If you don’t want to see the difference in the hue/saturation/vibrancy between the photos, I think continuing back and forth would be pointless. The colors are to my eye, clearly tweaked. In the OP image even Ronald Reagan looks like he used a little spray tan. Somehow the deep brown-grey shadow on the side of his face took on a significantly more red tint, despite this being a flat painting photographed in identical lighting between both photos.
I touched on this above but did a very quick modification on mobile and only adjusted black levels. Not warmth, hue, saturation etc. The man is, unquestionably, of the “fake tan / orange” variety - and the woman, while more “natural,” is effectively leather. I left our head dried apricot in charge out of the picture because he is easily the worst one in the image. The painting is catching some bad light - but it’s still a bit too washed out regardless.
Look at the guy in the far right of the original photo vs the photo I put up. He has a fairly normal skintone in the photo I put in, and is positively oranged up in the OP photo. I think he is a good barometer of the change. This isn’t to say RFK is a baseline normal looking person, but two things can be true- RFK looks weird and the colors were heightened, with one result being exaggerating the tone that was already there for him.
Sure. There are absolutely people in that photo who have a normal skin tone. If the saturation were being brutally jacked up to make RFK look orange then they too would be off color completely (most likely beet red.) The point I was getting at is this doesn’t take much modification (even to fairly benign levels like my example shows) to land him firmly in the topic’s question.
Yes - the observation is being made because it’s funny; but if we’re being honest - the pictures don’t really need all that much assistance to make OPs point, though.
If you don’t want to see the difference in the hue/saturation/vibrancy between the photos, I think continuing back and forth would be pointless. The colors are to my eye, clearly tweaked. In the OP image even Ronald Reagan looks like he used a little spray tan. Somehow the deep brown-grey shadow on the side of his face took on a significantly more red tint, despite this being a flat painting photographed in identical lighting between both photos.
I touched on this above but did a very quick modification on mobile and only adjusted black levels. Not warmth, hue, saturation etc. The man is, unquestionably, of the “fake tan / orange” variety - and the woman, while more “natural,” is effectively leather. I left our head dried apricot in charge out of the picture because he is easily the worst one in the image. The painting is catching some bad light - but it’s still a bit too washed out regardless.
Original:
Black levels eyeballed:
Look at the guy in the far right of the original photo vs the photo I put up. He has a fairly normal skintone in the photo I put in, and is positively oranged up in the OP photo. I think he is a good barometer of the change. This isn’t to say RFK is a baseline normal looking person, but two things can be true- RFK looks weird and the colors were heightened, with one result being exaggerating the tone that was already there for him.
Sure. There are absolutely people in that photo who have a normal skin tone. If the saturation were being brutally jacked up to make RFK look orange then they too would be off color completely (most likely beet red.) The point I was getting at is this doesn’t take much modification (even to fairly benign levels like my example shows) to land him firmly in the topic’s question.
Yes - the observation is being made because it’s funny; but if we’re being honest - the pictures don’t really need all that much assistance to make OPs point, though.