Sloppy language on my part. (And if we’re going to do the full-on SDMB nitpick thing, it should have been “Photoshop,” capital P, no hyphen.)
What I should have said is, “that photo has been digitally altered.” Personally, if someone used Photoshop to exaggerate the colors, even if they didn’t add or remove items, I’d still consider it “Photoshopped.” But in this case, I guess it has been Apple Smartphone’d.
I didn’t intend to pick nits, re: literally using Photoshop. What I meant was that I don’t think colourising a B&W photo or adjusting contrast is an alteration that rises to what is, in my experience, the common usage of ‘photoshopping’. Given that the same obvious makeup line is seen in photographs from different photographers, the image is ‘real’ and should not be called ‘photoshopped’ as the use of that word implies that it is ‘fake’.
That’s where we differ, in this specific case. That is, assuming that the colorization exaggerated the tan line, which is the assumption I am operating under.
If I am wrong, and a person with normal vision physically standing next to Trump would see that same grotesque variation between his visible face and the edges that are normally covered by hair, then I would not see any digital alterations as significant in this case.
To put it another way, if the colors were added/adjusted for the express purpose of making Trump look ridiculous above and beyond what a “real” observation would, then I think the photo counts as digitally altered.
‘So, in search of the truth, I went looking for a photo of the same moment from another photographer – or as close to it as I could find. And this is what turned up – a picture taken from a slightly different angle by Michael Reynolds for EPA-EFE/Shutterstock.’
It seems that Reynolds isn’t commenting on whether his photo was in any way doctored. Assuming it wasn’t, WOW. I can’t comment further without violating the “non-political” nature of the thread. Let’s just say the contrast is…unusually pronounced.
Missed edit window - here’s a third photographer’s snapshot:
I’m not sure if it is the same day or not, but it doesn’t really matter. The point is that the evidence is pointing to the tan line being a real thing.
I doubt Fox News would be manipulating anything to make Trump look bad.
He has ‘world-class’ make-up artists, but, you give the client what he wants.
At least he doesn’t paint his face Kabuki White like Elizabeth the First.
On the other hand, Liz’s paint had lead in it…Nah, lead’s got nothing to do with Trump’s idiocy.
If you think he looks ridiculous with it, you should see him without it. Warning- brain bleach needed after viewing.
Wow.
I withdraw what I said above. Now that I’ve seen Trump without a fake tan, I realize he made the right call with having one.
Naah. It only looks so startlingly pale because of the light he’s under there, and because we’re not used to it. I’ve seen people that are pretty pale. It’s not horrifying. (Plus he spends enough time golfing he doubtlessly gets some sun, if there wasn’t pancake makeup in the way.)
If he didn’t bronze, he’d be a maybe-pale white dude. With the bronze he’s a sloppy orange clown. (Though admittedly everything else about his look -hair, clothes- also contributes to that too.)
I thought he looked a LOT better without the orange gunk–still like a bloated version of his fake-pouty younger self, but definitely better than the pumpkin spice version.
…his tiny little hands…
Oh yes he is. Orange make-up or not. <Shudder>
Well, I wasn’t holding disabilities he couldn’t help against him, like his tiny hands or his tiny mushroom or the fact he’s an ugly fucker. That he can’t help. Stuff like his hair, his clothes, and his pumpkin face are his own fault.
I was talking about paleness in general, not his saggy visage. Him I’d be thrilled to never see again.
Once upon a time, the guy was actually normal looking. I mean, he’d never win “Sexiest Man Alive”, but he at least looked human.
I wouldn’t either. Before he did his impression of Serge Kovaleski.
Didn’t read the whole thread. I’m replying directly to the OP.
Because he knows better than the experts. Like he does in every other area-- business, medicine, statistics, technology, history, international politics, psychology, and every other field of human endeavor. No one can tell him anything, and I’m sure that includes makeup experts, even the best makeup experts in the world.
Many of us know women who wear makeup that is hideous and appallingly unflattering but no one can tell them. They like what they see in the mirror and dismiss others’ opinions. Anybody remember the flight attendant on What Not to Wear who insisted on layers of black-black-black eyeliner and false eyelashes that looked like bloated, fuzzy caterpillars? Stacy and Clinton cleaned her up, but she reverted right back 'cause she knew better and liked the look.
Donald knows more and better than anyone else in the whole wide world and that’s that!
Before the alien thing atop his head started draining his life force.
