Do I actually look like how I do in photographs? I look better

>>2883280
Here are some variables that make "mirror you" look different than "photo you"
>focal length of lens isn't equivalent to eye focal length
>dynamic range is different on sensors/film than it is on our eyes
>you're used to seeing your facial features in a mirror and it looks off seeing it not mirrored

I'd imagine that looking in a mirror would be more accurate, because you're receiving the image through your eyes and nothing else. With a photo you're seeing the image the camera lens received at the moment the picture was taken, and with that there could be all kinds of distortion - subtle or obvious - based on the focal length, depth of field, shutter speed vs. movement in the picture, et cetera.

Cameras don't lie, at least not that much.

You're used to the way you look in the mirror and your mind emphasizes certain features, either consciously or not. For example, maybe you hate your nose and think it's too long or your something, so it appears longer to you in the mirror than in a photograph.

Then again, angles and lighting are everything.

In a photograph, you are not flipped. In a mirror, you are flipped. You are used to seeing flipped you, so unflipped you looks weird. Take a photograph of you and flip it. Either you'll go, "Wow, I look okay!" And this is how people see you. Or you'll say, "Oh shit I'm even uglier now," In which case you're an ugly shit and go kill yourself.

In a mirror you are looking at yourself flipped. You are more familiar seeing the asymetrical features in reverse. If you tend to look at yourself in a mirror more often than you do in photography then it may seem weird. Also, mirrors are typically indoors so lighting may be different.

It might even fall into the "uncanny" territory.

the mirror image is what you're used to, so it will look somehow better, not because it makes you better, but because you're accustomed to it. A nice tricky about mirrors is, whatever the distance you're from it, the objects will always have the same size. So, your phone image will be the same if you're 5in close or 10in far.

It also show your real self. That are locked in the shadow of it's 4th dimension self, struggling for the freedom you never had. Or do you believe in free will, ignoring that we are a simulation of a simulation that are going to run another simulation?

>>2883280
Whats with the blurry guy on the right? Does he have some sort of shaking issue or something?
Perhaps he brought some back with him.... from somewhere....

>>2883526

Uh, yeah. That's fucking Tom Cruise and he's still shaking from the Days of Thunder.

>>2883529
no, it's darude sandstorm

>>2883280
You look like your self esteem, anon.

you guys are all fucking neet idiots. have you never seen another person in the mirror before? they look exactly the same as irl. it's a reflection.

take your phone put it on front facing camera and tilt it all around your face. wow distortion from the lens. /thread

>>2883327
>And this is how people see you
wat

File: 1417820123280.jpg (270KB, 1628x532px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1628x532px

>>2883280

File: images.jpg (4KB, 169x127px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 169x127px

>>2883327
>>2883327

Fucking hell FINALLY, somebody who actually gets it. You guys are fucking morons.

>>2883894
another factor is that most of us don't have symmetrical faces. So when we look at ourselves in the mirror to primp or whatever we unconsciously move our faces to the angle that most compliments ourselves. We seem to have a certain self imposed frameshot in our heads of how others see us

the type of lens and distance CAN change the way we look like >>2883882 in photographs though