For instance, this bit: "the general pattern is that more complex cameras take better pictures". That's certainly true. Think about the person behind the camera, though. If they own a dSLR, they're more likely to be good at composing photographs.
This, too: "a 28 year-old who used a flash is as attractive as a 35 year-old who didn't". Most people don't know how, or even when, to use a flash. Using a flash properly can and does lead to a better photograph, but it takes a lot of practice.
Therefore, if you want to have an attractive picture, have somebody that's good at taking pictures take it.
An example of another minor quabble, iPhones are expensive. I would expect that owning one correlates with nicer clothes, makeup, and just more/better status symbols in general. It's no news that money is attractive.
That's a very valid point, selection bias is the most-missed bias in studies of every stripe. But they're not beginners:
>And we also found similar numbers looking only at people who uploaded all three types of photos.
They didn't show a graph of that data, because this is an article rather than a formal study. Getting similar results in an intersection study is an excellent way to show that selection bias was at least not overwhelming - depending on the sample size, it might not even be significant.
The conclusion they made was pretty well supported, and seems like something you would agree with - the details they give are quick guidelines, but it boils down to "photographic skill matters".
Um.. we’re talking about the skill of the photographer here, not the skill of the model.
If the data is accurate, then the correlation is real. It might be that most people don't know how to use a flash; it might also be that natural light makes people appear more attractive, or that the position of the light source (i.e. not in the same place as the camera) does the same.
Building a reliable causality model out of correlations can be extremely difficult, but that doesn't mean that anything short of a complete causality model is worthless. In this example, dispensing with the flash would still likely improve the ratings of most users' photos (other things equal, of course), even if they might squeeze a bit more out of the result by mastering the nuances of flash photography.
I recognize that my P&S camera isn't fast enough to take pictures in low light without the flash, but are there other situations where I should be using a flash?
Generally, using a flash makes my pictures look "cheap" (better than blurry, I suppose). Even when there is strong backlighting and I need to use the flash to balance it out, it still looks wrong.
Much to my wife's consternation, I usually tend to push the no-flash as much as possible (I've missed quick-moving children and other shots because of this). I suppose if I used the flash I would have actually captured the moment, but I don't think I've really seen a picture I've taken with the flash that I've found to be remarkable looking.
http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/camera/SexAndSmartPhonesByAge.png
However, I do like OKC in that they take tons of data and make actual conclusions about it. Regardless of whether or not it's eventually proven wrong, or (as stated above) there are some obvious discrepancies not taken into consideration, it's still cool to see overall trends in human psychology based on something so simple as how a photograph was taken.
My guess is that it's one or more of:
1. iPhone users tend to have more money as a group and that correlates with more sex.
2. as a group they tend to be more concerned with appearances and sensual experience and sensation seeking.
3. as a group they are more impulsive.
Droid Eris is not a MotoDroid is not a N1 is not a Sidekick is not a HTC Evo ...
Really, there are certain Android and Motorola phones that could have very similar demographics to the Blackberry or iPhone. Furthermore, Comparing the cameras on the phones more recent than the MotoDroid to those that came before is night and day.
Argh, no! That is correlation. More complex cameras are probably used by more experienced photographers. I would bet a high percentage of those are made by professionals.
As you can see, the general pattern is that better pictures are taken by more complex cameras.
This does not conflict with your hypothesis.
They also have better image sensors which means less degradation in low light situations, less graininess, and with better lenses, less distortion.
My take, anyways...
More clearly: that the pictures taken with point-and-shoot cameras are crappy is not the fault of those cameras, and pictures taken at the same time by the same person with a different camera would likely also be crappy.
Amazon has a deal on that combo right now too http://amzn.to/brBxsE
Strangely enough, this strikes me as hilarious instead of depressing, and I'm actually looking forward to the challenge. I'm also looking forward to the laughter and teasing when I show off the results to my friends.
(it's just a joke: pity for the Pre. I kind of liked the innovative feeling they brought with them)
As a photographer this makes me want to shout "Duh."
Has OkCupid done any investigations of relationship pseudoscience/superstition (astrology, biorhythms, etc.) using their data?
This is just a series of classic correlation versus causation mistakes. Even beyond the purely statistical view of the issues here, it is clear to anyone with some basic knowledge of photography that most of their conclusions are flawed.
Hopefully they'll correct some of the wording to remove logical implication or just do a better job next time.
