Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.social
Subject: Re: Anorexia & errors in self perception...
Message-ID: <451@unc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Jun-85 14:26:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.451
Posted: Sun Jun 16 14:26:30 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 04:18:13 EDT
References: <147@unc.UUCP> <rocheste.9484> <158@unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 21
Summary: 

In article <rtech.488> training@rtech.UUCP (Robert Orenstein) writes:
>
>Cameras are notorious for distorting appearances; the degree and type
>of the distortion is related to the size of the lens.  So-called "normal"
>lenses (50mm lenses, which are the type that come with most cameras)
>tend to make people look heavier than they are.

That doesn't makes sense.  A camera's lense is rotationally symmetrical.
I what you say were true, then all we need do is turn the cameral sideways.
Then the subject would look taller instead of wider.

>That's why models are usually slimmer than the rest of us:
>when their picture is taken, it makes them look heavier.  

I rarely if ever meet any models (one of the disadvantages of my career).
The only models I see are in photographs.  The same is true for most women.
If what you say were true, then how would anyone notice that models are thin?
Why would women complain about being compared to a magazine image,
if the camera fleshes out the models to normal width?

	Frank Silbermann