PHOTO COMPARISON

Does anyone besides me think these pictures appear to be of two different women?

FILED UNDER: Media
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Rodney Dill says:

    Picture of Hillary Clinton selected to be used as the cover of Living History before the airbrush artist did his magic.

    Hence my caption for the June 6 “picture of Arafat” caption contest. The cover of the book is a much younger, much airbrushed, or much photoshop’d version of Hillary. Come to look at it again the bottom one looks a bit strange, even though the age and number of wrinkles is about right. If it’s a look a like, its pretty good.

    I noticed right away how much younger the cover of the book looked then, Hill looks now.

  2. John Lemon says:

    That’s it! I’ve had it!! My next book will feature a picture of me on the cover. (Or at least Ann Coulter or Tia Carrere.)

  3. ray says:

    Photoshop, photoshop and more photoshop.

    The bottom picture is of one of the many body doubles that are employed by Hillary.

  4. Paul says:

    (geeze you know you are old when you start a post this way….)

    MANY YEARS AGO I spent a few years as a professional photog and I assisted with some pretty big names in that business. I still shoot sports but that is cuz they pay to have the best seat in the house. (But I digress)

    Anyway, little if any of that is photoshop. The most important person on a set is the stylist . (hair and make-up)

    They can make me look like that I am 6 foot 3 and pretty hairy.

    Those people are magic.

    fyi

    Paul

    BTW If you care to see it as a photog sees…

    He did that “one eye bigger than the other” thing with the lights but I guess it works here. Most people as they look at this picture their eyes will “circle” her face ending on her left eye. (camera right)

    BUT (if you are like most people) he makes your eye circle counter clockwise rather than a prefered clockwise rotation which throws some drama into a soothing (B&W) scene.

    Or I bet that is what he tried to do. I think it would work on most people.

  5. John Lemon says:

    Paul,
    That’s a very cool observation.

  6. MommaBear says:

    There is a very evident difference in the lighting and the make-up; looking at the underlying bone and tissue, it is the same person underneath the flim-flammery. Wonderful what can be done to distort the viewer’s impressions from photographs. Almost as good as much of the misleading writing we get flung at us each day in the ‘popular media’.

  7. Cricket says:

    Soft lighting always works wonders to diminish wrinkles and I would love to know who her dentist is. She has two teeth that have been
    capped or crowned.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but retouching black and white pics is not as difficult as doing color?

  8. O. F. Jay says:

    James, in her picture on (Revising) History the corner of her mouth is longer and the shape of her eyes are different. No doubt bec. of makeup and lighting, but for a few secs. she looks like the current pres. of the Philippines, H.E. G.M. Arroyo

  9. Paul says:

    Cricket I guess some would agree but I would not and most good photogs would not. Color “sells” the image. If there is a flaw it is harder to find. B&W is what you see is what you get.

    O.F. that is not a function of makeup as much as a single large softbox to her upper left. (camera upper right)

    here is a hint for anyone interested… If you want to see how the guy lit someone, look at their eyes. You can always see the lights.

  10. O. F. Jay says:

    Oh yeah!!! Interesting, speaking of lighting in the eyes, anyone remember thos pics with circular light rings in the iris?

  11. Rodney Dill says:

    The face that no longer is on the cover of the history that never was. Appropriate.