I just wanted to know people's opinion about being photogenic or not. How much does it matter? I know that there are so many amazing actors out there, better than what you see on TV, but yet, they still do not make it on to movies or television.

Aside from the acting ability, how much does being photogenic matter? I mean, there are so many people that just do not look good on camera, but look good in real life.

Do the people still have a chance who don't have that "photogenic" gene?

How much does makeup and lighting help? But then again, there is only so much make up and lighting could do, but they cannot change you.

From people who have professional (or semi professional) experience on camera, please give your advice/opinion.

Are non-photogenic people doomed?

Just from watching TV/movies/commercials, I would say overall "charactery" type actors have far more successful careers than "beautiful" people, if this is what you're asking. You just have to know your type and market yourself accordingly.

I'm not really talking about type. I'm talking about how there can be two people, who are both pretty and "character" types as you call them, but one person will have a face that will work well with camera but the other person, who looks good in real life - doesn't look good on camera.

You are talking about type. If the person doesn't look "beautiful" (whatever that is) *on camera* they are a character type (generally speaking). It's all how you market yourself.

I know what you're talking about, Whispers. Your talking about the certain something that can make someone jump off the screen without trying.

I think it is a great benefit if you have this naturally. It's not mandatory, but it can be very helpful. I'm not sure where it comes from, but I have seen it, I have seen actors that are only all right live, but on the screen, they seem so much better.

Yes Iceman, that is what I'm trying to get at. But then again, how much can makeup and lighting affect? Can "special effects" really help a person look tremendously better on scree/camera?

absolutely--take a look at that mag on newstands with "stars" with no makeup and no lighting.

quote:

Aside from the acting ability, how much does being photogenic matter? I mean, there are so many people that just do not look good on camera, but look good in real life.

Do the people still have a chance who don't have that "photogenic" gene?

Sure. Think of all the people who didn't have it and then... suddenly did. I barely noticed George Clooney when he was on 'Sisters', thought of him as a nice member of the team at the start of "ER".... and now? I don't think anyone particularly noticed Paul Giamatti until "American Splendor", etc.

Sometimes you grow into your own distinctiveness. With lots of work and experience.

So much of the fame thing has to do with some mysterious press/pr aspect---and somehow wrenching yourself into the public eye. I would imagine success depends less on photogenic-ness than on those other mysteries.
Although, of course we all know people who are lovely in real life and just don't "read" on camera the same way they do in person, and some people look fabulous on stage and not so much on film...Are non-photogenic people doomed? Not at all. But it may be one of the 10,000 factors that assist or stall your path to success.

Like so many things, if you don't have it, it doesn't mean you can't succeed in acting, you just have to work that much harder then someone who does. It's not really fair, but life rarely is.

quote:

Originally posted by Whispers:
I just wanted to know people's opinion about being photogenic or not. How much does it matter? I know that there are so many amazing actors out there, better than what you see on TV, but yet, they still do not make it on to movies or television.

Aside from the acting ability, how much does being photogenic matter? I mean, there are so many people that just do not look good on camera, but look good in real life.

Do the people still have a chance who don't have that "photogenic" gene?

How much does makeup and lighting help? But then again, there is only so much make up and lighting could do, but they cannot change you.

From people who have professional (or semi professional) experience on camera, please give your advice/opinion.

Are non-photogenic people doomed?

There's an interesting question.

Both from my experience as a photographer and a simple observer, I've noticed that being the best actor doesn't necessarily coincide with being photogenic at all. Take into consideration Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman, Dame Judy Dench and Meryl Streep -- not what I would call classically beautiful specimens by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I think more often than not, striking good looks can actually be a detriment to a serious acting career. I can't even recount how many times I've heard gorgeous models complain to me of just this problem -- it appears that uncommonly good looks can even work against you. Her distinct lack of talent aside, I'm sure Cindy Crawford's acting career was in serious doubt by a skeptical Hollywood establishment even before they saw her first dailies.

I break down leading actors into two distinct categories for this reason -- sexy leading actors, and character leading actors. An example of the first would be Matt Damon in the sexy category, and Gene Hackman in the latter. For the ladies, Cameron Diaz in the first case, Kathy Bates in the other. Interestingly, you'll find that the "meatier" roles almost exclusively go to the less "perfect" among us.

In the final analysis, this world and all of the actors in it will always reveal the full range of humanity -- the good, the bad, and the ugly.

www.robertkim.com