Profile pics for my buddy - C&C please

[cynicaster]

My buddy has been struggling with dating and recently started trying the online thing. For profile pics he was using mostly really old pics or crappy cell phone selfies, so I offered to photograph him, figuring it would be of mutual beneft: he gets better profile pics, and I get some practice.

Both pics below used the same lighting setup, the only difference is the color of the backdrop. I think they turned out OK, but I'm wondering what you guys think could be done better. I know that for the pic with the black background (which I like better), I'm wishing I had achieved some better separation from the background on his hair.

These were taken with my Canon T3i, nifty fifty at f/8.0, and two speedlights.

 

[Gavjenks]

The second photo looks better to me definitely.

HOWEVER, you should not necessarily assume that a technically proficient, well made portrait is the best image to use for dating. The website OKCupid has done a good deal of research on this in its statistics blog using all of the data from its thousands of users, and suggests some very different rules for the types of photos that get the most responses
The 4 Big Myths of Profile Pictures « OkTrends
Don?t Be Ugly By Accident! « OkTrends

The conclusions they make that seem to actually be reasonably supported IMO and that are relevant to you and your friend:
1) The most responses to guys are with no eye contact and NOT smiling.
2) A photo of you doing some sort of interesting activity or hobby is almost twice as likely to get messages and responses as a plain portrait
3) Photos that pique curiosity and/or indicate something about who you are are more effective.
4) Down to about f/2, aperture has a strong correlation with messaging (wider = better). And if you have photos of the guy doing something interesting in context (see #2), then you will probably have a background unlike these images, so DOF will become more noticeable and important.

So for example, an image of him not looking at the camera in front of a backdrop but instead a photo just as technically good but being serious looking down at a pimped out ukelele that he is playing while casually languishing in a field with highly blurred foliage behind him = probably a much much more successful profile picture.

 

[Derrel]

Quick! Scour the interwebs for a pimped out ukelele, and set up a few shots where your buddy is languishing in a field. Teach him the proper way to hold the ukelele. Aim for shots with highly blurred foliage behind him, so shoot everything at f/2!!!

 

[AlanO]

looking down at a pimped out ukelele that he is playing while casually languishing in a field with highly blurred foliage behind him

Lol

 

[Vince.1551]

Pic 1 looks friendly and approachable. Can you take a profile pic for me too? I definitely need one

 

[frommrstomommy]

#2 looks great to me.. I'll be honest though, a pro looking head shot for online dating could very well be a bit odd seeming.. unless it were like work related or something maybe. But def #2 over 1.

 

[Gavjenks]

Nothing to do with photography, but incidentally, I highly recommend that (free!) dating site I linked to. But to make it work its magical magic you need to answer a lot of their random life questions and then trust implicitly in their creepy but extremely effective statistical software. I went on first dates over many years with I dunno, maybe 8-10 people from that site?

5-7 of them were low (70-80ish %) matches according to them, but I thought "screw it they sound the most awesome anyway, you don't know what you're doing you stupid website. This is a joke why am I even here" But then they failed instantly and miserably or maybe led to 2 or 3 dates at most. Versus the other 3 people who were 95% matches according to them, ALL without exception clicked instantly with me and led fluidly and effortlessly to long term relationships (1 year, 3 years, 1.5 years and ongoing, respectively). The two that ended were for subtle and amicable reasons that no service or site could ever possibly have predicted.

It leaves you with an unpleasant feeling about how easily our emotional lives can be factorized down to a simple, dumb formula. But you get over that feeling pretty quickly

(I also followed their profile picture advice, amongst other things they suggest)

 

[Droid04]

Just saying...
- you could try for main light on the short side of the face (camera right in the above) since his face is large and square
- in pic.1 use the second speedlight for overexposing the backdrop
- in pic.2 try for a more serious look - goes better with the black backdrop
Cheers!

 

[cynicaster]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

HOWEVER, you should not necessarily assume that a technically proficient, well made portrait is the best image to use for dating.

I'll be honest though, a pro looking head shot for online dating could very well be a bit odd seeming..

This definitely crossed my mind. In fact, my buddy also questioned the efficacy of this style of photograph for the purpose at hand. I decided to press on anyway because I just wanted to practice. I’m still going to send him the pics, and he can do with them as he pleases; I won’t be the least bit insulted if he decides not to use them.

@Gav—thanks for posting those articles; that was pretty fascinating for me to read, having spent over 2 years in the online dating scene myself. While there, I was constantly trying to understand the nuances of what makes certain profile pictures more effective than others that depict the same person. Such insight is obviously invaluable for anybody who wants to succeed—especially for ordinary dudes like me—because, in the online dating ghetto, the sausage pool is extremely crowded to say the least, and standing out from the sea of boners can be a challenge.

Anecdotally, I can say that my dating activity skyrocketed (relatively speaking) the moment I switched from using “decent snapshots” taken by others to using a series of self-portraits done with a bit more care, specifically for the purpose of online dating. They were, however, a fair bet less “staged-looking” than the ones I’ve done here for my friend, and were all very different from one another, which probably made all the difference.

 

[pixmedic]

Nothing to do with photography, but incidentally, I highly recommend that (free!) dating site I linked to. But to make it work its magical magic you need to answer a lot of their random life questions and then trust implicitly in their creepy but extremely effective statistical software. I went on first dates over many years with I dunno, maybe 8-10 people from that site?

5-7 of them were low (70-80ish %) matches according to them, but I thought "screw it they sound the most awesome anyway, you don't know what you're doing you stupid website. This is a joke why am I even here" But then they failed instantly and miserably or maybe led to 2 or 3 dates at most. Versus the other 3 people who were 95% matches according to them, ALL without exception clicked instantly with me and led fluidly and effortlessly to long term relationships (1 year, 3 years, 1.5 years and ongoing, respectively). The two that ended were for subtle and amicable reasons that no service or site could ever possibly have predicted.

It leaves you with an unpleasant feeling about how easily our emotional lives can be factorized down to a simple, dumb formula. But you get over that feeling pretty quickly

(I also followed their profile picture advice, amongst other things they suggest)

I will have to ask my wife if i can try it out!

 

[pjaye]

I'm going to vote for number 1.

I've spent a lot of time on dating websites. I don't drink, so bars are out, I don't get out much either so meeting people was extremely difficult for me. I'm very much an introvert.

I would respond to his ad if it was interesting and included the first shot. He looks friendly and approachable in that picture. Not that it would have mattered to me, but the second one makes him look bigger. That unfortunately matters to some women.

I met my current partner on POF. It will be a year Sunday that we've been together. I just kept thinking, I'm relatively normal, there has to be other relatively normal people out there too.

On a side note, I HATED okcupid.

 

[pixmedic]

Nothing to do with photography, but incidentally, I highly recommend that (free!) dating site I linked to. But to make it work its magical magic you need to answer a lot of their random life questions and then trust implicitly in their creepy but extremely effective statistical software. I went on first dates over many years with I dunno, maybe 8-10 people from that site?

5-7 of them were low (70-80ish %) matches according to them, but I thought "screw it they sound the most awesome anyway, you don't know what you're doing you stupid website. This is a joke why am I even here" But then they failed instantly and miserably or maybe led to 2 or 3 dates at most. Versus the other 3 people who were 95% matches according to them, ALL without exception clicked instantly with me and led fluidly and effortlessly to long term relationships (1 year, 3 years, 1.5 years and ongoing, respectively). The two that ended were for subtle and amicable reasons that no service or site could ever possibly have predicted.

It leaves you with an unpleasant feeling about how easily our emotional lives can be factorized down to a simple, dumb formula. But you get over that feeling pretty quickly

(I also followed their profile picture advice, amongst other things they suggest)

I will have to ask my wife if i can try it out!

she said no.

 

[frommrstomommy]

I actually met my husband online.. been together around 7 years now, will be married 5 in July. Best of luck to your buddy!

 

[vimwiz]

1) The most responses to guys are with no eye contact and NOT smiling.
2) A photo of you doing some sort of interesting activity or hobby is almost twice as likely to get messages and responses as a plain portrait

So for example, an image of him not looking at the camera in front of a backdrop but instead a photo just as technically good but being serious looking down at a pimped out ukelele that he is playing while casually languishing in a field with highly blurred foliage behind him = probably a much much more successful profile picture.

Worked for me. My pic was me playing my bass (4 years ago now), no dof effect or special lighting, now im to be married in aug!

 

[Designer]

Head tilt wrong in both.

Read links from Gavjenks.

OTOH, these might be o.k. for his resume.

For dating: Model posed shirtless wearing tool belt and holding pneumatic nailer looking at the work, not smiling, with construction in background.

(alt.) Model posing shirtless standing over subdued alligator, not smiling, with a beer in one hand and throwing gang sign with other hand.

(alt.) Model posing shirtless saddling horse, still not looking at camera.

(alt.) Model posing shirtless not smiling or looking at camera.