Menu
The research behind our ideals
Every measurement in the facial harmony analysis comes from facial anthropometry, the science of measuring faces, or from the profile analyses used in orthodontics and facial plastic surgery. Each ideal range is built on that research. Where a study gives or tests the preferred values, each measurement page lists it as an ideal range source. Where the literature defines a measurement but leaves its ideal open, the range is our reference setting, and the page lists the study as background.
How we set the ranges
An average is not an ideal
Population studies tell us how faces measure. Rater studies tell us which measurements people find attractive. Where both exist, the range follows the rater studies: the attractive face is usually close to average, but not on it.
One ideal, adjusted only on evidence
Faces from beauty rankings share features across ancestries, and those features differ from each group's own average (Singh 2023). So every face starts from the same ideal ranges. We adjust a range for an ancestry only where published measurements of that population support it, and we prefer rater studies to population averages. Ancestry ranges currently apply to the nasofrontal angle, the nasolabial angle, the E-line lip positions and lip fullness.
Photographs are not calipers
Some classical rules were written for measurements taken directly on the face. A photo flattens the curve of the eye, so a face that meets the one-eye-apart rule in person reads about 10% wide in a photo. We state that range in photographic units.
Scoring around the range
A measurement inside its range scores 10. Outside it, the score falls with distance from the range. No single measurement decides a face: one extreme reading costs at most its own share of the total. These ranges are aesthetic references, not medical standards. See the methodology for how the scores combine.
Facial proportions and anthropometry
- Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR (1985). Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Tested the classical canons, including equal facial thirds and the one-eye gap between the eyes, against measured faces.
Used in: Top third, Middle third, Lower third, One eye apart test, Intercanthal to nasal width, Chin to philtrum ratio, Mouth to nose width, Lower third proportion
- International anthropometric study of facial morphology in various ethnic groups/races Farkas LG, Katic MJ, Forrest CR, Alt KW, et al. (2005). Journal of Craniofacial Surgery.
The standard cross-population reference for the facial landmarks, widths and heights most of our ratios are built from.
Used in: Face width to height, Bitemporal width, Total facial width to height ratio, Cheekbone height, Lateral canthal tilt, Eye aspect ratio, Brow length to face width, Intercanthal to nasal width, Ear protrusion ratio, Ear protrusion angle, Jaw slope, Bigonial width, Jaw frontal angle, Neck width, Browridge inclination, Upper forehead slope, Orbital vector, Anterior facial depth, Facial depth to height, Interior midface projection, Ramus to mandible ratio, Gonion to mouth line
- A contemporary assessment of facial aesthetic preferences Biller JA, Kim DW (2009). Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery.
Rater study of edited brow and nose features on female faces.
Used in: Eyebrow low setedness, Eyebrow tilt, Brow length to face width, Nasolabial angle, Nose tip rotation, Frankfort tip angle
- New "golden" ratios for facial beauty Pallett PM, Link S, Lee K (2010). Vision Research.
Varied eye spacing and eye-to-mouth distance on real faces and found preferred proportions near the population average, not the golden ratio.
Used in: Midface ratio, Eye separation ratio, Ipsilateral alar angle, Deviation of IAA and JFA, Interpupillary to mouth width
Profile analysis
- The profile line as an aid in critically evaluating facial esthetics Merrifield LL (1966). American Journal of Orthodontics.
Introduced the profile line and the Z angle.
Used in: Z angle
- A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part I Holdaway RA (1983). American Journal of Orthodontics.
Introduced the H-line from the upper lip to the chin.
Used in: Holdaway H line
- A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II Holdaway RA (1984). American Journal of Orthodontics.
The clinical soft-tissue profile analysis behind our convexity, chin and jaw angle measurements.
Used in: Total facial convexity, Facial convexity (glabella), Facial convexity (nasion), Mentolabial angle, Recession relative to Frankfort, Gonial angle, Mandibular plane angle
- Submental-Cervical Angle: Perceived Attractiveness and Threshold Values of Desire for Surgery Naini FB, Cobourne MT, McDonald F, Wertheim D (2016). Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery.
Patients, laypeople and clinicians rated profile silhouettes with the chin-to-neck angle altered in steps.
Used in: Submental cervical angle
Nose
- Social Perception of the Nasal Dorsal Contour in Male Rhinoplasty Nuyen B, Kandathil CK, Saltychev M, Most SP (2019). JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery.
Found that a straight to slightly scooped nasal bridge rates best and a hump rates worst; sets the shape of the mid nose projection band.
Used in: Mid nose projection
- Ideal Nasal Preferences: A Quantitative Investigation with 3D Imaging in the Iranian Population Tavakoli K, Sazgar AK, Hasanzade A, Sazgar AA (2023). Archives of Plastic Surgery.
Rater study of nasal angles and projection on edited 3D models of a man and a woman.
Used in: Nose bridge to nose width, Nose tip position, Nasofrontal angle, Total facial convexity, Nasal width to height, Nasal projection, Nasolabial angle, Nasal tip angle, Nasomental angle, Nasofacial angle
Lips
- Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning Burstone CJ (1967). American Journal of Orthodontics.
Introduced the line from the base of the nose to the chin that the Burstone lip measurements use.
Used in: Upper lip (Burstone), Lower lip (Burstone)
- Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation Ricketts RM (1968). American Journal of Orthodontics.
Introduced the E-line from the nose tip to the chin.
Used in: Upper lip (E-line), Lower lip (E-line)
- Can commonly used profile planes be used to evaluate changes in lower lip position? Buschang PH, Fretty K, Campbell PM (2011). The Angle Orthodontist.
Compared the common lip reference lines, including Steiner's S-line, and showed how each depends on the nose and chin.
Used in: Upper lip (Burstone), Lower lip (Burstone), Upper lip (S-line), Lower lip (S-line), Upper lip (E-line), Lower lip (E-line), Holdaway H line
- Effects of vermilion height on lip esthetics in Japanese and Korean orthodontists and orthodontic patients Ioi H, Kang S, Shimomura T, Kim SS, et al. (2014). The Angle Orthodontist.
Rated lips altered in 1mm steps; sets the width of the lip fullness band.
Used in: Lip fullness
- A Quantitative Analysis of Lip Aesthetics: The Influence of Gender and Aging Gibelli D, Codari M, Rosati R, Dolci C, et al. (2015). Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
Measured lip height, area and volume across sex and age.
Used in: Cupid's bow depth, Lower to upper lip ratio, Lip fullness, Mouth corner position
- The Concept of Ideal Caucasian Male Lips: An Anthropometric Analysis of the Lower Third of the Face Pietruski P, Majak M (2022). Aesthetic Surgery Journal.
Measured the lips of 300 male photo models; sets the centre of the male lip fullness band.
Used in: Lip fullness
- The Concept of Ideal Lips of Caucasian Female: An Anthropometric Analysis of the Lower Third of the Face Winiarska N, Roszkowski B, Paskal W, Majak M, et al. (2025). Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
The same protocol over 400 female photo models; sets the centre of the female lip fullness band.
Used in: Lip fullness
- Distortions of lip size bias perceived facial attractiveness Alais D, Stephens J, Taubert J (2025). Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Fitted how attractiveness falls as lips grow or shrink; sets how quickly a lip fullness score falls outside the band.
Used in: Lip fullness
Ancestry and preference
- The Korean American woman's face: anthropometric measurements and quantitative analysis of facial aesthetics Choe KS, Sclafani AP, Litner JA, Yu GP, et al. (2004). Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery.
Attractive Korean American women matched the North American white norm for the nasolabial angle, which is why East Asian faces keep the default band.
Used in: Nasolabial angle
- Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles Nomura M, Motegi E, Hatch JP, Gakunga PT, et al. (2009). American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics.
Judges from four backgrounds rated lip position against the E-line and differed by little more than a millimetre.
Used in: Upper lip (E-line), Lower lip (E-line)
- Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics Hockley A, Weinstein M, Borislow AJ, Braitman LE (2012). American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics.
Raters judging African American profiles from photos preferred lips up to 2mm ahead of the average; the basis of the E-line band for Black faces.
Used in: Upper lip (E-line), Lower lip (E-line)
- Inter-Ethnic/Racial Facial Variations: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Photogrammetric Studies Wen YF, Wong HM, Lin R, Yin G, McGrath C (2015). PLOS ONE.
Pooled 38 photogrammetric studies of African, Asian and Caucasian faces by sex; the source of the ancestry differences in the nose angles.
Used in: Nasofrontal angle, Nasolabial angle
- Normative anthropometry and proportions of the Kenyan-African face and comparative anthropometry in relation to African Americans and North American Whites Virdi SS, Wertheim D, Naini FB (2019). Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
Kenyan facial norms on Farkas' protocol, with fuller lips for the same mouth width than North American White norms.
Used in: Lip fullness
- Face Structure, Beauty, and Race: A Study of Population Databases Using Computer Modeling Singh P, Oregi P, Dhar S, Krumhuber E, et al. (2023). Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum.
Found that faces from beauty rankings share features across ancestries that differ from each group's average, which is why we keep one ideal for everyone unless rater evidence says otherwise.
- Anthropometric Characteristics of Beautiful Lips in a Population of Young Negroid Students: Pilot Survey Kibadi AK, Madiya BT (2023). Open Access Library Journal.
Measured lips that peers named beautiful in young Black African women.
Used in: Lip fullness
- Enhancing Aesthetic Harmony: Comprehensive Anthropometric Lip Measurements in Youthful and Attractive Indonesian Adults for Precision Cosmetic Procedures Hasibuan LY, Prasetyo AT, Pramono GNTW (2024). JPRAS Open.
Attractive Indonesian adults measured within the default lip fullness band, so Southeast Asian faces keep it.
Used in: Lip fullness
- Nasal Aesthetic Preferences Across Populations: A Systematic Review of Cultural, Ethnic, and Generational Trends Khademi Mansour HR, Malik A, North AS, Joshi A (2026). Aesthetic Surgery Journal.
Pools rater preference studies of the nose across populations; the basis of the nasolabial angle band for Black faces.
Used in: Nasolabial angle
Signature tool
See my closest celebrity match
Upload a front and side photo, place the pins, and every profile in the library is ranked by the measurements you share with it.