[scottwww]

Originally Posted by fotios330i

does the girl in the pics think shes hot or do you not know her.If anyone thinks shes hot they are on crack for sure.

She's just some random person off the street that agreed to be photographed.

[ward]

why is it a different girl now?

who also looks bad

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by ward

why is it a different girl now?

who also looks bad

Some people just look different when you see them again.

[ksfrogman]

Did the OP swap photos on us?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by ksfrogman

Did the OP swap photos on us?

How did you vote, frogman? I know you from the Hual Africa.

[Johnny Lin]

Super ugly!

[ksfrogman]

Originally Posted by scottwww

How did you vote, frogman? I know you from the Hual Africa.

The original poster did a bait and switch. Why do a poll, then switch what we are voting on midway? Not the same photo now.

The woman in the ORIGINAL photo didn't deserve to be called ugly.

I bet half the guys who have bad things to say are ugly.

[Nikki]

What was the original photo? I was realllly confused when I saw the photo and then the ratings.

[FotiosF90M5]

Originally Posted by ksfrogman

The original poster did a bait and switch. Why do a poll, then switch what we are voting on midway? Not the same photo now.

The woman in the ORIGINAL photo didn't deserve to be called ugly.

I bet half the guys who have bad things to say are ugly.

probably

[scottwww]

27% with a 0 rating. That was unexpected.

[scottwww]

What I wanted to do was to post pictures of beautiful women, plain women, and soemthing repulsive to see how the comments might play out. But, people gave some pretty negative results from the start, before I even changed pictures. So I stayed with my own pictures (for the most part).

Here are my notes:



Here are all of my pictures again. These are everthing I posted in this thread, less a couple downloaded images that will go in the next post. I don't see how these could get such low marks. (I will not change them again here.)


Girl_01:



Girl_02:


Girl_03:


Girl_04:


Girl_05:


Girl_06:


Girl_07:


Girl_08:


Girl_09:


Girl_10:

[scottwww]

catzillapants:



0569smilepotsMVstamp:


cp_red_400w:

[scottwww]

Here are the next four pictures I was going to show:

Girl_11:



Girl_12:


Girl_13:


Girl_14:

[scottwww]

Since only about 1/4 of respondents rated these girls better than a 5 on a scale of 10, I guess I won't be finding the rest of the pictures of these girls to post.

These came from my camera and my buddy's darkroom when (years ago) we spent a couple afternoons finding women who wanted to have their pictures taken.

We took a lot of photos. Mostly of everything but people.

[magmd]

A main flaw is your study is that you are asking us to rate the attractiveness of women from photos taken in the 80's and 90's with the standards of our modern day. Our tastes in what we consider beautiful or hot, changes dramatically with what the media demostrates to us. The current style of beauty determined by natural looks AND by style of dress, style of hairdress, and most recently...advances in plastic surgery.

So, its no surprise that you poll received very low ratings based on your dated examples.

[chicagolab]

some look too masculine, even close to drag queens....they also look like eastern european women from rural areas that are trapped in the 80s

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by magmd

A main flaw is your study is that you are asking us to rate the attractiveness of women from photos taken in the 80's and 90's with the standards of our modern day. Our tastes in what we consider beautiful or hot, changes dramatically with what the media demostrates to us. The current style of beauty determined by natural looks AND by style of dress, style of hairdress, and most recently...advances in plastic surgery.

So, its no surprise that you poll received very low ratings based on your dated examples.

Yes. I guess so. Not that they were beauties in October 1992 when I shot these photos, but I thought they were attractive at the time. I still do. I would rate them all above average. And well above 50% of the global female population.

A link that Nikki posted in another thread http://www.break.com/index/the-power-of-photoshop.html and another that DougLikesBMW posted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U both give some idea of why our expectations may be distorted.

[ejazbmw]

i gave her a 5 and that was being nice

[magmd]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Yes. I guess so. Not that they were beauties in October 1992 when I shot these photos, but I thought they were attractive at the time. I still do. I would rate them all above average. And well above 50% of the global female population.

Imagine what the results would be if I created a poll asking people to rate this "random unknown" woman on a scale of 0-10 based on these pics:














Versus asking people to rate this "random unknown" woman on a scale of 0-10 based on these pics

[ward]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Yes. I guess so. Not that they were beauties in October 1992 when I shot these photos, but I thought they were attractive at the time. I still do. I would rate them all above average. And well above 50% of the global female population.

A link that Nikki posted in another thread http://www.break.com/index/the-power-of-photoshop.html and another that DougLikesBMW posted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U both give some idea of why our expectations may be distorted.

Scott had you been at the time?

[ehhhwik]

dirt ugly

[Zeiss]