>>4457308>That photo isnt even green.No, it is.
There's hints of green all over in places it shouldn't be present if you know what to look for.
Look at the shadows in his veneers.
Look at the edges of his hair.
Look at his neck where the shirt meets his skin.
>You’re hallucinating.Hallucinating facts.
>>4457311So you think professional PLANNED historical photos taken with modern multiple thousand dollar full frame cameras in staged scenes with lights set up should only have to look good on a phone? Really?
You must be one of those nigger faggots who has a fetish for continually lowering the bar and making everything worse than it should be.
Biden's was shot at f/2.5 at 800 ISO, Obama's was f/7.1 at 200 ISO.
Biden's lighting setup was 6 stops darker than it should have been. This is gross incompetence.
In my opinion all presidential portraits should be done with a 100MP+ medium format digital body with a monochromatic sensor. The world has enough color photography shit floating around, the historical portraits should be free from color artifacts and white balance fuckery. B&W is truth, and of course the public should be able to access not only a JPEG but the RAW camera files as well. Just like we can with NASA space telescope images.
