And it’s not HRT, damn it. It’s not hormone replacement therapy at all. Call it cross-sex hormones, or hormone therapy if you must, but it’s not HRT. If you must appropriate the term someone else uses for a similar treatment with a totally different purpose, then how about calling puberty blockers “chemical castration”?
Either HRT is able to remodel bones or the main difference between the two pictures is the focal length of the camera…
Why not both? (As the kids say…) Theoretically, sure; estrogens and androgens affect bone growth in different ways, and bone remodelling occurs throughout life (albeit at varying rates). But once again, pesky reality intervenes:
Long-term CSHT (cross-sex hormone therapy) had a neutral effect on BMD in transgender men. In transgender women, only lumbar spine BMD seemed to be affected after CSHT.
Not just focal length, also shutter speed and probably ISO. Hell, probably distance from the camera, too. Look at how much brighter his eyes are in the “after” shot, nevermind his complexion.
To be generous, though, I’ve seen more misleading photos on actual women’s online dating profiles. That’s a phenomenon I’ve never understood. Why make yourself look more attractive in your pics than you are in reality? You’re only setting your date up for disappointment, which tends not to be a great first impression.
His eyes are brighter in the second photo because the ambient light is greater, so his pupils have shrunk. What is more obvious is that the second photograph has been put through some manipulation software. Everything about him – face and neck are narrower, skin is smoother (creases and dimples on his cheeks have vanished), his jaw is a different shape.
Funny, isn’t it, how the online version of these people looks nothing like the real thing, ever since manipulative software became ubiquitous? Just compare Willyboy’s Twitter offerings with his appearance on TV as an obvious example.
The original has both lower light level and warmer light. The specular reflection on the eye is pretty much dead centre of the pupil, suggesting a flash with red-eye correction applied. The jaw is closed, which broadens and squares the jaw appearance.
The after is not only more and cooler light (smaller pupil, skin brighter), but the main light source is coming from his top left, with a fill coming from his right slightly below head mid line. Classic portrait lighting. The lack of stubble further lightens the skin and increases reflectivity, as does the makeup. The jaw is also open, with a 5-10mm opening covered by the closed lips. That narrows the base of the jaw and also creates a more ‘elfin’ appearance on the jawline. All quite significant changes compared to just the hormone alone.
And it’s not HRT, damn it. It’s not hormone replacement therapy at all. Call it cross-sex hormones, or hormone therapy if you must, but it’s not HRT. If you must appropriate the term someone else uses for a similar treatment with a totally different purpose, then how about calling puberty blockers “chemical castration”?
Exogenous hormones – being given in unnatural amounts for the patient’s sex.
Either HRT is able to remodel bones or the main difference between the two pictures is the focal length of the camera…
Sonderval
Why not both? (As the kids say…) Theoretically, sure; estrogens and androgens affect bone growth in different ways, and bone remodelling occurs throughout life (albeit at varying rates). But once again, pesky reality intervenes:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469959
So… yeah.
Apparently six months of HRT also alters the eye colour.
Not just focal length, also shutter speed and probably ISO. Hell, probably distance from the camera, too. Look at how much brighter his eyes are in the “after” shot, nevermind his complexion.
To be generous, though, I’ve seen more misleading photos on actual women’s online dating profiles. That’s a phenomenon I’ve never understood. Why make yourself look more attractive in your pics than you are in reality? You’re only setting your date up for disappointment, which tends not to be a great first impression.
His eyes are brighter in the second photo because the ambient light is greater, so his pupils have shrunk. What is more obvious is that the second photograph has been put through some manipulation software. Everything about him – face and neck are narrower, skin is smoother (creases and dimples on his cheeks have vanished), his jaw is a different shape.
Funny, isn’t it, how the online version of these people looks nothing like the real thing, ever since manipulative software became ubiquitous? Just compare Willyboy’s Twitter offerings with his appearance on TV as an obvious example.
P.S. Glinner’s version is hilarious, but why did the internet hide it behind an adult warning? Was it the Jimmy Savile cigar?
To annoy us, I think.
I believe Zinnia Jones copyrighted the silly lip pooch look years ago. Maybe Jones ought to sue for licensing fees.
The original has both lower light level and warmer light. The specular reflection on the eye is pretty much dead centre of the pupil, suggesting a flash with red-eye correction applied. The jaw is closed, which broadens and squares the jaw appearance.
The after is not only more and cooler light (smaller pupil, skin brighter), but the main light source is coming from his top left, with a fill coming from his right slightly below head mid line. Classic portrait lighting. The lack of stubble further lightens the skin and increases reflectivity, as does the makeup. The jaw is also open, with a 5-10mm opening covered by the closed lips. That narrows the base of the jaw and also creates a more ‘elfin’ appearance on the jawline. All quite significant changes compared to just the hormone alone.