A beautiful woman (or man) stares out at you from an advertisement in a glossy magazine. The photo is close-up and tight on the person’s face.
What is it that draws you in? Is it physical attraction? Your own personal preference for the model’s features? Their expression?
Accepted wisdom (and research) says that it’s the eyes that tell the story and draw us in. But what exactly is it in the eyes: color, shape, familiarity, lighting, size? Apparently this is far more difficult to pin down and may vary from individual to individual, but something that is inarguably universal is a feeling of connection in those eyes. And how is such a connection created?
Simple. With large pupils.
Wait, you say. What?
Yes - pupil size matters when it comes to forging a connection with the viewer. Interestingly, when humans gaze upon something that we feel a strong and positive emotional connection to – or in simpler terms, something we like – our pupils widen (or dilate). When we see something we don’t like, or respond negatively to, or even hate with the intensity of a thousand suns, our pupils contract. Note the findings of Eckhard Hess: “…Studies have demonstrated that people rate models in photographs as more attractive if the photo has been altered to make the pupil area larger, compared to the same photos of the same models in which the pupils have not been retouched.” (1975, source)
This has been accepted as a given in Japanese and Korean advertising in the last 5 years or so, with an inordinate amount of their beauty advertising featuring models with gigantic, Photoshopped pupils…and a booming market for contact lenses with slightly enlarged irises and permanently-dilated, larger-than-life dark-ringed pupil areas. The difference in connection with the viewer – and perceived attractiveness/beauty/cuteness – is subtly visible…yet psychologically profound.
Apparently Rimmel London didn’t get the memo with their Fall 2011 ad campaign for Volume Accelerator Mascara, featuring Zooey Deschanel.
Flipping through magazines I’ve come across this ad many times before, and I’ve always been stopped by the actress’ eyes. They hold me, but I feel extremely unsettled. I do not feel enticed or “connected” to the brand (though I have no personal feelings towards it otherwise and even own some Rimmel products)…instead, I feel extremely put off. And somehow irritated. Why? The actress is pretty, looks fresh and happy, has strikingly lovely light blue eyes, and seems to be smiling, but something in her eyes is telling me a different story.
The pupils are all wrong. Her pupils are telling me she’s looking at something she despises. (Though in reality she’s just staring into a bunch of bright lights.) Could it be me she hates? Or this mascara?
Note the difference when I alter her pupils in Photoshop.
Before.
And just for kicks, super, duper-huge.
Aaaaah. Is it just me, or is there a relieved sense of harmony now emanating from this photo? I suddenly feel that all is right with the world again, and all that uncomforatble negativity I was feeling towards Rimmel suddenly dissipated.
Which ad appeals most to you? Which do you feel a connection with? In which one do the eyes and the mascara POP straight off the page?
Just something to keep in mind for photography/advertising/illustration/character design.
Rimmel London ad torn from Marie Claire October 2011. Karakon Paradise ad torn from Vivi May 2011. Photoshopping by me. Only the size of the pupils were changed – nothing else. Eye color, size and shape of eyes, darkness of mascara – all I left un-retouched. Eye photo source. Coppertone ad source.

I invite you to follow the conversation on Twitter and on Facebook as well.
Liked this? Hit a button below and share it for good karma:-)















img