[SuzanneR]

Suzanne, sorry about putting this in the wrong section. However, it is not a flippant question, as I can testify that as a photography lecturer over the last 20 years, some people are photogenic and most are not and this has nothing to do with personal preference of beauty.

I largely agree with you, and I don't think being photogenic has much to do with one's inner (or even outer) beauty. That said... since most of us live and work in the realm of the mostly unphotogenic (or barely photogenic) people, then how do you go about making portraits that are? I don't find the thought or question to be flippant at all, in fact, I think it's an interesting question, but since photogenic people like Georgia O'Keefe are so rare, it leads me to think about how to make portraits that elevate those of us not so blessed into compelling portraits. I mean honestly, half of Steiglitz's work was done just by working with someone so photogenic, and I don't mean to dismiss his talent, I'm an enormous fan, because I think he pushed the muse thing farther than just about anyone at that time, but what good fortune to have such a willing and photogenic model.

You know, this is a great question, because now I'm thinking about Avedon, and I'm sure he had quite the eye for the photogenic, because those folks in his American West all were! At least in the picture, but I'll bet in person they looked quite normal... which has me wondering... was it the photographer? Was is his craft that made the portraits so interesting? Was it who he selected to photograph?

Thanks for posing the question... has me thinking....