This photo still gets me. Jimmy Carter's height was 5'7. Jill Biden's height is 5'6. Yes, some people do shrink as they age, but generally they lose at most about 2-3 inches. That's it. Many don't lose any height at all. Either Jill grew and has a tumor on her pituitary gland or he turned into a midget.
MSM was trying to say the shrinkage was due to using a wide angle lens. Erm...
Why are they so much bigger than the Carter’s? Gas/energy shortages and out of control inflation is what Carter is famous for. It is rubbing our faces in their steaming load of shit.
The lenses excuse really made me laugh. What portrait photographer takes a wide angle lenses and attempts to achieve this look on purpose? The way a wide angle lenses works it’s effects are constant across the image and would skew the proportions more evenly. Not differentiating between one subject and the other like a photoshop job. I read intention and manipulation all over this image. Unless some new fancy circus mirror lens came out, no lens can achieves this effect. Why would anyone intentionally want to do this to a portrait image? The premise is ridiculous.
Ask Kinds of proportion red flags here that Don’t with To lens math. I agree and think this helps state your point visually: https://greatawakening.win/p/12iNnUjQmJ/
Interesting catch.
This photo still gets me. Jimmy Carter's height was 5'7. Jill Biden's height is 5'6. Yes, some people do shrink as they age, but generally they lose at most about 2-3 inches. That's it. Many don't lose any height at all. Either Jill grew and has a tumor on her pituitary gland or he turned into a midget.
MSM was trying to say the shrinkage was due to using a wide angle lens. Erm...
Why are they so much bigger than the Carter’s? Gas/energy shortages and out of control inflation is what Carter is famous for. It is rubbing our faces in their steaming load of shit.
Carters. No apostrophe needed to pluralize.
But yes, I think you are spot on about the reference to shortages.
The lenses excuse really made me laugh. What portrait photographer takes a wide angle lenses and attempts to achieve this look on purpose? The way a wide angle lenses works it’s effects are constant across the image and would skew the proportions more evenly. Not differentiating between one subject and the other like a photoshop job. I read intention and manipulation all over this image. Unless some new fancy circus mirror lens came out, no lens can achieves this effect. Why would anyone intentionally want to do this to a portrait image? The premise is ridiculous.
It’s clearly not a wide angle lens; there’s no distortion in perspective on the things in the room, cept the Carters.
Ask Kinds of proportion red flags here that Don’t with To lens math. I agree and think this helps state your point visually: https://greatawakening.win/p/12iNnUjQmJ/
Wide angle lens? The shit they make up....
If they stood up, the furniture would only be to their knees! Something fishy definitely going on here!
has a very alice in wonderland feel to it