Comments on: You Ought to Be in Pictures (on LinkedIn) http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/ The personal blog of Adam Nash Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:08:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: jules.maas http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-16438 Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:34:23 +0000 http://psychohistory.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-16438 I like the first photo. It is a bit darker, but it looks so much more real.

You’re smiling in both photos, but photo #1 is personable and warm. Photo #2 is well-lit and somehow cold.

I guess it depends on what you want to stress about your image (as a whole). Are you going for Mr. Formal Linkedin Sr. Director, or Mr. Relatable Nice Guy?

]]> By: Kay http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15576 Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:34:46 +0000 http://psychohistory.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15576 The 2007 photo because we paid big bucks to have you re-shot. If you don’t use it, I will shoot you myself. LITERALLY.

]]> By: Melinda B. http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15466 Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:03:18 +0000 http://psychohistory.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15466 In the 2007 photo I can see your eyes, and they are shadowed by your brow in the 2004 photo. I like the mood of the 2004 photo since I know you, but if I didn’t know you, the 2007 photo more clearly shows your face. Also, though, the 2007 photo makes you look like you need a shave. Must be the lighting. That photo is a bit washed out.

Maybe they should reshoot the 2007 photo?

]]> By: Anneliese http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15460 Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:17:41 +0000 http://psychohistory.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15460 1st photo because the color/tone is much better.

]]> By: Eric Cheng http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15443 Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:18:54 +0000 http://psychohistory.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15443 I like the 2004 picture BECAUSE I TOOK IT. ;)

]]> By: Sharon Nash http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15442 Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:57:42 +0000 http://psychohistory.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15442 Both good, but the ebay photo (2004) is much more you!

]]> By: Chuck http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15438 Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:05:38 +0000 http://psychohistory.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15438 out with the old, in with the new…

got my picture up :)

]]> By: Vamsee http://blog.adamnash.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15431 Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:40:14 +0000 http://psychohistory.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/you-ought-to-be-in-pictures-on-linkedin/#comment-15431 Hands down, 2004 pic!

]]>