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.
But the point stands: signaling wealth is what counts.
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.
Good tip though if I ever find myself in the possession of a more sophisticated camera.
(Note: "perfect" means people will ask you how you did it, and be suitably impressed at your photography skizzles)
Firing flash along the axis of the lens is a poor idea almost always. Also, your pop-up flash has an effective range of ~10 feet (depending on camera), so popping it beyond that range (which I see many people do) is basically pointless. In fact, if there are objects near, what the camera will do is expose for those objects, leaving your main subjects, who are too far away, in shadow.
This is why you'll see those crazy pictures where everyone is real dark and has glowing eyes.
But all in all, the solution is to get a faster lens - there are many point and shoots that have premium, fast lenses. Going for those will allow you to skip the flash for a lot more occasions, making better pictures overall.
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.