Passport Photos

> But I was told they wouldn't be accepted because

yeah, and I would have expected nothing less. from my personal experience, the photos were required to be recent. just based on your having visited a barber would signal to me that the photos were not recent. even if you visited the barber while you waited for the 1-Hour Photo guy to finish, a logical person would realize this was not going to work out well

The criteria says "Two original passport pictures" ; it does not say "recent".

Regardless, the photos are recent (<1yr) and my driver's license has a 5 year validity and passports 10 year validity. As an illogical person, I sometimes change my appearance over a given 10 year span.

When I renew my US passport by mail, they don't actually know what I look like at the time of the renewal.

So I actually shave my beard every time I get a haircut (so, let's say every 8 weeks).

What does 'recent' mean, since you have already acknowledged that temporal recency is irrelevant? When am I traveling? What's accurate to my current appearance? What if I started a cancer treatment that renders me unable to grow a beard?

Your flippant reply ignores reality, and these aren't even edge cases.

If you are applying for a new passport where you are needing these photos, the common sense logic from the person accepting/rejecting them would be do the photos look like the person in front of them. No? Reject. Yes? Accept. The flow chart is pretty simple.

The frequency of your grooming habits AFTER receiving a passport are irrelevant to the actual approval of a passport. This doesn't need to be hard.

IDP's are only valid for a short period of time. I suspect that money-grubbing may play a role, but the purpose of them is to let you identify yourself to police in a language (especially an alphabet) you don't speak. So perhaps it's something that clerk had heard some horror story about and was giving good advice.

comparing the validity of existing documents is moving the goal posts and pretty dishonest to the conversation.

you're applying for a new passport. to be shocked that at a minimum the pictures would look like you at the time of the application is pretty...I don't even know what word to use here. there's a way to make dealing with gov't agencies simple and as painless as possible, and then there's this.

The point that identity photos often look different from the person being identified isn't remotely dishonest to the conversation. It's the entire point, in fact: Does this actual human person look like this person depicted in this photo? That's why I bought up the passport photo situation to compare it to.

If you'll re-read more closely, you'll see that I was not applying for a new passport. I also wasn't working with a government agency.

By the way, it was simple and painless. I was told to bring photos if I had them; otherwise they could be done on-site for $9.99. I opened up my desk drawer on my way out of the house, and I happened to have photos. So I brought photos. I was told they were not acceptable, so I accepted the offer of an on-site photo, which took about 90 seconds, paid my fee, and went on my way. There was nothing difficult about it. I would not have saved myself any hassle had I left the photos in my drawer.

It's unclear to me why you have gone out of your way to misunderstand or misinterpret the situation, other than in a misguided attempt to be antagonistic, but it's not working.

Yes, I suspect the 1 year validity of the IDP plays a part here. The gentleman who said my photo wouldn't be accepted was front desk (and, apparently, photo-taking) staff; he wasn't even the person creating the IDP. I agree with you that I suspect he was trying to be helpful.

New photos: $9.99

Fake dressup beard: $0.99

I know which one I'd choose.

$9 isn't worth being detained while on an international trip in a place where the police don't speak your language because they don't believe your photo is you. Actually, it's less expensive than the last set of passport photos I had made, so maybe I'll just go to AAA next time.

> It's unclear to me why you have gone out of your way to misunderstand or misinterpret the situation

It's the internet. Even HN isn't immune to the Eternal September.

I still think Reddit is useful, sometimes, and I've got karma to burn for years, so I find it hilarious when my comments get downvoted into hell over some trivial issues. Since I don't care about imaginary internet points except to make sure that people can read what I post (I don't want to fall into the well of negativity on that), I don't delete the ones that get buried.

That poster you replied to is doing the kind of crap you see on the Reddit front page subs. They're almost all trash. You get upvoted for hivemind, you get downvoted for going against the grain. Regardless of the merit of the comment.

Hell, I've been downvoted here for my very milquetoast comment that maybe the clerk was trying to help you keep out of trouble in a country where you really need an IDP (different alphabet, e.g.). You can't downvote before you have a bunch of points here, and I almost never do - if you're wrong I'll try to help you fix it, and if it's just a disagreement then... that's life? You pretty much have to explicitly be an unprovoked major asshole or advocate straight-up genocide to make me downvote you.