In that "my face is sucked in because I don't have the luxury of being fat during this time period of america" kinda way, sort of. Every single other detail is different though.
Same mouth, same cheekbones, same head shape, nearly the same nose. Lincoln's forehead a bit lower and his eyes less inset, with a more rounded chin. See the other comment I just posted with another picture from when they were younger. Resemblance there is much closer.
Also, the camera on my phone is 6,000,000 times better than whatever those were took on so details are going to be softer. I know what you're saying though. It wasn't until I really started to focus on the details that I saw they were indeed two completely separate individuals.
the camera on my phone is 6,000,000 times better than whatever those were took on
This is a common mistake - the quality of photography is in general getting worse in the digital age. For example an old 35mm film camera is far superior in resolution to a camera phone, especially because the lens is bigger and better, but also because film gives better resolution than the scanning function of all but the most expensive large format digital cameras.
When it comes to resolution, your phone camera is about on par with the camera that took these photos and probably worse because these images were taken on a camera with a much larger lens - but it's easy to think your phone camera is great because your photos look great on your phone screen. That's because the phone manufacturers us AI software to upscale images, so when you zoom into them on screen so they don't look pixelated and blurry and make their phones look bad. The real test in printouts. If you print out a picture from your phone, and compare with a print from an old negative, you'd see that phone cameras suck - they can only print a fairly small image. Try and print larger and they get all pixelated as fuck. Where as a negative can be blown up and retain resolution.
In that "my face is sucked in because I don't have the luxury of being fat during this time period of america" kinda way, sort of. Every single other detail is different though.
Same mouth, same cheekbones, same head shape, nearly the same nose. Lincoln's forehead a bit lower and his eyes less inset, with a more rounded chin. See the other comment I just posted with another picture from when they were younger. Resemblance there is much closer.
Also, the camera on my phone is 6,000,000 times better than whatever those were took on so details are going to be softer. I know what you're saying though. It wasn't until I really started to focus on the details that I saw they were indeed two completely separate individuals.
I've been high before too, man.
This is a common mistake - the quality of photography is in general getting worse in the digital age. For example an old 35mm film camera is far superior in resolution to a camera phone, especially because the lens is bigger and better, but also because film gives better resolution than the scanning function of all but the most expensive large format digital cameras.
When it comes to resolution, your phone camera is about on par with the camera that took these photos and probably worse because these images were taken on a camera with a much larger lens - but it's easy to think your phone camera is great because your photos look great on your phone screen. That's because the phone manufacturers us AI software to upscale images, so when you zoom into them on screen so they don't look pixelated and blurry and make their phones look bad. The real test in printouts. If you print out a picture from your phone, and compare with a print from an old negative, you'd see that phone cameras suck - they can only print a fairly small image. Try and print larger and they get all pixelated as fuck. Where as a negative can be blown up and retain resolution.