Diana: The Most Beautiful or Famous Woman of the 20th Century?

[Skydragon]

Diana, like Marilyn were some of the most photographed of the 20th century.
As Henri M said right at the beginning of this thread which I have shortened

they pick the best pictures of a hyped glamorous Princess who is a megaseller. They will not want to slaughter this chicken with golden eggs, as is the Dutch saying.

There could of course be someone out there, who has her photo taken 500 times a day and is more deserving of the title than any 'celeb'

 

[sirhon11234]

Well Skydragon thats your opinion doesen't mean its absolute.

 

[Skydragon]

Of course, everything we put, that isn't a proven fact is just someone's opinion, be it yours or mine. it is something that cannot be proven. There are 1000's of photos I expect of HM, Jackie Kennedy, Caprice etc but are any of us in a position to count them. Which is why I put she was one of. Back to the question of this thread - I like others have only asked 'was she' or did the not so nice pics end up on the cutting room floor or in the bin?

 

[sirhon11234]

Well i'am sure Diana has had her not soo glamorous moments. But alot of stars and royals have had their own not soo glamorous moments like Kate Moss Keira Knightley and even Camilla.

 

[Roslyn]

Well Diana is still the most photgraphed woman of the 20th century.
Marilyn Monroe is one of the most photographed women of the 20th century. Diana is The most photographed woman of the 20th century.
Just like Pope John Paul is the most photographed man of the 20th century.

I'd like to know how it is possible to determine who were the most photographed people in the 20th century. I find it extremely hard to believe that a Pope would be the most photographed man of the century.

On reflection I suppose I can believe the Pope was the most photographed man, as it actually helps explain why Diana might have been the most photographed woman. In the case of the Pope it was clearly religion, and I think there was, and is, an element of religious fervour involved in the interest in Diana.

 

[sirhon11234]

Simple, Diana and Paul II have appeared on numerous magazines most famously "Time,Life and People". And they were most covered by the media.

 

[foiegrass]

I'm not offended. And I don't know what you mean by language barrier.

Many photographers who photographed Diana over the years have said she was photogenic-most notably Tim Graham, who was not, by anyone's standard, a poor photographer or paparazzi, and who knew, through experience, what he saw on the other side of his lens. I'll take his word on the subject.

Wow, Tim Graham actually said that? Then I should take his word on this subject too! I love his photographs!

 

[ysbel]

I think Diana was photogenic. If she was the most photographed woman in the world then I think the phenomenon is due in equal parts to her beauty and equal parts to how pervasive the media and especially the tabloid media became during her lifetime. During the 30s, Greta Garbo was called the star that the photogs couldn't take a bad picture of but the media outlets back then were much scarcer than they are today.

Diana's face could sell a million covers while she was alive and while the papers were raking in the money, I think she paid for it in the end. It was a rather sad and ignoble ending.

 

[Warren]

We need to keep in mind we are not holding a competition between princesses and popes as to who has been the most photographed person.
The topic of the thread is "Why was she so photogenic?" and we should be able to discuss this without any niggling.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

 

[*SofiaM*]

I personally don't think Diana was 'pretty', but that doesn't necessarily affect how photogenic she was. In my opinion she was striking, one of those women you notice as they pass you by.

Diana had a fresh look, she was young, 'fashionable' (for the 80s!) and had the appeal to many people because of what she did. I think this is what made her so photogenic.

 

[Lily97]

Even I as a Diana fan do not think she had the perfect bone structure of the before mentioned Greta Garbo. I do believe she had the ability to realize when her pictures were being taken and like it or not that gaze into the camera came in handy. I honestly do not think there are tons of pictures laying on the floor that are so bad they wanted to toss them. I think in the last 10 years publishers have been grasping for anything to publish they would have published even them! Perhaps she obtained her talent at an early age from posing for her father all those years. I do know that this lady thinks that even though she did not have the so called perfect face somehow it all fit together and made some beautiful photographs that have endured and will continue to do so for many generations to come.

Lily

 

[Skydragon]

I had a look for a variety of definitions of photogenic, as I clearly don't see the 'goddess' or the 'beautiful' woman that some people on this thread see.

We all vary in the way light reflects off our skin, and what is a picture but reflected light and a medium to record it. According to a BBC documentary a couple of years ago, humans cannot smile on command. We can only pretend to smile for the camera, some dedicate every available moment to perfect it or at least to make it believable.
Many believe that you can make anyone "photogenic". Put someone earthy looking into a situation that suits "them" and they will look excellent in one way or another.

So environment is vital, Diana loved the limelight, IMO, which must have helped the photographers. Makeup seems to be one of the major keys, applied by a professional, foundation that reflects light well is essential, practising how to pose yourself for the cameras is another key factor.

The only way to account for the differences in what people see in the pictures is the old saying - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Martha]

Princess Diana, was a photogenic woman, also was very elegant. I think, she had charisma.

 

[Lily97]

Martha, that is the perfect word charisma and imo a great sense of humor!

Lily

 

[BeatrixFan]

I hate to throw a fly in the ointment but I would point out that anyone can look photogenic when the best photographers in the business are snapping at you with the most expensive cameras in the world.

 

[sirhon11234]

I hate to throw a fly in the ointment but I would point out that anyone can look photogenic when the best photographers in the business are snapping at you with the most expensive cameras in the world.

And it also helps if one has good looks and is very attractive.

 

[lilytornado]

And it also helps if one has good looks and is very attractive.

True, but attractiveness is relative. And not every attractive person is photogenetic, some look people look better in real live than on photographs, even some very attractive ones.

 

[sassie]

I hate to throw a fly in the ointment but I would point out that anyone can look photogenic when the best photographers in the business are snapping at you with the most expensive cameras in the world.

Yes and no. If a person isn't naturally photogenic, the camera and photographer don't necessarily matter. They don't hurt, but in some cases, they also don't help.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Rubbish. I look like Bella Emberg in a body bag and photographers have made me look like a young Joan Collins. You can look like a horse and still look like a million dollars. How else would Paris Hilton make a living? Come on people, let's have a bit of reality here. Di was pretty but she had problems that the lens hid well. For example, she had a Streisand nose but an umbrella and a soft focus lens later, it was gone. The wonders of photography.

 

[sirhon11234]

So that was just her nose, and I think that if Diana was just pretty she wouldn't have been on many magazine covers and the paparazzi wouldn't have taken the time to photograph her.

 

[BeatrixFan]

She was married to a future King dear. She's not the first potential Queen to make the front page. Robbie Williams has made a career out of it.

 

[sirhon11234]

Who is Robbie Williams BeatrixFan? Well her marriage to Charles was her big break into fame but she's famous for other things as well.

 

[sassie]

Rubbish. I look like Bella Emberg in a body bag and photographers have made me look like a young Joan Collins. You can look like a horse and still look like a million dollars. How else would Paris Hilton make a living? Come on people, let's have a bit of reality here. Di was pretty but she had problems that the lens hid well. For example, she had a Streisand nose but an umbrella and a soft focus lens later, it was gone. The wonders of photography.

Rubbish and rot. Since you were never on the other end of the lens from her, you really aren't any more qualified to say that she wasn't photogenic than anyone else here is to say that she was.

 

[love_cc]

Quoted from Charles: a man who will be king by Howard Hodgson -the conclusion part
Despite her flaws, she has become an icon with the four attributes the western world has become so keen to worship: fame, beauty, youth and wealth.

Fame comes before beauty. This is what I think. She is photogenic because she is regarded as a young future queen of England rather than other private persons. Her beauty and youth helped boosting the image but still fame plays an more important role and moreover Diana's own interests in media allows to the photographers to kindle their enthusiasm for her and which cost her life.

 

[royaltywatcher]

Most people look good when they are young, provided they have the basics like good skin, good hair, etc. Diana was young and charming when she first came on the scene, with a fresh look and lovely skin, hair and teeth.

I agree with the person that said earlier in the thread that she looked better in her 20's. She looked worn and brittle and old in her "later years". I would say there were plenty of bad pictures of her from those years.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, if I look at pap pictures of her I'm on the other end of the lens aren't I? I mean, printed pictures are the result of what we see through the other end of the lens. Of course there's airbrushing but almost every Royal lady was soft-lit in the 80s for portrait shots. It was practically de-rigeuer and Di was almost always soft-lit. So, I am qualified to say how she looked through a camera because I do own a pair of eyes which I have used to look at photographs of her taken by a camera.

 

[Madame Royale]

I do own a pair of eyes

Oh good! They can accompany your claws honey.lol.

It's good to see you again, BeatrixFan

 

[sirhon11234]

I think Diana looked way better in her 30s than in her 20s. And which pictures did she look old and brittle in royaltywatcher?

 

[TheTruth]

Diana had a real charisma because whatever she was wearing or wherever she was, she always looked great. Many photographers said that you really must be clumsy to take a bad picture of Diana.

 

[sassie]

Well, if I look at pap pictures of her I'm on the other end of the lens aren't I? I mean, printed pictures are the result of what we see through the other end of the lens. Of course there's airbrushing but almost every Royal lady was soft-lit in the 80s for portrait shots. It was practically de-rigeuer and Di was almost always soft-lit. So, I am qualified to say how she looked through a camera because I do own a pair of eyes which I have used to look at photographs of her taken by a camera.

Pap shots and portrait shots aren't the same thing. Neither is looking at a picture as a consumer and taking one as a photographer. So, no, you aren't qualified.