The unfunny answer is likely that somebody tweaked the picture to up the orange, specifically to get a reaction. Especially likely since the reverse image search pulls up reddit as the first source, and reddit loves nothing more than beating a comedy dead horse. Finding pictures that were from the same event, people are noticeably less orange colored. Even RFK who does have an orange tinge isn't oompla loompa colored like in the OP picture.

Also community rule 2.

[–] tamal3@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

While we're on the subject of oompa loopmas... What's up with Cindy Loo Who and the guy behind her? Holy canoli.

[–] verdigris@lemmy.ml 80 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Idk this isn't much better lol... RFK still looks like he was left in the air fryer a few minutes too long.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If you don't want to see the difference in the hue/saturation/vibrancy between the photos, I think continuing back and forth would be pointless. The colors are to my eye, clearly tweaked. In the OP image even Ronald Reagan looks like he used a little spray tan. Somehow the deep brown-grey shadow on the side of his face took on a significantly more red tint, despite this being a flat painting photographed in identical lighting between both photos.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I touched on this above but did a very quick modification on mobile and only adjusted black levels. Not warmth, hue, saturation etc. The man is, unquestionably, of the "fake tan / orange" variety - and the woman, while more "natural," is effectively leather. I left our head dried apricot in charge out of the picture because he is easily the worst one in the image. The painting is catching some bad light - but it's still a bit too washed out regardless.

Original:

Black levels eyeballed:

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Look at the guy in the far right of the original photo vs the photo I put up. He has a fairly normal skintone in the photo I put in, and is positively oranged up in the OP photo. I think he is a good barometer of the change. This isn't to say RFK is a baseline normal looking person, but two things can be true- RFK looks weird and the colors were heightened, with one result being exaggerating the tone that was already there for him.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Sure. There are absolutely people in that photo who have a normal skin tone. If the saturation were being brutally jacked up to make RFK look orange then they too would be off color completely (most likely beet red.) The point I was getting at is this doesn't take much modification (even to fairly benign levels like my example shows) to land him firmly in the topic's question.

Yes - the observation is being made because it's funny; but if we're being honest - the pictures don't really need all that much assistance to make OPs point, though.

[–] yggstyle@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

While I won't disagree that someone upped the saturation on the above photo slightly - and slightly is the key here: it easily could have been auto corrected to that level on a simple photo editor automatically. I wouldn't be comfortable with malice being the underlying reason for what appears to be an attempt to make the photo look less washed out - which your example appears to be.

The problem is a lot of these people are positively off of an actual human color. Spray / fake tan or years of sun exposure and subsequent damage. Take your pick. Either way: correcting color without intentionally distorting the spectrum to make them look 'normal' is not kind to most of the people in the original photo... and not drastically far off from what it appears to be.

Disclaimer: I'm not looking at this at the office where I have a display that has been properly calibrated - but I'm reasonably certain of my assessment.