body , the best option for me is buy a used ( second hand ) one . But then it means I'm carting a large , heavy camera case and the other problem is I will need to buy a high end computer and printer to do it justice .
It's so much simpler with my little Canon Ixus !!
Teresa,
Your "old" Nikon lenses will actually work just fine on either FX or DX Nikon cameras with the F mount. The 35mm film lenses are full frame lenses so they cover an FX sensor completely. Since the DX, or APS-C, sensors, are smaller, a full frame lens more than covers it too. Using a DX lens on an FX sensor however is not so good because the lens doesn't cover the entire sensor.
Using a full frame lens on an APS-C (DX) camera results in some increase in focal length as you said as well. For Nikon it is 1.5x and for Canon it is 1.6x, other brands vary a little. In other words, if you use a 50mm "old" film lens on a Nikon DX camera it will function like it is a 50mm x 1.5 = 75mm lens.
There are many great used Nikon DX cameras to be had for very reasonable money and even if your lenses are manual focus you can still use them.
As a general comment to the thread, for taking pictures of yourself with a DSLR camera, you want a short tele lens to make it look natural. If you use a wide angle lens and you are too close to your face, the nose will look larger which is usually not desirable! So like Star and Teresa have explained, something equivalent to 85mm (in full frame terms) works well, and as Micki said, a cell phone held at arms length is not optimal because the perspective will be wrong.
For a real pro portrait there are a lot of other considerations of course, but most people here just want decent looking pictures of themselves, not something to hang in the corporate office.
I remember desperately trying to take some pictures of myself dressed in the days before (read: Long before) the digital times. No immediate feedback on a screen and the stress of sending the film off to let some stranger develop it. Just figuring out how to frame the picture while being in front of the camera was a task!
In the early days I didnt even have a camera with a self timer so I had to invent all sorts of contraptions to trigger the camera. What a mess.
Suzie,
Part of the problem with smaller sensors on early digital cameras was to keep the cost down . I remember when the first Hassleblad digital came out , it cost ?17,000 in the UK and needed a separate pack worn on a belt to hold the hard drive , even then the sensor wasn't a full 6 x 6 format , I believe it was 6 x 4.5 .
When I took myself in the studio I used my Bronica 6 x 6 camera with a long air release so after every shot I had to wind the film on . To get my posing right I used a long length mirror alongside the camera . Processing was no problem as I had my own colour darkroom .
I only used my 6 x 6 Bronica for portraits with a 150mm lens I only used my Nikon if customers wanted slides or to take on holiday .
I have a Nikon 80-200 F2.8 autofocus zoom which fits my FM2 film camera and it worked on my friends DX model Nkon and as you say it extended the zoom range .
It may be a good idea to take the technical aspects of cameras to PM. Most are just interested in better pictures/selfies.
Char,
Part of the question had the technical answer why it's not possible to get good pictures .
I have a friend that is a professional photographer. His specialty is outdoor and wildlife. I asked him what is the secret to taking good pictures. He told me take a lot of pictures, and throw away most of them!
Years ago he was hired by National Geographic to take pictures. I talked to him about it after the magazine was published. He spent three months in the wilderness taking pictures of elk and wolves. It isn't easy, you need to find them, and they don't take instruction very well, so it takes some time! He told me he took over 4,000 pics and tossed about 90% of them because the were out of focus, the animal took off running and the shot was blurry, and some just were poor angles. He brought his roughly 400 pictures to NG and he and the editor spent days going through them and in the end the magazine published four pictures. I would like to know what they paid for those four pictures, he won't say, but considering the time spent and all the other expense I venture to guess there was a few zeros before the decimal point on the check!
And we take 5-6 pictures and complain!:bonk:
I found it takes a good camera and lighting.
Pumped ,
Hard to say how it was costed , the point is your photographer friend should hold the copyright so he can continue to earn from them . Working on digital format means you can keep shooting till your batteries run out but it was different when using film stock .
Some jobs can't take days or weeks , they use to call wedding photography " Portraiture at the Gallop !" I know it kept me fit .
YES---I find the most DIFFICULT thing to do in the world is take Selfies.----BUT I have solved the problem TAKE VIDEOS with your computer camera----THEN Watch the Video for the BEST pose , image and lighting--Freeze it and copy, or click it frame by frame to find the perfect image. I usually watch the video and pause it at a good looking part---several times, for the best frame, if I must.---Then I use the snip tool to snip a STILL from the screen and then store it in my album.----I really do think photos give us the best idea of what we look like (or should look like)--But you gotta have the best pose and angle. Mirrors are strange---I find I DO look better, but I think the mirror forces you to concentrate on certain portions and not "see" the entire image. Either that or The mirror has a more "Rounded" 3D effect where the photo is FLAT.
Right! I have found that by covering all the mirrors, and turning all the lights off, I can eliminate almost all of the visual, noticeable male things about me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Maid_Marion