It’s also interesting that older touchstones for beauty — bone structure, say, or arrangement of features — don’t often come up in discussions of HD-era beauty. High-def assets, apparently, are not lineaments so much as coloring, tone and texture. Well-modeled beauties of earlier eras (Katharine Hepburn, Faye Dunaway, Harry Belafonte) might never have received credit for their high cheekbones and regal noses had they regularly appeared in high definition; the technology might have turned them into nothing but creases, rashes, broken capillaries, frizziness and cover-up makeup.

Screen idols like Montgomery Clift and Ava Gardner, known for the contrasts in their coloring, which played especially well in Technicolor and other early color systems, can seem garish in high-def, which makes colors “pop,” often unpleasantly. Stark contrasts — a formerly winning combo like black hair, rosy skin and green eyes — can actually be ruinous these days, Carmindy wrote. “Super pale skin with dark, dyed hair does not look as nice as natural coloring, i.e. light skin light hair, medium skin brown hair, etc.” High def likes monochrome. (Carmindy also pointed out that “dark skin always fares better than lighter skin as it does not show as many lines, veins and discolorations as lighter skin.”)

Is reality more 'real' in HD? If what we look like in raw photographs (very high def photograph) is similar to what HD does to someone's looks, then HD is too real for my liking. I have to admit, I notice WAY too much with HD to which I was formerly oblivious. I only see the local anchors drooping, wrinkled skin and often pay less attention to their nice nose or strong chin.

What is the worst to me isnt the high MP cameras but the ones with a strong FLASH. I should tell people I have epilepsy to avoid having my picture taken with flash, lol.