Addressing Looksmaxxing questions regarding Harmony

[Mansur]

- If the submental cervical angle ideal is 91-110 degrees should you be deducted for it beeing less than 91 degrees?

No, the tighter the submental region is the better, just count is as the ideal



- should the medial canthal angle be applied for the sheet?

No, as close to noone is actually using it, the ideals are off as well as majority of the people incl. Chads arent nailing the ideal



- how to measure ones gonial angle, mandibular plane if the gonion area is rounded ( applies to everyone ) ?

You draw the lines from each part, the ramus and mandible and make them meet each other, regardless of them not touching the gonion. As thats the actual angle Its forming
Using the gonion as the reference point wouldnt represent the true angle and the lines would also exceed the bone

- if my subnasale is located very forward which would make my profile more convex than it appears to be, whats the approach?

You locate the part thats close to the deepest point of your philtrum, depends for each individual

- What point of my hairline is considered the start of my Upper Third?

The point where your sparse hair stops and the dense hair starts



- If the lens distortion stops at roughly 6ft why does my IPD for example start decreasing as I step away further?

Because the face occupies fewer pixels, which would also make measurement errors proportionally larger



- If on my resting face my chin appears to exceed the nasion but on the frankfort plane Its further back, which one is the more reliable way to measure

Your resting face, as it heavily depends on your ear & vector placement. The human eye also doesnt perceive profiles by the frankfort plane



- What to do if I cant pinpoint my actual landmarks like the Subnasale or the exact Cheekbone height?

Either draw them on with some sort of pen or put your fingers against them ( the cheekbones )
Opening your mouth to find the exact points of the cheekbones will help you out



- If I have an overbite but Its in a good position when my face is resting, which one should I use for measuring?

Your resting face ( good teeth alignment ) as thats what people perceive



- If my glabella/ chin doesnt have the most forward point but is vertically tall, where should I pinpoint the landmarks

Take the middle of those areas

 

[Mansur]

Let me know what other questions to address

@SilvioMoltisantiDan

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

- If the submental cervical angle ideal is 91-110 degrees should you be deducted for it beeing less than 91 degrees?

No, the tighter the submental region is the better, just count is as the ideal



- should the medial canthal angle be applied for the sheet?

No, as close to noone is actually using it, the ideals are off as well as majority of the people incl. Chads arent nailing the ideal



- how to measure ones gonial angle, mandibular plane if the gonion area is rounded ( applies to everyone ) ?

You draw the lines from each part, the ramus and mandible and make them meet each other, regardless of them not touching the gonion. As thats the actual angle Its forming
Using the gonion as the reference point wouldnt represent the true angle and the lines would also exceed the bone

View attachment 5648262View attachment 5648247View attachment 5648248



- if my subnasale is located very forward which would make my profile more convex than it appears to be, whats the approach?

You locate the part thats close to the deepest point of your philtrum, depends for each individual

View attachment 5648256View attachment 5648257View attachment 5648260



- What point of my hairline is considered the start of my Upper Third?

The point where your sparse hair stops and the dense hair starts



- If the lens distortion stops at roughly 6ft why does my IPD for example start decreasing as I step away further?

Because the face occupies fewer pixels, which would also make measurement errors proportionally larger



- If on my resting face my chin appears to exceed the nasion but on the frankfort plane Its further back, which one is the more reliable way to measure

Your resting face, as it heavily depends on your ear & vector placement. The human eye also doesnt perceive profiles by the frankfort plane



- What to do if I cant pinpoint my actual landmarks like the Subnasale or the exact Cheekbone height?

Either draw them on with some sort of pen or put your fingers against them ( the cheekbones )
Opening your mouth to find the exact points of the cheekbones will help you out



- If I have an overbite but Its in a good position when my face is resting, which one should I use for measuring?

Your resting face ( good teeth alignment ) as thats what people perceive



- If my glabella/ chin doesnt have the most forward point but is vertically tall, where should I pinpoint the landmarks

Take the middle of those areas

very accurate.

Let me know what other questions to address

@SilvioMoltisantiDan

you should add the midface debate here, majority of raters agreed ideal midface is 0.95-1.02 but i considered this is wrong. a compact midface is not "Unideal" at least if is >1.04, so, if you ask me, the ideal range is 0.95-1.03 or even 1.04

 

[Mansur]

very accurate.

you should add the midface debate here, majority of raters agreed ideal midface is 0.95-1.02 but i considered this is wrong. a compact midface is not "Unideal" at least if is >1.04, so, if you ask me, the ideal range is 0.95-1.03 or even 1.04

I made a thread a year ago addressing it not sure if I still have the same claim

And a compact mfr is indeed a flaw. A little can be tolerated but anything above 1.02 starts to get noticeable and overall is a feminizing trait. A long MFR paired with a good FWHR is the ideal for men

Men on average have longer philtrums/ thinner lips making the midfacial distance longer, Its a dimorphic trait seperating them from women

Thread 'Debunking the Midface Ratio' https://looksmax.org/threads/debunking-the-midface-ratio.1577794/

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

I made a thread a year ago addressing it not sure if I still have the same claim

And a compact mfr is indeed a flaw. A little can be tolerated but anything above 1.02 starts to get noticeable and overall is a feminizing trait. A long MFR paired with a good FWHR is the ideal

i get your point, but imo 1.03 as a flaw is to strict for men and 0.95 very permissive, overall, compact midface has in most cases a good fwhr, and a long midface in most cases no, but i would say a midface has a good length but a Wider esr/Full lips can screw also like Thin/close set eyes the midface ratio...
tbh we should do what @killcry is saying, Replace Midface for Eme angle, which is more accurate imo.

 

[Mansur]

i get your point, but imo 1.03 as a flaw is to strict for men and 0.95 very permissive, overall, compact midface has in most cases a good fwhr, and a long midface in most cases no, but i would say a midface has a good length but a Wider esr/Full lips can screw also like Thin/close set eyes the midface ratio...
tbh we should do what @killcry is saying, Replace Midface for Eme angle, which is more accurate imo.

The eme angle is a good way to measure but Its not always accurate, there are cases where the Midface looks long and so is the MFR but the eme still showing 48 degrees

Same for ideal midfaces paired with full lips showing ratios nearing 44

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

The eme angle is a good way to measure but Its not always accurate, there are cases where the Midface looks long and so is the MFR but the eme still showing 48 degrees

show example, should be esr tbh

Same for ideal midfaces paired with full lips showing ratios nearing 44

at least eme doesnt get screwed for Lips
mfr is kinda useless now

 

[pfl]

. The human eye also doesnt perceive profiles by the frankfort plane

false

 

[Mansur]

false

There is such thing as high/ low set ears which are non reliable landmarks for determining the resting face of someone

Same with orbital vectors extending down the face

 

[Mansur]

show example, should be esr tbh

at least eme doesnt get screwed for Lips
mfr is kinda useless now

Saafirs midface looks balanced unlike the girl who looks like a horse

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

View attachment 5648522View attachment 5648523

Saafirs midface looks balanced unlike the girl who looks like a horse

sahir a midface of 0.98 is not compact. and for the girl cant be measure because she has a slightly open mouth, if you aim at the middle should be 47-46

 

[Mansur]

sahir a midface of 0.98 is not compact. and for the girl cant be measure because she has a slightly open mouth, if you aim at the middle should be 47-46

0.93+ is considered compact enough, thats what we were talking about in the first place

Open mouth isnt the issue as thats only the lower lip doing the movement, the upper lip stays steady

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

0.93+ is considered compact enough, thats what we were talking about in the first place

Open mouth isnt the issue as thats only the lower lip doing the movement, the upper lip stays steady

wtf? 0.93+ how that compact?, 0.93+ is in the long way

Open mouth isnt the issue as thats only the lower lip doing the movement, the upper lip stays steady

you can see clearly the lip is more up than his natural closed mouth

 

[pfl]

There is such thing as high/ low set ears which are non reliable landmarks for determining the resting face of someone

Same with orbital vectors extending down the face

so then how are you supposed to gauge someones "resting position" + this makes it harder to get accurate ideals if you dont have a reliable position like the frankfurt plane + and why should frankfurt plane being the default head position for measuring be forgotten when most people dont have weird ear setedness

 

[Mansur]

wtf? 0.93+ how that compact?, 0.93+ is in the long way

View attachment 5648550you can see clearly the lip is more up than his natural closed mouth

You are confusing the mfr with low Fwhr

Long MFR for men starts at 0.9 roughly

Del Rio has 0.93 for example yet noone would ever be able to point that out as it looks compact

Same with Tatum and Somerhalder which are <=0.9 as theyre paired with good Fwhrs

And with lips I meant in general the upper lip not moving when having the mouth open, you can test that out yourself in the mirror

 

[Mansur]

so then how are you supposed to gauge someones "resting position" + this makes it harder to get accurate ideals if you dont have a reliable position like the frankfurt plane + and why should frankfurt plane being the default head position for measuring be forgotten when most people dont have weird ear setedness

In majority of cases the Plane doesnt align with the actual resting face positions

Regarding determining the resting position of someone, I dont really see the issue

Someone stays with his natural head posture and that should be it

And if there is no reliable way to measure you shouldnt make one up which would also be unreliable

With that logic Its impossible to get someones true front face tilt, you eyeball it

Which isnt inherently accurate but there isnt simply a way to determine it, as it varies for each individual

 

[GoldenSeahorse]

I made a thread a year ago addressing it not sure if I still have the same claim

And a compact mfr is indeed a flaw. A little can be tolerated but anything above 1.02 starts to get noticeable and overall is a feminizing trait. A long MFR paired with a good FWHR is the ideal for men

Men on average have longer philtrums/ thinner lips making the midfacial distance longer, Its a dimorphic trait seperating them from women

Thread 'Debunking the Midface Ratio' https://looksmax.org/threads/debunking-the-midface-ratio.1577794/

If you look at Caucasian male composites the average midface ratio is around 1.0 (which is ideal).

 

[Mansur]

If you look at Caucasian male composites the average midface ratio is around 1.0 (which is ideal).

Thats simply not true, and even if it wouldve been. There should be room for measurements beeing slightly off

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

You are confusing the mfr with low Fwhr

Long MFR for men starts at 0.9 roughly

Del Rio has 0.93 for example yet noone would ever be able to point that out as it looks compact

Same with Tatum and Somerhalder which are <=0.9 as theyre

i dont know where u get the idea that a long midface starts at 0.9
1.04-1.05+ Very compact
1.03-1.01 Compact
0.99-1 Perfect
0.98-0.96 Normal midface
0.95-0.9 Long midface

View attachment 5648562View attachment 5648564View attachment 5648565

And with lips I meant in general the upper lip not moving when having the mouth open, you can test that out yourself in the mirror

clearly a difference

 

[GoldenSeahorse]

Thats simply not true, and even if it wouldve been. There should be room for measurements beeing slightly off

You can be outside the ideal range for any facial ratio and still be attractive. Just because someone is attractive with a long midface or a short midface doesn't mean either is ideal.

 

[Mansur]

i dont know where u get the idea that a long midface starts at 0.9
1.04-1.05+ Very compact
1.03-1.01 Compact
0.99-1 Perfect
0.98-0.96 Normal midface
<0.95 Long midface


View attachment 5648615View attachment 5648616 clearly a difference

Youre jumping topics now, the question was
Whether 0.93+ is considered a compact enough midface.

I have said that long starts at 0.9 and Somerhalder beeing someone with one but still not looking too bad due to the ideal FWHR which Ive mentioned before

And idk where you got those numbers from
1.01-1.03 beeing compact etc

I dont quite get your point by you saying a difference of 0.04 off the ideal beeing tolerable but a difference of 0.02 ( 0.93- 0.95) beeing unacceptable

 

[Mansur]

You can be outside the ideal range for any facial ratio and still be attractive. Just because someone is attractive with a long midface or a short midface doesn't mean either is ideal.

I guess you could also apply that to the 1:1 ratio. Just if the numbers look clean to each other doesnt necessarily mean it beeing the ideal

Would even contradict with nature as men on average posess longer MFRs ( <1:1 )

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

Youre jumping topics now, the question was
Whether 0.93+ is considered a compact enough midface.

No? the topic was about comparing Eme angle with midface, we never talk about 0.93 being ideal?

I have said that long starts at 0.9 and Somerhalder beeing someone with one but still not looking too bad due to the ideal FWHR which Ive mentioned before

He has no ideal fwhr buddy

And idk where you got those numbers from
1.01-1.03 beeing compact etc

well, if 0.9 is long and 1 is perfect i guess 1+ is compact

I dont quite get your point by you saying a difference of 0.04 off the ideal beeing tolerable but a difference of 0.02 ( 0.93- 0.95) beeing unacceptable

because you are being to generous to the longer midface
basically you are saying 0.93 Is ideal but 1.03 is a flaw???!, 1.03>0.93 in terms of harmony

 

[americanpakitruvcel]

very accurate.

you should add the midface debate here, majority of raters agreed ideal midface is 0.95-1.02 but i considered this is wrong. a compact midface is not "Unideal" at least if is >1.04, so, if you ask me, the ideal range is 0.95-1.03 or even 1.04

When would you say midface becomes very disruptive to harmony, like 0.90?

 

[Mansur]

No? the topic was about comparing Eme angle with midface, we never talk about 0.93 being ideal?

He has no ideal fwhr buddy View attachment 5648654

well, if 0.9 is long and 1 is perfect i guess 1+ is compact

because you are being to generous to the longer midface
basically you are saying 0.93 Is ideal but 1.03 is a flaw???!, 1.03>0.93 in terms of harmony

The message Ive replied to wasnt abt the eme angle

I meant exact numbers like 1.04 or whatever beeing super compact like where did you get those claims from

Somerhalders fwhr varies on each image for some reason, on some pics his midface does look long indeed

And Ive said this before, men on average have <1:1 MFRs where as women have >1:1

If you have a MFR above 1:1 you fall into the female range

With 1.04 going as far as beeing in the middle of the ideal for females ( 1.05 beeing basically perfectly in the middle ground )

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

When would you say midface becomes very disruptive to harmony, like 0.90?

0.9-0.94 is where Midface becomes longer tier, 0.95 is in the borderline ideal

 

[killcry]

i get your point, but imo 1.03 as a flaw is to strict for men and 0.95 very permissive, overall, compact midface has in most cases a good fwhr, and a long midface in most cases no, but i would say a midface has a good length but a Wider esr/Full lips can screw also like Thin/close set eyes the midface ratio...
tbh we should do what @killcry is saying, Replace Midface for Eme angle, which is more accurate imo.

i dont care about these threads ur tagging me in but all ill say is what makes a sound formula are not the individual ratios but how the ratios interact among eachother in the formula aka if you have a bunch of ratios that just measure the same thing 4+ times it makes for very tacky and arguably inaccurate scores

 

[Mansur]

When would you say midface becomes very disruptive to harmony, like 0.90?

Below 0.9 but again just bc the number looks clean doesnt mean it is. It could be 0.88998914 whatever.

Depends how your face harmonizes with it, become way less of a flaw if Its paired with a good FWHR

 

[GoldenSeahorse]

When would you say midface becomes very disruptive to harmony, like 0.90?

It depends on the rest of your face, there is no set number

 

[Mansur]

i dont care about these threads ur tagging me in but all ill say is what makes a sound formula are not the individual ratios but how the ratios interact among eachother in the formula aka if you have a bunch of ratios that just measure the same thing 4+ times it makes for very tacky and arguably inaccurate scores

Well said, I didnt quite understand the 2nd half but the harmony itself is the key

However Its never gonna be possible to fully find out as the human eye is way too complicated for it

 

[Mansur]

0.9-0.94 is where Midface becomes longer tier, 0.95 is in the borderline ideal

Its debateable but I guess you could say it that way, depends on each individual as well

 

[killcry]

Well said, I didnt quite understand the 2nd half but the harmony itself is the key

However Its never gonna be possible to fully find out as the human eye is way too complicated for it

like if you have nwhr, iaa, mfr, fwhr, and eme in the same formula, that’s giga redundant, and just punishes people more for a flaw that can be pinpointed with probably one singular ratio out of the 5

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

I meant exact numbers like 1.04 or whatever beeing super compact like where did you get those claims from

1.04 is not super compact lol, and i never talked about 0.93 being ideal and you neither

Somerhalders fwhr varies on each image for some reason, on some pics his midface does look long indeed

he has sub 1.90 in the most pics in the unideal range

If you have a MFR above 1:1 you fall into the female range

and i agree with that, but, putting 0.93-1.02 is just to extreme imo
1.03 as the limit range is ideal imo

With 1.04 going as far as beeing in the middle of the ideal for females ( 1.05 beeing basically perfectly in the middle ground )

this debate is getting nowhere, i told u we should stop using Mfr, instead eme angle is better, and i just desbunked the eme angle being innacurate

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

i dont care about these threads ur tagging me in but all ill say is what makes a sound formula are not the individual ratios but how the ratios interact among eachother in the formula aka if you have a bunch of ratios that just measure the same thing 4+ times it makes for very tacky and arguably inaccurate scores

just say Eme>midface nigga

 

[GoldenSeahorse]

like if you have nwhr, iaa, mfr, fwhr, and eme in the same formula, that’s giga redundant, and just punishes people more for a flaw that can be pinpointed with probably one singular ratio out of the 5

All of those ratios matter

 

[killcry]

just say Eme>midface nigga

what does eme do better than mfr

 

[GoldenSeahorse]

1.04 is not super compact lol, and i never talked about 0.93 being ideal and you neither

he has sub 1.90 in the most pics in the unideal range

and i agree with that, but, putting 0.93-1.02 is just to extreme imo
1.03 as the limit range is ideal imo

this debate is getting nowhere, i told u we should stop using Mfr, instead eme angle is better, and i just desbunked the eme angle being innacurate

the midface ratio is probably the most studied facial ratio for attractiveness, why wouldn't it be used in harmony formulas

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

what does eme do better than mfr

??? nigga you said mfr is useless and eme is way better than mfr
but i will
eme measures the length not depending of lips height giving a more accurate measurement that midface

 

[killcry]

All of those ratios matter

i used to think people like you were giga retarded and subhuman, because no matter how much i explain the problem you guys just say the same thing, but now i realize its just cuz you guys have just been tricked since 2023 into believing these superficial ratios are objective, infallible mathematical measurements, so its like im saying 2+2=5 and 1+1=3

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

the midface ratio is probably the most studied facial ratio for attractiveness, why wouldn't it be used in harmony formulas

because eme angle exists, midface depends to much on the lips thickness, eme nope

 

[Mansur]

1.04 is not super compact lol, and i never talked about 0.93 being ideal and you neither

he has sub 1.90 in the most pics in the unideal range

and i agree with that, but, putting 0.93-1.02 is just to extreme imo
1.03 as the limit range is ideal imo

this debate is getting nowhere, i told u we should stop using Mfr, instead eme angle is better, and i just desbunked the eme angle being innacurate

Youre mixing some stuff up, maybe Im just too unintelligent to connect the dots.

I feel like youre blinded by the numbers 0.95 and 1.04 are almost the same numbers off the 1:1 mark yet one is borderline for looking compact enough

Above 1:1 in general shouldnt be considered tolerable as Its landing in the female dimorphic range

I would say above 1.02 its starting to get noticeable but again you can think your own way

And idk where youve debunked the eme angle beeing inaccurate, thought you were convinced for it beeing the more accurate way to measure the midfacial compactness

 

[killcry]

??? nigga you said mfr is useless and eme is way better than mfr
but i will
eme measures the length not depending of lips height giving a more accurate measurement that midface

my opinion has changed now because i know more but it would only be a choice between mfr and eme to measure midface compactness

philtrum and upper lip fullness can be soft tissue but thats reliant on vomer + maxilla + palatine projection and height, so mfr isn’t as bad as i thought, but going down to the stomion would still consider the entire bone process between the 3, so it’s more accurate, but it doesn’t consider upper lip fullness, which is something i realized is a bit of a flaw

 

[GoldenSeahorse]

i used to think people like you were giga retarded and subhuman, because no matter how much i explain the problem you guys just say the same thing, but now i realize its just cuz you guys have just been tricked since 2023 into believing these superficial ratios are objective, infallible mathematical measurements, so its like im saying 2+2=5 and 1+1=3

i don't think facial ratios are perfect, but they are 100% correlated with perceived attractiveness

the midface ratio is one of the most well studied and reliable facial ratios there is. Name 10 attractive celebrities/models and I promise you that 9/10 of them will have an ideal or near ideal midface ratio

 

[Mansur]

like if you have nwhr, iaa, mfr, fwhr, and eme in the same formula, that’s giga redundant, and just punishes people more for a flaw that can be pinpointed with probably one singular ratio out of the 5

The thing is it cant, as shown my previous comparisons those are different metrics

One uses the bizygomatic width, one the midfacial height using the lips, the other - top of the cupids bow

View attachment 5648522View attachment 5648523

Saafirs midface looks balanced unlike the girl who looks like a horse

The guy has a better mfr but a significantly lower eme angle. Yet appears to have a more compact/ balanced midface

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

Youre mixing some stuff up, maybe Im just too unintelligent to connect the dots.

I feel like youre blinded by the numbers 0.95 and 1.04 are almost the same numbers off the 1:1 mark yet one is borderline for looking compact enough

ur saying 0.93-1.02 is ideal
and i said 0.95-1.03 (1.04+ in other races like blacks forgot to say)

And idk where youve debunked the eme angle beeing inaccurate, thought you were convinced for it beeing the more accurate way to measure the midfacial compactness

what i meant was you was measuring eme wrong with the girl's mouth open, eme is very accurate for ignoring Lip thickness, look at this

https://looksmax.org/threads/its-about-time-we-change-how-we-measure-midface-ratio.280881/

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

The thing is it cant, as shown my previous comparisons those the lips, the other - top of the cupids bow


The guy has a better mfr but a significantly lower eme angle. Yet appears to have a more compact/ balanced midface

he has close set eyes, thats why, eme is not perfect though

 

[killcry]

i don't think facial ratios are perfect, but they are 100% correlated with perceived attractiveness

the midface ratio is one of the most well studied and reliable facial ratios there is. Name 10 attractive celebrities/models and I promise you that 9/10 of them will have an ideal or near ideal midface ratio

do you know what pseudoscience is? these things are vaguely correlated with attractiveness and the way its used only points in an obscure direction in regards to the thing its actually studying

ur appealing to like 600 year old art study shit that niggas back then were appealing to just to draw faces that weren’t hideous to look at yk like facial thirds and fifths

The thing is it cant, as shown my previous comparisons those are different metrics

One uses the bizygomatic width, one the midfacial height using the lips, the other - top of the cupids bow

regardless of the different landmarks, they are measuring the same growths, if you have a dominant ethmoid + maxilla + vomer then your nwhr, iaa, mfr, eme, and mfr will all trend toward the same direction: either less or more of that bone

 

[Mansur]

1.04+ in other races like blacks forgot to say)

That changes things drastically, Its more average in their ethnic group which justifies it

what i meant was you was measuring eme wrong with the girl's mouth open, eme is very accurate for ignoring Lip thickness, look at this

Eme angle can be accurate I dont deny it, there are simply exceptions to it

Regarding the girl just go infront of a mirror and have your mouth slightlt open

The upper lip area stays stable, Its only the lower Lip which is moving, when closing the mouth the lower lip goes up, not the upper lip extending the philtrum

You can simply test that out in the mirror as Ive said before

 

[SilvioMoltisantiDan]

my opinion has changed now because i know more but it would only be a choice between mfr and eme to measure midface compactness

philtrum and upper lip fullness can be soft tissue but thats reliant on vomer + maxilla + palatine projection and height, so mfr isn’t as bad as i thought, but going down to the stomion would still consider the entire bone process between the 3, so it’s more accurate, but it doesn’t consider upper lip fullness, which is something i realized is a bit of a flaw

imo eme>Midface (Only if you have thick lips)
but if you have Normal lips yo should be fine in both, obv if your length is normal

 

[killcry]

he has close set eyes, thats why, eme is not perfect though

44 eme for this face is giga accurate lmao, i just think eme isnt perfect because of the pupil landmark, cuz if someone has strabismus then their eme would be wider