"In person" equivalent for inanimate objects

Question

This is much easier to explain by example. So you might hear someone say this photo of her is ok, but she looks much better in person.

I am looking for the equivalent of "in person" that applies to things, e.g.,

A photo of the house is on the museum's homepage, but it is more impressive [in person].

There doesn't seem to be a concise, elegant way to say this, though it seems there should be, perhaps a latin phrase like in corpore (that's not it).

A photo of the house is on the museum's homepage, but it is more impressive in real life/if you are there/when you see it personally. — Greybeard, Oct 23 '23 at 22:22

score 5 · Answer 1 · answered Dec 17 '11 at 03:49

'In person' refers to the entity experiencing the observed item, not the item itself.

So 'in person' doesn't matter whether that item is a person, inanimate, or whatever.

Use 'in person' since you expect (probably) that it is a person doing the experiencing.

score 5 · Answer 2 · answered Dec 17 '11 at 06:18

5

At first hand or at firsthand is an appropriate phrase to indicate "when seen directly".

Example: "A photo of the house is on the museum's homepage. The house is more impressive at first hand than in the photo."

answered Dec 17 '11 at 06:18

James Waldby - jwpat7

66,660

score 4 · Answer 3 · answered Jan 22 '22 at 10:39

4

It jars when people say ‘in person’ for inanimate objects. I think ‘in real life’ or ‘in reality’ or ‘the actual [painting/building/thing]’ work better.

answered Jan 22 '22 at 10:39

Al Sullivan

41

2

I think your answer is the correct one and should have been the accepted one, but it would have benefited from a couple of examples and some supporting authority. – Greybeard Jan 22 '22 at 10:43

score 3 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

I can't find a reference to back this up, but I would sometimes use the phrase "in person" for an object because in order to experience it that way you have to personally go see it. Since there is at least one person present it makes sense to me even if it might not be 100% technically correct.

I would not use it when there is no other person present:

The museum is more impressive in person (i.e. when you visit, it's impressive).

The curator of the museum was there in person (this works even if he's alone).

*The Mona Lisa was there in person (this doesn't work because no people are there).

So, depending on your needs, "in person" gets you half-way there.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=see+it+in+person&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 — TimR, Oct 23 '23 at 23:24

score 2 · Answer 5 · 2011-12-17T06:10:30.813

2

You can use in actuality for your example sentence.

A photo of the house is on the museum's homepage, but it is more impressive in actuality.

edited Dec 17 '11 at 06:10

answered Dec 17 '11 at 04:22

score 1 · Answer 6 · answered Dec 17 '11 at 09:44

1

Although 'in person' works fine for things and people, an alternative would be 'in reality'. The photo is a (possibly inaccurate) representation of the house, not the real house.

answered Dec 17 '11 at 09:44

Sean

183

score 0 · Answer 7 · edited Oct 23 '23 at 22:11

0

I cringe when sellers online say something is prettier "in actual" but I can't find a better term. If "in reality" is the most appropriate, it sounds awkward. I think I would opt for in person when commenting to online posts.

edited Oct 23 '23 at 22:11

KillingTime

6,206

answered Oct 23 '23 at 21:53

Myla Cinco

1

Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Oct 23 '23 at 22:45

"In person" equivalent for inanimate objects

7 Answers7

Linked

Related