so, people that look good in moving pictures are called clipgenic, i guess.
one does not always complement the others. they can look good in one medium, but not on the other medium.
Cinematogenic
the video equivalent of photography is cinematography.
And then there are people with a radio face
Telegenic.
This is a showerthought?
Do you take your dictionary with you to the shower?
Are there actually photogenic people who look worse on video or irl?
If theyβre photogenic surely they just look good all the time, I canβt think of any examples of photogenic looking worse on video.
Photos are generally composed, so someone can easily be photogenic from conventional photography angles and always look good.
Video is often never composed frame-by-frame to the level of a photo, so itβs a lot more likely to get less than flattering angles, which would lead to this.
I think someone being video-genic would probably be less common than photogenic because it implies you effortlessly look great from any angle
Iβve never seen someone who looks good in photos but not videos, but I suppose it could happen if they only have one or two really good angles. Most people look different through a camera lens or in real life, though, some better in one or the other, some good in both, but still different.
