Genuine respect. This is what a REAL "Commander in Chief" looks like
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (60)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
It could be the best he could get. Close it down but crank the ISO, get grain, crank the shutter time, get motion blur. I'd probably try everything if it were up to me, so you could be right. You don't need thousands of pictures, just the picture. Some mod thought this one was the enough to pin.
As a Nikon shooter, I can tell that this pic is from a Cannon (pushed red in either white balance or lazily so in PS .. Cannons are significantly cooler, and used by most action shooting pros) .. and any Cannon shot near Trump inside (close proximity) would be a pro camera with excellent high ISO performance.
This shot was chosen to include the sour-puss with Trump in an effort to shit on Trump ... just a guess, yes .. but I know how cameras work and I know how msm photogs work for this kind of shit narrative image.
How can you tell the red is pushed in? Asking for a layman here. (In addition to trying to make the man look bad).
Bad wording on my part.
The red color is pushed in white balance or PS .. meaning that the red color value/saturation is over emphasized, either in the camera white balance (set to a warmer kelvin value or an over-adjusted auto/shade setting in the white balance setting), or the editing.
In PhotoShop, the red can be pushed in levels or in color balance settings. lazy work would push the red and leave the blue and yellow unadjusted, creating the effect you see in this pic - red is the only color that is enhanced with all other colors are dull/bland.
It's hard to describe unless you've worked a lot with images and adjusting colors, both in white balance settings and in PS.
You can really see the fuckery in the saturation of Trump's red tie and the red partition on the right side of the pic. Over-saturation of one color is a yuuuuge tell of the fuckery employed in an image.
I think what you're trying to say is, they're making the President look like a literal "orange man"?
I know Canon from a long time ago (GL2), but not Nikon, so I'm not up on the differences. It left much to be desired in terms of white balance in low light. Filmed some naturally lit baptisms in a rural church lobby. It was really tough keeping it looking somewhere between a chicken coop and crack-proof publish washroom blue. Are they still like that?
I only know digital from 2004 to present.
Both Cannon and Nikon are the absolutely BOMB for image quality .. colors, resolution, ISO ... top of the line, both of them.
Cannons images are noticeably cooler than Nikons .. no biggy, if you know how to properly/evenly adjust in PS.
Cannons are sharper out of the camera (hence Cannon is the choice of most news photogs) than Nikons .. but, again, no biggy if you know how to properly sharpen an image.
Cannons are most notably used for action/pap/news photography .. Nikons are mostly used for studio work.
Nikon lenses are better (most times they are significantly better).
Glass is king .. so I prefer Nikon. Plus, I like vivid warm colors, and I know how to use PhotoShop properly to get exactly what I want.
Double checking... Yup, "Canon" is still with one 'n'. Also, I mean "film" the verb, not the media, as in motion picture. I can GIMP the stills, but video's more of a pain, especially since I didn't have any budget authority at that church (despite asking for three years.)