The Frogman

I love film.

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 21:23:12 -0500

Corksniffing losers have to sully an awesome new space photo just to erroneously claim film is inherently superior.
I think this version is the original color processed version, which is still not as saturated or contrasty.
That’s still an amazing result just from darkroom processing, but the deep blue version in the tweet definitely needed some help from Photoshop. And, personally, I think they overdid it.
The new photo was actually taken in darkness. It is a moonlit photo taken at extremely high gain (ISO 52,000). They did a long exposure to make it appear as if it were as bright as day. But without significant editing, that is going to make the colors less saturated and reduce the contrast.
The same thing would happen with film.
This is another version they did with a more accurate-to-eyeballs exposure.
Film is great.
Digital is great.
Space is great.

I love film.

But it was not a great medium for space.

Most astronauts are fighter pilots. And there are only a few who are genuine photographers. You can train a fighter pilot to competently use a camera, but becoming a good photographer during the days of film usually took years of practice.

During the Apollo days they would send them up there with the best camera available. Usually a 70mm Hasselblad medium format. But the astronauts proved that the only way to get amazing photos without being a photographer was mostly down to luck.

We see the best photos they took, but those only amount to a handful. And as you saw above, NASA often had to do a lot of darkroom magic to make them aesthetically pleasing.

If you look at the Apollo archives, you can find hundreds of photos like this.

I’m fond of this one.

There was no instant feedback. They didn’t have any instincts for settings or focus or composition. Most of the time they were just collecting visual data.

But every once in a while the stars aligned and they took absolute bangers.

That flag one is amazingly composed. But it took them a few tries.

Digital cameras give you a better baseline of quality. They can focus for you. They can meter for you. And they have high ISO gain that film could never touch.

They are… fighter pilot friendly.

With digital, they can look at the back screen and see if they bungled the exposure.

If they take a photo like this…

They get instant feedback and can be like, “Houston, where is exposure compensation?”

There is an undeniable ineffable quality that film sometimes delivers. But the medium is far less important than the skill of the person taking the photo.

Don Pettit is my favorite astronaut photographer. A true artist.

He really makes you forget about whether film is better than digital. He makes one remember that the person taking the photo is the paramount variable.

There is a great interview from Smarter Every Day where Don talks about how he captures amazing photos from space.

I felt silly for not knowing this, but it seems I am not alone. So perhaps you might find it as cool…

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 22:43:31 -0500

sirfrogsworth:

I had my most profound TIL moment yesterday.
I have officially lost 6 pounds so far.
And as I have been tracking my weight, I noticed that my progress did not correlate to my bowel movements.
And for some reason, I just always assumed that was how the “weight” exited my body.
No one told me this. I was not taught this in school. It just made logical sense to me. If you lose weight, you poop it out. Right?
So I decided to look it up.
Not only was I shocked that weight loss had nothing to do with dropping buddies off at the pool—the actual mechanism is just… bonkers.
If you don’t know already, I’d like you to take a guess.
Feel free to leave a reply before reading further.
Keep reading

I felt silly for not knowing this, but it seems I am not alone. So perhaps you might find it as cool as I did.

Also, I won diabetes.

This graph shows how long my glucose levels are within acceptable parameters. I needed to hit 70% and I overshot by a little bit.

My A1C is very close to being in the non-diabetic range.

5.7% and below is typically where blood sugar normies are.

And, as mentioned, I’m down about 6 pounds.

I have a long way to go, but I’m happy to be heading in the right direction.

I promised my dad before he passed that I would improve my health. I had to make a lot of health sacrifices to care for him and he wasn’t pleased about that.

My weight has become a mobility issue. It’s so hard to move. I am always out of breath. I am not flexible. Taking a shower feels like running a marathon.

Losing weight won’t cure my CFS or narcolepsy. But moving around less of me should use up less energy.

I know I won’t ever feel great, but maybe I can feel not terrible at some point.

Are you on bluesky? We’re trying to migrate sites, and rebuilding a follow list in an UI we aren’t familiar with is kind of a pain

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 13:47:50 -0500

I have reserved my profile and I hope to explore it more thoroughly at some point, but I have not had the energy to figure out who to follow and what I'd like to post there.

I'm probably going to stick mainly to Tumblr until it implodes or the heat death of the universe. Whichever comes first.

But you can follow me and I'm sure I will start posting there eventually.

The Frogman (@thefrogman.bsky.social)

My difficult health recovery has prevented me from doing any real photography since last April. But…

Sat, 21 Feb 2026 17:46:06 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

This is the most photogenic chair in existence.
Taken this morning out my dirty window with a smartphone.

My difficult health recovery has prevented me from doing any real photography since last April. But this damned red chair that I couldn’t drag all the way to the trash pickup has been a weird muse. It is now a sort of mascot for my front yard and a frequent guest in my photos.

I took this picture out of a dirty window with my 6 year old smartphone, but with a tiny bit of Photoshop magic, I was able to make it seem like I used my big boy camera.

Most smartphones have a RAW mode these days. And I suspect people don’t use this mode because the files look boring and flat initially. But you need to think of it as capturing data rather than a finished photo. Interchangeable lens cameras have entire color science departments dedicated to making the RAW files look good. They could just output the flat, low contrast result like video cameras do, but I think that might be discouraging to beginners.

This is what “raw” professional video footage looks like without any grading.

But RAW files from stills cameras look almost fully cooked from the beginning. I’m guessing they give you a head start to save time and figure you can undo their initial grade in editing.

All that is to say, smartphone RAW photos are often ugly. They are meant to be. Apple and Google are much more invested in doing all of the editing work for you. With RAW, you have to visualize what you can do with the data and process them in something like Lightroom. However, if you put in the effort, you can often get better results than letting the phone do its computational magic.

I’ve trained in photo editing and manipulation for longer than I’ve been a photographer. Over two decades now. I started on Photoshop 5.0 which was released in 1998.

Like every skill, I kinda sucked at first. I made some embarrassing things.

I would practice by Photoshopping my friend’s MySpace photos.

I started getting into Photoshop comedy. That involved a lot of cats and memes.

And my skills started getting better.

This parody of 300 with squirrels was the first time I thought, “I might be good at this.”

No one noticed that I turned the zeros into acorns in the logo, but I was proud of that.

I created a popular meme “Babies with Laser Eyes.”

And then I had my first mega viral Photoshop creation.

Eventually photography came into the picture and I was able to combine my skills. I learned professional retouching.

And then the ultimate test of all my skills was learning photo restoration. It is constant problem solving, R&D, hand coloring, and hours and hours of removing specks of dust from 50 year old photos.

I love photography and editing equally. And photo editing is nice because I can do it lying down in my bed if I need to. So if I am not physically able to do proper photography, I still have a related creative outlet. I’ve enjoyed doing photo restoration work a great deal. I get to restore people’s cherished memories and that feels very nice.

That said, I’ve felt more anxious about posting my more edit-heavy art. People are quick to make accusations of AI. And a lot of photographers see editing as a cheat. If you don’t capture the image “in camera,” it is seen as less authentic. This is despite the fact that my image editing workflow is much more complicated, required much more training, and takes much longer than practical photography.

I don’t claim my images aren’t edited. Every professional-level photographer does some editing on every photo. Though some of my least edited photos get accused of being photoshopped, or now, AI.

I don’t understand the shame and stigma that some people attach to photo editing. To me, it is as valid an art form as painting or drawing. And in most cases, I do actually have the photography skills to achieve a similar result using practical methods, but I have to choose which approach will use the least amount of energy due to my CFS.

I got up the other morning and saw a spooky fog. The sun was barely awake and the light was still quite dim. When I looked out my front window, it looked very much like what the photo depicted.

My first instinct was to grab my proper camera and head outside to take photos. But I am at a very physically taxing stage of my recovery and I have trouble standing for more than a few minutes at a time. I gave up on the idea and returned to my sedentary state.

But then I remembered the smartphone photo I took when it snowed.

People really liked this photo and didn’t seem to care that it was taken through my window with a phone. So I figured I’d capture the foggy version and it would be a cool sequel.

Unfortunately, 30 minutes had passed and the dim blue light had become much brighter. But I figured I could recreate what I saw earlier with my editing skills.

And I think it was successful.

If I had the energy, I’m confident I could have captured an equally cool image “in camera.” But sometimes it is cathartic to flex my editing muscles when practical methods are not possible.

The Red Chair Collection keeps growing.

(The blue alien Froggie was from Halloween.)

I am working very hard to get better. And I have made tremendous progress over the past year. But the finish line still eludes me. It is closer than ever but still seems out of reach.

I am an artist through-and-through, and it is difficult to have limited creative output. I miss photography very much. But I am glad I still have photo editing when my concentration is cooperating.

If you are curious how the finish line camera works, I wrote a cool post explaining it.

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:20:40 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

Via NPR…
———————-
LAGO DI TESERO, Italy — A local dog made a bid for Olympic glory Wednesday morning, breaking out of his doghouse and onto the homestretch of the cross-country ski course in the middle of a race.
Two-year-old Nazgul was quickly collared by race officials and returned unharmed to his home at a nearby bed-and-breakfast, but not before his genial presence lit up television sets and social media channels around the world — even if he perplexed some of the athletes who encountered him.
“I was like, ‘Am I hallucinating?” said Tena Hadzic, a 21-year-old Croatian skier who encountered the dog on her trip down the homestretch.
But his owners connected with NPR for a brief interview while they were driving to watch an Olympic biathlon race at another venue.
“He was crying this morning more than normal because he was seeing us leaving — and I think he just wanted to follow us,” said the owner, “He always looks for people.”
Nazgul is a “stubborn, but very sweet” Czechoslovakian wolfdog, the owner said.
Race organizers did not make Nazgul available for questions after his capture.
——————-
My favorite part was showing the Omega photo finish.

If you are curious how the finish line camera works, I wrote a cool post explaining it.

I’m going through my old macro photos and re-stacking them. This one was a pleasant surprise when I…

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 17:15:10 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

Sanford King Size Permanent Marker
This is a 52 slice focus stack of the best smelling markers ever made.
“Froggie, did you mean to say best selling?”
Umm… sure.
Sadly, the classic striped design was abandoned and you can only buy these as a Sharpie.

I’m going through my old macro photos and re-stacking them. This one was a pleasant surprise when I first took it. I had no idea markers were hairy.

I’ve been following your blog for… oh god maybe a decade now? It’s been so cool to see your photography grow. I’d like to try my hand at doing miniature and diorama photography. Your posts about photography are always so insightful, I was wondering if you had any advice for someone just getting started. I have a lightbox from Amazon, a phone stand, and my phone. Is there anything big I should know about taking photos of very small things? What mistakes do people usually make when they’re taking pictures of very small things? Any advice would be absolutely amazing. (Also thank you for your advice on ring lights and naughty photos – it definitely helped my self-esteem to know it was the lighting that was weird and unseemingly, not my bits)

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 18:55:13 -0600

There are generally three ways people go about photographing miniatures and dioramas.

Documentary, professional product photos, and cinematic storytelling.

So if you are just trying to get high quality documentation of your miniature stuff, then something like a light box would be fine. You just want to make sure you get soft, even light and good coverage of your subject. Think Amazon product photos.

I wrote a post about how to document 3D museum objects that covers the basics.

Post by @sirfrogsworth · 3 videos

You can elevate that by doing a more professional still life/product photography workflow.

[[MORE]]

I just recently described my workflow for that type of photo.

Post by @sirfrogsworth · 12 images

And the last style is a more cinematic approach where you photograph your subjects like an actual miniature scene in a movie.

My favorite cinematic toy photographer is Sgt. Bananas (Johnny Wu).

This style of toy photography requires smaller and more precise lighting. You have to remember that a small light for a human is a big light for a toy. And dramatic falloff is determined by distance.

So if you want to get these moody noir shots with gradient falloff, you need to get your lighting very close.

Sgt. Bananas has some videos he did with Tested where he shows off some of his lighting techniques.

He uses small LED lights to create his cinematic style.

If I were putting together a kit I would get a couple of these cube lights.

Amazon.com : SmallRig RM01 Mini LED Video Light Waterproof Portable Lighting Kit with 8 Color Filters, Dimmable Fill Photography Light 5600K

They sell a 3 pack kit with a bunch of helpful accessories.

I would also get an RGB pocket video light.

Amazon.com

This is like a softbox for toy sized stuff. The light can stand up on its side so you can get very creative with where you place it. You can make it a window light or a backlight. And it does colors so you can create fun effects with that.

And then I'd probably get one of these LED panel lights so I can get really soft light but still move it in very close to the subjects. This can even work as a background.

Amazon.com : RALENO 19.5W LED Video Soft Light Panel, 650Lux/m Camera Panel Light Built-in 8000mAh Battery, CRI>95 2500-6500K Photography St

And you could put a shoot-through white umbrella in front of it if you want extra super duper soft light.

Again, these are representative examples. I am not saying you need to get the exact items. Always look for deals, read reviews, and do your research.

Additional tips for photographing small things...

Work in a very dark space. Small lights are not very powerful and they do not compete well with ambient light. You will also need to take longer exposures, which will intensify any ambient light. So block out the windows, close the door, and turn off any lights that aren't contributing to your photo.

You said you have a phone stand, which is good. If it doesn't let you play with angles and heights, you might want to get a cheap tripod with a ball head. You need to make sure your phone doesn't move when taking photos. If you notice your images are a bit blurry, you may need to set a timer so you don't shake the phone.

If your phone allows, lock your ISO to its lowest setting for cleaner photos. Since you are on a stand, you can use a long shutter speed without any issues. If it takes 5 seconds to take a photo, so be it. Keeping that ISO low will help your phone photos look like they were taken with a big camera.

Since you are using your phone and it has a smaller sensor, you will have decent depth of field. But even so, close-up photos of small things are going to shrink your depth of field considerably. Background blur can be a good thing, but if you have a deeper diorama, you may struggle to get everything in focus. For an interchangeable lens camera, I'd normally suggest learning how to focus stack. This is where you take the same picture with multiple focus points. So you could do a close focus, medium focus, and deep focus and then combine them in Photoshop. However, there are smartphone apps that allow you to bracket your focus as well. There is one called Open Camera. That is something to look into. I have not tried it myself, but if you search for "smartphone focus stack" you will probably find guides to help you. I wouldn't worry about this initially, but if you run into this issue in the future, this is how you'd address it.

Put some thought into your background. Do you just want it bright white? Dark gray? Black? Do you want a gradient ball like in my photos? One popular method is to actually put a screen behind your scene and use an image of a sky or cityscape. Putting effort into the background is often ignored and one of the best ways to get better photos.

One of the most powerful creative tools you can use on miniature photography is perspective. If you get your camera super close, you can exaggerate the size of your toys. If you use a farther perspective and zoom in, you can enlarge background elements.

I wrote a big post about perspective. All of the examples are of big stuff, but the same principles apply.

Reblog by @thefrogman · 13 images

All of that holds true, but on a much smaller scale. 5 inches might be a close perspective and 2 feet might be a far one.

And my last tip, look at other photos. Find people who do miniature photography and figure out what you like. Don't just start taking photos. Plan them. Find references and do sketches and figure out how you want things to look. You may not be able to duplicate what you've imagined perfectly, but having a well thought out concept will always get you better results.

Hopefully this was helpful. I wish you luck on your miniature endeavors.

I am referencing some deep Frogman lore in this one.

Mon, 16 Feb 2026 15:18:56 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

You know how sometimes you don’t know you have a thing until you see the thing?
I’ve been watching Elementary and then I saw Lucy Liu in a teeny tiny tie.
I think a new thing has been unlocked in my brain.
Now I’m wondering if my thing is just anyone I find attractive in comically small ties or if this only applies to Lucy Liu donning itsy bitsy neckwear.
Further research of this new thing seems warranted.

I am referencing some deep Frogman lore in this one.

I am starting to cook up a post about how HDR actually works, but it may take me a while.

Sun, 15 Feb 2026 18:44:58 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

Why displays are best viewed in a dim environment.
I saw this question on Reddit and it reminded me of the discourse of why movies and TV shows seem too dark.
The answer to this question is the same answer as to why it is best to view cinematic content in a darkened environment.
Ambient light changes your contrast ratio. If there is light hitting your screen, it will change how dark your screen can get.
I’ve prepared a rough demonstration to help illustrate the problem.
I took a photo of my TV in the dark and then with the overhead light turned on.
Photoshop measured the brightness of the screen in the dark at 4%.
It measured the screen with the light on at 25%.
That is over 6 times brighter. And now nothing my screen displays can be darker than that.
Keep reading

I am starting to cook up a post about how HDR actually works, but it may take me a while.

But if I can give a quick explanation as to how it relates to this post…

A lot of people have a mental model of HDR where it takes the SDR contrast ratio and does this…

But that is a bad way to think about it.

The dynamic range of SDR is fairly similar to HDR most of the time. The perceptual “anchor white” for SDR was graded at around 100 nits of brightness and HDR is usually double that at ~200 nits.

But there are screens that can emit over 1000 nits. Why is most content still squished into that 200 nit box?

The first 200 nits usually represent ambient, diffused, and diffuse reflected light.

Ambient light is just the baseline amount of light occupying the room.

Diffused light (lamp shade, frosted fixtures, floor lamp bouncing off the ceiling) takes the light source, softens it, and sends it in every direction.

And diffuse reflected light is how we see most objects. Light hits an apple, the apple absorbs all colors except red, red light reflects into our eyeballs, we see a red apple.

Think of this as seeing the *effects* of light, rather than the original light source.

Most of the day-to-day visual data we absorb is in this realm. We don’t spend a lot of time staring at the sun unless we are the president.

Anything above 200 nits usually represents emissive light (light bulbs, the sun, lasers) or specular reflected light, a.k.a “specular highlights.” A specular reflection is an image of a light source reflected by a glossy or mirrored object.

A mirrored surface almost perfectly recreates the image and intensity of the original emissive light source.

But an apple can have a specular highlight as well. The amount of gloss the surface has will determine if that highlight feels emissive or not. It would need to be a very shiny apple.

And if there is a very bright diffused light source, the color grade might push that beyond the 200 nit white point for the scene.

When you look at this SDR image of a white piece of paper, its measured brightness is almost identical to the bright window light.

In reality, the window light is much brighter than the paper.

If this scene had a bright light bulb in it, the paper would measure as the same brightness in SDR.

But you’ve looked at a light bulb before. You have felt its intensity overwhelming your vision.

We perceive emissive light sources differently. It is a completely unique experience compared to looking at a bright sheet of paper.

But SDR does not have the ability to represent very bright things faithfully. The best photographers and filmmakers can do is let emissive light sources overexpose so they have a glowing effect. They might even add a diffusion filter to make them more glowy.

What HDR brings to the table is the ability to give you a sense of emissive light versus ambient and diffused sources.

The SDR contrast ratio is (roughly) the same and is utilized the majority of the time, but HDR can punch through the ceiling.

So depictions of light bulbs, headlights, flashlights, neon signs, the sun, bright specular highlights, lightsabers, lasers, neon lights… they will all *feel* like emissive light sources rather than a bright sheet of paper.

In my graphic, you’ll see that the emissive circles get smaller and brighter.

When a bright light source is spread out over a larger surface area, it feels less intense. The sum total of light is spread out over a larger area. When it is smaller and more concentrated, it feels more intense.

Think of shining a flashlight on your hand versus shining it against the wall.

Your TV works the same way as the flashlight. It has a limited power supply. It can’t blast ‘1000 nits’ across the entire screen at once, but it can channel that energy into a small 10% window.

This is why HDR doesn’t sear your eyeballs. The brightest depictions of emissive light sources are also the smallest. The feel more intense without blinding you.

When you watch a lightsaber battle and you try to determine how much of the screen the lightsabers occupy, it is usually only a few percent. But with HDR, you can get that feeling of looking at an actual light source instead of a bright white piece of paper.

So the mental model for HDR should be more like “SDR + emissive light.”

With 1000+ nit HDR displays, you can use this extra brightness in two ways.

If you watch in a darkened room, you can get that perception of emissive light sources.

In a bright room, you can shift the contrast ratio to match the ambient light. As you increase the brightness setting, your sense of emissive light sources will be sacrificed. And if you have an OLED, you will not get super inky blacks.

The super bright display gives more headroom where you can preserve that SDR-like contrast ratio. You can get a very nice, visually legible picture in a very bright room, but the lightsabers will look as they did in SDR.

A Quick Froggie Tangent

Wed, 11 Feb 2026 14:15:21 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

artisticmedley:
sirfrogsworth:
2013 vs 2025
Facebook reminded me of this self portrait I took in 2013. I had been learning photography for about 6 months at that point.
I just put a flash on a stand with a cheap umbrella in front and hoped for the best.
The most recent portraits I’ve taken were of Katrina in 2025.
Hopefully, there are signs of improvement over 12 years.
As someone who does only a very small amount of (macro) photography and has only recently developed a slightly better eye for lighting (85% through finding Sir Frogsworth!), i’d like to try and run through some of the things i see here. Mostly it’s just an exercise for me, though it has raised a couple small questions (if you’re up for answering them, no worries if not!)
Keep reading
That is solid analysis. Well done!
I will try to answer your questions and expand on your observations.
Reflections in glasses.
Reflections on glasses have a few different solutions. For professional shoots, they might actually order frames without lenses. But often you can just play with angles to reduce or eliminate the glare. Even just raising the light a few inches and angling it down can do the trick. If you cannot find a way to avoid the glare, you can move the light as close as possible and it will reduce the intensity of the reflection. You can also take a photo with and without the glasses and Photoshop the glare away with a simple composite.
Whenever reflections are mentioned someone always suggests polarization, but that is a high effort solution that is rarely worth it and can cause unwanted visual side effects.
Personally, I like to have a little glare, but not distractingly so.
I think when glasses look perfectly transparent, it looks a tad fake. It looks like they took the lenses out. I like that tiny visual cue that there is glass in glasses. So I put the light close to reduce glare intensity and make sure the reflection of the light doesn’t cover the iris.
It’s subtle, but I feel it makes the glasses feel more glasses-y.
In any case, dealing with reflections is mostly playing with heights, angles, and distance through trial and error. Once you get skill and experience, the process goes much faster, but with experimentation, anyone can figure it out.
Shadow detail.
The bear hat has less detail for the same reason black kitties turn into voids in photos.
Keep reading

A Quick Froggie Tangent

I feel like the fact that none of us have seen violet for over a decade should be a bigger deal.

Most LEDs are “blue pump” and the tiny sliver of violet in the visible light spectrum does not get emitted. The spectrum starts around 380nm–400nm (violet), but blue pump LEDs start at 450nm. So there is virtually zero energy in the 380nm to 430nm range.

Which means white light hitting a violet object cannot reflect that color into our eyeballs. We can see purple because it is a mixture of red and blue. But true spectral violet can only be seen in sunlight, under incandescents, or under rare, expensive “violet pump” LED lights.

All of our screens are blue pump, so this affects digital art and photography as well.

We probably don’t notice because purple is perceptually very close and there aren’t many objects that reflect spectral violet light.

But I still feel weird about it, ya know?

The Devil Wears Prada 2 had skin tones in the 50-60% brightness range.

Sun, 08 Feb 2026 20:49:33 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

So, when I first started hearing complaints about things being too dark, I thought people meant, like… Game of Thrones “The Long Night.”
But now I am really worried people just want everything to be AS BRIGHT AS POSSIBLE.
I suspect part of the issue is viewing environment. If you are in a bright room, brighter exposures have better legibility. But you sacrifice dynamic range, contrast, and dimensionality.
Basically, everything would look like a YouTube video.
Should Star Wars look like this?
Should I edit my photos like this?
Keep reading

The Devil Wears Prada 2 had skin tones in the 50-60% brightness range.

I sampled some of the most well-known movies of the past and they also exposed skin tones in that same range.

In the following examples, I increased the brightness of the skin tones by the same amount as the Reddit post.

Movies have had roughly the same general exposure for quite some time. In that sense, they have not gotten darker.

If I showed you these images without context, you might conclude that old movies were super dark. But that is just your fuzzy human perception liking the brighter thing next to the darker thing. If you were to watch these movies in a theater or on a big TV in your darkened living room, you’d perceive them all as properly exposed.

There are genuine issues with modern movie visuals. And dark, illegible scenes are definitely on that list. But that is an artistic choice and a fad which I feel is fading. Professional filmmakers know how to set their exposure levels properly. And I always get a little peeved when people erroneously accuse artists of incompetence.

I’m worried the discourse is focusing so much on non-problems that the larger systemic issues with filmmaking get dismissed and ignored. But sometimes debunking an issue like this is a good educational opportunity. And I am able to steer the discourse a little bit more toward said systemic problems.

Okay, I just screamed into the void for 10 minutes.

Wed, 04 Feb 2026 19:26:23 -0600

thefrogman:

sirfrogsworth:
This is another cherry-picked, garbage comparison.
They just took bright exposures from the old movie and compared them to darker exposures from the new movie. And then they heavily cropped the compositions, removed all context from the scene (time of day, light sources, desired mood) and declared the new movie looks terrible—despite only a minute of footage existing.
These examples are in completely different environments.
They could have at least matched scene for scene.
Wait a goddamn second…
Something is awry.
THE TWEET IS FULL OF LIES.
Someone cranked up the exposure of the original movie to 11.
As if someone was trying to create nostalgia rage bait for internet points.
They were correct about one thing, exposure is an artistic choice. A lot of photographers fall into the trap of “correct exposure.” You should always trust your eyes over a light meter. And a brighter exposure is not always better.
Contrast is a ratio, not an absolute.
There is a concept called “scene white.” Your eyes adjust to different exposure levels and the brightest white in the scene is your brain’s reference for contrast. And because contrast is a ratio and not absolute, your eyes will adjust to the exposure of the scene.
You can have two scenes with very different white levels, but the amount of perceptual contrast could be very similar. Your brain goes, “what is the brightest thing and what is the darkest thing?” If the difference is small, you will perceive low contrast. If the difference is vast, you will perceive high contrast.
This looks like a bright exposure on its own.
.
.
.
.

And so does this.
The “scene white” in the old movie was actually a *tad* brighter. But your eyes adjust and perceive them both as bright.
And if you put them side by side, the brightest white wins and your perception is skewed. If you compare two different compositions with different scene white levels, your eye is going to gravitate to the brighter exposure. Even though, in isolation, you may not notice how much brighter one scene is over the other.
The original movie had plenty of darker exposures with a lower white ceiling.
And not every frame of the old movie was a visual spectacle.
It’s actually a bad thing if you make every scene a spectacle. The visuals need to serve the story and if they are constantly overwhelming, that can actually hurt the immersion.
If I cherry pick, I can make the old movie look bad and the new movie look great.
Boy, the old movie sure looked bland.
But look at how much depth the new movie has!
Look at this squished subject composition in the old movie.
The new movie has much more balance and symmetry.
Visual spectacle should be used dynamically—just like music. If music doesn’t have quiet parts, the loud parts will have less impact. And sometimes the quiet parts allow you to hear important detail that the loud parts obscure.
The trailer had several spectacle moments.
That looks great!
I have no idea if the new movie looks better or worse. I literally do not have enough information.
But if we’re going to edit images for rage bait…
LOOK AT HOW LIFELESS THE ORIGINAL WAS!
The movie needs to be judged holistically. You can’t take extreme crops of single frames, edit them to be 200% brighter, and compare them to make any kind of determination.
All they proved is that when people see brighter exposures next to darker exposures, their brain goes, “Ooooh, that one is brighter! I like bright things!”
I think as a collective, we all realize there is an issue with modern movie aesthetics.
But the discourse has become so broken.
“Old vs New” is a proven viral formula to get clicks. Dubious content creators are starting to capitalize on it with misinformation. And now I guess they are altering images to get people more upset.
Two can play at that game…
Hot take! Dial of Destiny looked WAY BETTER than Raiders.
OLD MOVIES SUCK!
Set Photoshop to NUCLEAR EXPOSURE and watch the likes roll in!
Where did this aesthetic discourse begin?
I suspect this is patient zero…
Keep reading

Okay, I just screamed into the void for 10 minutes.

Let’s break this down.

This… is a production still.

This is not in the movie. This is on-set photography done to advertise the movie.

This is an actual scene in the movie where she is wearing that outfit.

The lighting environment is the same. This is how the above would have looked, IF it were actually in the movie. It is a much darker exposure.

Also, I found this composition in the old movie.

Compared to the new movie.

The exposure, time of day, and contrast ratios are nearly identical.

I’d also like to note they cropped the composition in the new movie. Which would inform the viewer that the scene is taking place during twilight. Whereas the other scene took place on a sunny morning.

This is exactly why you need to judge movies holistically. You cannot compare static images from random scenes with completely different lighting environments.

I think as a collective, we all realize there is an issue with modern movie aesthetics.

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 15:39:37 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

This is another cherry-picked, garbage comparison.
They just took bright exposures from the old movie and compared them to darker exposures from the new movie. And then they heavily cropped the compositions, removed all context from the scene (time of day, light sources, desired mood) and declared the new movie looks terrible—despite only a minute of footage existing.
These examples are in completely different environments.
They could have at least matched scene for scene.
Wait a goddamn second…
Something is awry.
THE TWEET IS FULL OF LIES.
Someone cranked up the exposure of the original movie to 11.
As if someone was trying to create nostalgia rage bait for internet points.
They were correct about one thing, exposure is an artistic choice. A lot of photographers fall into the trap of “correct exposure.” You should always trust your eyes over a light meter. And a brighter exposure is not always better.
Contrast is a ratio, not an absolute.
There is a concept called “scene white.” Your eyes adjust to different exposure levels and the brightest white in the scene is your brain’s reference for contrast. And because contrast is a ratio and not absolute, your eyes will adjust to the exposure of the scene.
You can have two scenes with very different white levels, but the amount of perceptual contrast could be very similar. Your brain goes, “what is the brightest thing and what is the darkest thing?” If the difference is small, you will perceive low contrast. If the difference is vast, you will perceive high contrast.
This looks like a bright exposure on its own.
.
.
.
.

And so does this.
The “scene white” in the old movie was actually a *tad* brighter. But your eyes adjust and perceive them both as bright.
And if you put them side by side, the brightest white wins and your perception is skewed. If you compare two different compositions with different scene white levels, your eye is going to gravitate to the brighter exposure. Even though, in isolation, you may not notice how much brighter one scene is over the other.
The original movie had plenty of darker exposures with a lower white ceiling.
And not every frame of the old movie was a visual spectacle.
It’s actually a bad thing if you make every scene a spectacle. The visuals need to serve the story and if they are constantly overwhelming, that can actually hurt the immersion.
If I cherry pick, I can make the old movie look bad and the new movie look great.
Boy, the old movie sure looked bland.
But look at how much depth the new movie has!
Look at this squished subject composition in the old movie.
The new movie has much more balance and symmetry.
Visual spectacle should be used dynamically—just like music. If music doesn’t have quiet parts, the loud parts will have less impact. And sometimes the quiet parts allow you to hear important detail that the loud parts obscure.
The trailer had several spectacle moments.
That looks great!
I have no idea if the new movie looks better or worse. I literally do not have enough information.
But if we’re going to edit images for rage bait…
LOOK AT HOW LIFELESS THE ORIGINAL WAS!
The movie needs to be judged holistically. You can’t take extreme crops of single frames, edit them to be 200% brighter, and compare them to make any kind of determination.
All they proved is that when people see brighter exposures next to darker exposures, their brain goes, “Ooooh, that one is brighter! I like bright things!”

I think as a collective, we all realize there is an issue with modern movie aesthetics.

But the discourse has become so broken.

“Old vs New” is a proven viral formula to get clicks. Dubious content creators are starting to capitalize on it with misinformation. And now I guess they are altering images to get people more upset.

Two can play at that game…

Hot take! Dial of Destiny looked WAY BETTER than Raiders.

OLD MOVIES SUCK!

Set Photoshop to NUCLEAR EXPOSURE and watch the likes roll in!

Where did this aesthetic discourse begin?

I suspect this is patient zero…

Patrick has experience with visual authorship. He knows the technical aspects of creating images fairly well. And so that gives him a sort of “expert” authority.

Aside from his conflating high dynamic range with low contrast…

…his technical arguments are usually accurate.

(High dynamic range is just a capture technique and it does not prevent high contrast in any way. Contrast is a separate artistic choice.)

He has practical experience crafting images, which I do appreciate, and that helps his credibility as a visual critic. I understand why people like him and enjoy his explanations.

But the bulk of his content has a very “mean girl” vibe. Everything made during his formative years was beautiful and if anything new looks good, it is an exception to the rule. A fluke. Or they “used the ancient ways” to his personal approval.

I feel like his ratio of “celebrating artistic success” to “denigrating artistic failure” skews hard towards the cynical. Probably because negativity is more successful on social media.

And considering he spends so much time maligning the work of professional artists, I’m hoping it is fair game to offer some useful feedback about his video aesthetics. I’m going to summon my mean girl energy.

His lighting is excellent and dimensional. He makes great use of warm and cool colors. But he should read my wonderful essay on perspective to learn how to find a flattering camera distance to suit his head shape.

His current close perspective makes him look a bit like Dr. Doofenshmirtz’s best and only friend, Balloony.

He has a lovely head and he should accentuate that.

I might give too many compliments to be a mean girl.

Patrick has infected so many people with his nostalgic cherry picking that they are convinced *nothing* modern looks good. Nearly every viral video essay on film aesthetics has copy/paste opinions originating from him. Often using much of the same language.

If it doesn’t look like an 80s Spielberg movie, it is garbage.

He has isolated all of these tiny variables and diagnosed all modern filmmaking with a case of “doing it wrong.” Everyone forgot the old ways, despite those old ways being used on the regular.

No modern aesthetics are allowed. No one can create a new visual style. No one can learn from the past and evolve those methods. And you better shoot on film or make digital look like film, or else it won’t qualify as looking like a “movie” anymore.

I understand why people resonate nostalgically with the way movies used to look. I had a similar issue with music. I was a teenager when alternative rock became popular. And I got stuck with that music. For years, even after the music world had moved on, it was all I would listen to. I felt disconnected and left behind when trying to sample newer music. I was stubborn and set in my ways. I dismissed new stuff out of hand. And I did not put in the effort to find newer music that I enjoyed.

I was not leaving space for new things. I just wanted everything to sound like Pearl Jam again. That isn’t to say there wasn’t a lot of crappy new music, but I don’t think it is fair to dismiss new art entirely because it doesn’t serve my nostalgia.

It is my opinion that Patrick has severely misdiagnosed the issue. He is so caught up in the tools of filmmaking past that he largely ignores the systems of filmmaking present.

The best looking mainstream movies are made by people like Steven Spielberg, Chloé Zhao, Quentin Tarantino, Jordan Peele, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Greta Gerwig, Park Chan-wook, Denis Villeneuve, Ryan Coogler, etc.

Do you see the pattern? (Other than an abundance of men.)

These are auteur directors with a blank check and plenty of artistic freedom.

And almost all of them use classic filmmaking techniques despite the claim that those have all been forgotten.

It’s almost as if hard light compositions take more time and planning and these directors are given the resources to more easily employ these “forgotten” tools.

These directors are not subject to the highly commodified, risk-averse, hyper-efficient filmmaking processes. Their elite status lets them bypass all of the systemic issues of modern filmmaking. They are allowed to make original stories. And when they do adapt an established intellectual property, they are passionate about the material and given free rein to manifest their artistic vision.

But all of the discourse is like…

The backgrounds are too blurry!

NO MORE BLURRY BACKGROUNDS!

Deep focus should fix things!

CLEANLINESS!

That Spider-Menace is too clean!

And we need to stop whatever “Netflix lighting” is.

Look, I’m a visual author.

My whole life is dedicated to making beautiful images and helping others do the same.

I love lighting sooo much.

Like, you should worry about how much I think about lighting.

But if I ever prioritize what movies I watch based on how they are lit, please smack me.

I mean, can I get some modern movies that don’t have “Netflix stories”?

Why does everything need to look like a cinematic masterpiece?

Why are people fixating on blurry backgrounds instead of the writing and performances and narrative immersion?

People keep referencing the past for how good things used to look, but we forget that some of our favorite shows used to look a bit bland and cheap.

I’ve been watching Columbo, and I’m not saying it looked bad, but it just wasn’t very cinematic. It would not meet today’s standards for visual quality.

But it had all of the things that are supposed to “fix” modern visuals. Hard light, deep focus, practical effects, real locations. And it was shot on film. PEOPLE LOVE LIGHT SENSITIVE PLASTIC!

I love that 70s vibe and the sets and locations and costumes were all really well done. But hard light was blasted from every angle because the film stock was insensitive and they had no time and no money to do anything else.

Efficient filmmaking is not new. It is not good or bad. Sometimes a show can’t get made without these processes. But as long as the story and the characters are strong, people don’t mind the production compromises.

Eventually, Columbo went from an episodic series to a TV movie format. The budget increased and the production schedule was longer. The show was able to take on a more “film noir” style with higher contrast and dimensional lighting.

The visuals improved even though they used villainous soft light and evil blurry backgrounds.

But a lot of folks don’t care for the newer stories. They didn’t mind the shallow depth of field. They disliked that Columbo became a shallow caricature.

My all-time favorite show had porn lighting.

NO MORE SHADOWS!

Look at that Netflix lighting. Just a bunch of soft light pouring in from every angle.

This was a production efficiency that allowed them to film at any spot on the bridge set without having to re-rig the lights for every camera angle.

And alien planets used to be painted styrofoam rocks and fake trees.

And that was fine.

The stories were fantastic, so we forgave the lighting and faux foliage.

Fauxliage?

It wasn’t until they got a movie budget that the lighting got more cinematic.

The alien planets were upgraded to real rocks and living trees.

But the story wasn’t as good.

And the improved visuals didn’t make up for it.

I don’t need everything to look cinematic. I would forgive all of the “Netflix lighting” if studios would take more risks with original stories instead of churning out remakes of reboots.

However, if everything absolutely needs to look amazing, changing these isolated variables isn’t going to fix the systemic issues.

Netflix has an “approved” list of cameras and lenses that all of their shows must use. And for a long time, I thought that was cool. I’m a big gear nerd and they are some of the best cameras available for filmmaking.

But I eventually came to realize that if they dictate what cameras must be used, they probably have a lot more rules like that.

They put artists in a box and tell them how to make their art and what tools they must use and how to use them.

It’s not Netflix lighting… it is Netflix production constraints.

They are trying to micromanage the aesthetics to be hyperpalatable like ultra-processed food.

People want the best chefs in the world to create aesthetic meals with complex, varied, diverse ingredients.

But we are being given visual McNuggets and everyone is trying fix them with different seasonings.

More salt!
More pepper!
More ketchup!

Still McNuggets.

Sometimes McNuggets hit the spot. I love a good nugget from time to time. But I don’t want them for every meal.

Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with soft light, shallow depth of field, digital capture, CGI, etc. These are all just tools to help artists author images.

But we need to remember that tools do not dictate the quality of the art. Beautiful images are created by artists, not tools. No one cares what paintbrush Van Gogh used.

When people watch Dune, they don’t say, “Wow, that movie had so much deep focus and hard light!”

They say Denis Villeneuve and Greig Fraser shot a beautiful movie. They attribute the aesthetics to their artistic vision and filmmaking skills.

Dune has soft light and blurry backgrounds and CGI worms.

It has all the bad things!

And aside from inspiring a cursed popcorn bucket that I’m positive people used as a fleshlight, I think Dune was an undeniable artistic success.

If artists are given proper resources, time, and creative freedom, I assure you the visuals will improve.

And so will the stories.

My health has not been great and so I was working on this post since October. But it feels good to…

Sat, 24 Jan 2026 13:52:14 -0600

thefrogman:

A new perspective on perspective.
Understanding perspective and magnification really helped me become a more intuitive photographer. But all of the tutorials and online classes I’ve taken have done such a poor job explaining it. Photography education will often give you a rule and then tell you the effect. But there is no explanation why the rule has that effect.
If you move too close, the face distorts.
This was taken with an ultra wide angle lens. It was almost touching my nose. It’s implied that this goofy level of distortion is caused by a wide angle lens. You’ll even hear it said “wide angle lenses distort things.”
Why? What is the lens doing?
It is said that a telephoto lens compresses facial features.
Why? What is the lens doing?
In both cases, these effects are not some optical quirk caused by the type of lens. The lens isn’t distorting the image. The lens isn’t compressing the image.
The effects are changes in perspective and magnification.
Here is a quick breakdown that may help.
Perspective only changes with distance.
Magnification is any time you make something larger in frame.
Magnification can be achieved by physically moving closer, zooming, or cropping.
So if you move the perspective closer, you also magnify.
But you can magnify a perspective without changing distance by reducing the field of view via zoomier lenses or cropping.
Put simply… if you move, that’s perspective.
If something gets bigger in the frame, that’s magnification.
Perspective changes our perception of distance and geometry.
In this example, I move closer and farther to some basic shapes to show how they distort.
Keep reading

My health has not been great and so I was working on this post since October. But it feels good to finally have it published. Hopefully you don’t mind if I shove it back into the timeline to give it another chance with the algorithmic gods.

Some additional perspectives on perspective…

Perspective is not just a technical decision. It can be used artistically as well.

A close perspective gives the viewer a sense of intimacy. As if they are occupying the same space as the subject.

The lens has a wide field of view, but the photo is taken quite close and your perception feels that subconsciously due to the geometric cues.

What I call “common perspective” is based on the distance we are most comfortable when interacting with other humans.

When people say a 50mm lens is closest to the human eye, they are actually talking about this socially accepted distance. Our eyes have a wider field of view—so it isn’t that our eyes match a 50mm, but rather the perspective the lens must use to fill the frame with a person’s face matches our common comfortable perspective.

For headshots, photographers will typically move a little farther back than the common perspective and then use a slightly telephoto lens to magnify it. This still gives an intimate feel while flattening facial features and flattering proportions.

As I mentioned, it is important to consider head size and shape when using this farther portrait perspective. For big heads it can help to move closer and zoom out a bit. For slender faces you may want to move farther back and zoom in.

A far perspective with a wide field of view gives a sense of the environment. The space the subject occupies becomes a secondary character in the composition.

A distant perspective that is magnified can create an “observer” effect. As if the subject is being viewed from afar. This is great when you want to give the composition a feeling of isolation.

This is also why super telephoto paparazzi pictures can sometimes feel extra unsettling or invasive.

You can use perspective distortion to play with exaggerated size and geometry. A close perspective with a wide field of view can create some really fun and creative compositions.

And another cool perspective effect is to shoot from a low angle. This is often how “power poses” are photographed. You angle the camera slightly upward from below the subject’s eyeline and it gives a sense that they are towering over you.

This can be subtle…

Or exaggerated…

In summary…

Close perspective is intimate.
Common perspective is comfortable.
Portrait perspective is flattering.
Far perspective with wide field of view is environmental.
Far perspective magnified is isolating.
Ultra distorted perspective can be fun and creative.
Low perspective can give a sense of power.

Tumblr keeps recommending your blog to me, insisting that you are “Like Pusheen.” I just thought you might think it’s funny that Tumblr is pretty sure you’re a tiny animated cat. :-)

Sat, 24 Jan 2026 12:01:16 -0600

The folks @pusheen have been friendly acquaintances of mine for over a decade now, though it has been a while since we've interacted.

We were two of the more popular OG Tumblr content creators back in the day. I loved their content and did my best to send them as many followers as I could.

As a thank you, they sent me custom laser cut refrigerator magnets. One of Pusheen the Cat and one of me in my infamous bear hat.

These are literally some of my favorite possessions and they remain on my fridge to this day.

I'm guessing Tumblr associates us because we both made a lot of cute original content involving floofy companions.

Sadly, Otis isn't around anymore and I semi-retired from making original content. I mostly do photography education these days.

So my Tumblr is not as similar to Pusheen as it used to be. But I'd like to think we are still kindred spirits.

And if you have any interest in photography or lighting, you might enjoy sticking around. Everyone has a camera in their pocket these days, so you may find it useful.

I hope everyone at Pusheen is doing well. And I thank them muchly for keeping things secured to my refrigerator door.

A new perspective on perspective.

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 07:28:20 -0600

Understanding perspective and magnification really helped me become a more intuitive photographer. But all of the tutorials and online classes I’ve taken have done such a poor job explaining it. Photography education will often give you a rule and then tell you the effect. But there is no explanation why the rule has that effect.

If you move too close, the face distorts.

This was taken with an ultra wide angle lens. It was almost touching my nose. It’s implied that this goofy level of distortion is caused by a wide angle lens. You’ll even hear it said “wide angle lenses distort things.”

Why? What is the lens doing?

It is said that a telephoto lens compresses facial features.

Why? What is the lens doing?

In both cases, these effects are not some optical quirk caused by the type of lens. The lens isn’t distorting the image. The lens isn’t compressing the image.

The effects are changes in perspective and magnification.

Here is a quick breakdown that may help.

Perspective only changes with distance.

Magnification is any time you make something larger in frame.

Magnification can be achieved by physically moving closer, zooming, or cropping.

So if you move the perspective closer, you also magnify.

But you can magnify a perspective without changing distance by reducing the field of view via zoomier lenses or cropping.

Put simply… if you move, that’s perspective.

If something gets bigger in the frame, that’s magnification.

Perspective changes our perception of distance and geometry.

In this example, I move closer and farther to some basic shapes to show how they distort.

A close perspective exaggerates distance and shapes. Near things look bigger, far things look smaller. But if you take a far perspective and magnify to equal size in frame, distances and geometry remain more stable and less distorted.

If you’ve ever taken any art classes, you may have learned about the vanishing point where all angles converge off into the distance.

Buildings are not the only thing that has a vanishing point. They just have simple geometry, which helps you observe the effect.

This close perspective of a dog is no different from the buildings.

Something without perspective is called an orthographic projection. This is where all angles are parallel forever—with no vanishing point.

As you move farther away, a perspective projection appears to be almost orthographic. And if you magnify that far perspective, it looks similar to an orthographic cube.

But the far perspective still has a vanishing point, it just takes much longer to converge.

This video game allows you to play with perspective or orthographic projections.

The near cubes look very different. But the far cubes have similar geometry.

Why does a close perspective look distorted? Why does a far perspective look nearly orthographic?

This all has to do with the relative distances from the point of view of the observer. Let’s move on to the real world to help explain this.

Perspective distortion is caused when the lens is very close to a subject. Only wide angle lenses have the field of view and the close focusing distance to get close enough to create severe perspective distortion.

Despite erroneous claims of eyeballs being like 50mm lenses, humans actually have a decently wide field of view. If you hold the end of a long cylinder close to your eye, you will see the same geometric distortion and dramatic vanishing point. When people are accused of misjudging the size of… cylinders, it’s possible they just had a very close perspective that exaggerated geometry.

Perspective can alter our perception of size.

So the lens gives you the ability to *see* the distortion, but it doesn’t *cause* the distortion.

Image 1 is taken a few inches from the subject with an ultra wide angle lens. It is magnified by moving closer.

Image 4 is taken from much farther away. It is magnified by using a telephoto lens.

Why does his left ear disappear in image 1?

It’s a simple case of obstruction. The cheek is literally in the way at that near perspective.

If I stand very close to this wall, I cannot see the walkway to the right.

The walkway is physically obstructed at this close perspective. I can’t see around corners.

But if I change my perspective…

Light needs a clear pathway to the point of observation.

Why does his ear seem to grow larger and larger as the perspective changes?

If you’ll excuse my bad drawring…

In the top example, the lens is only 2 units away from the nose, but it is 6 units away from the ear.

The ear is 200% farther away than the nose.

In the bottom example, the lens is now 30 units away from the nose and 34 units away from the ear.

The ear is now only 14% farther away than the nose. The relative distance is less exaggerated.

Distant ear percentages are hard to visualize. What if I moved only my nose 200% closer?

If we upscale this concept, it can be easier to understand.

(My examples are going to be shitty smartphone photos taken at night with my trash bins. I’m hoping you will forgive that. If I had more energy, I would have taken better photos with more appealing subjects.)

These two trash bins are only a few feet apart. The black trash bin represents the ear. The blue trash bin represents the nose.

If I take a photo from a foot away…

From this perspective, the black bin is roughly 80% smaller than the blue bin. The blue bin is very close to the lens. The far bin is several hundred percent farther away from the lens. So it takes up a very small percentage of the frame.

So, big nose, tiny ears.

What if we magnified this perspective?

Note the little box on the house far in the background.

If we crop the image and thus magnify the same perspective…

That little box looks much bigger. But this “telephoto” field of view does not allow us to see both trash bins. The perspective hasn’t changed, just the magnification.

I am making something small in the background much bigger. The distant perspective makes the object more orthographic. And when I magnify that perspective, it appears more compressed, more flat.

This is a digital crop of a wide field of view. A telephoto lens is essentially an optical crop. It magnifies the perspective in the same way. The advantage of an optical crop is that it maintains all the detail. Whereas a digital crop throws away a bunch of pixels.

A magnification of perspective is often referred to as “lens compression.” This is an inaccurate legacy term that causes much confusion. It would be more accurate to call it “perspective compression,” but it is very hard to change terminology in photography education.

The lens is not compressing the object. I used a very wide lens and just by cropping after the fact, I was able to get the same perspective compression as if I had used a telephoto lens. The wide field of view makes far away stuff very tiny in frame. So we struggle to notice the flatness. It isn’t until we magnify the distant object that the “compression” becomes more apparent.

What if I wanted to make the nose and the ears about the same size?

I’d need to change my perspective.

Now both trash cans take up roughly the same amount of space in the frame. They are still the same distance from each other. But from this perspective, they are both about the same distance away from the lens.

And now, let’s magnify this perspective.

When you magnify a perspective, you magnify everything in the photo. The house behind is bigger. The light in the far background is bigger. Everything looks more orthographic. More two dimensional. And so it has that “compressed” perspective.

And because the perspective is from farther away, the percentage distance from the lens is much smaller. The black trash bin went from being 200% farther from the lens to 10% farther from the lens. The distance and geometry become less exaggerated.

Now let’s line up all of the trash bins from both near and far perspectives and magnify them the same amount.

Look at that cute little guy.

How can we use this knowledge in a practical way?

By changing your mental model to perspective rather than the focal length of the lens, you can take control of how much perspective distortion you allow in your photos.

Let’s use the humble selfie as our example.

Smartphones typically have a main camera with a wider field of view. And when you fill the frame with a face, you may get some unflattering perspective distortion.

I know that this distortion is not caused by the lens. It is caused by the camera being really close to my face.

So if I hold the camera farther away and change nothing else…

My face looks less distorted. However, it is taking up a much smaller area of the frame. But since modern smartphones have pretty good detail, I can just crop. I can magnify this farther perspective.

And when you compare the exact same framing from the near and far perspective…

The only variable I changed was extending my arm. It’s the same wide angle lens.

You’ll notice that the farther perspective made my head look bigger. I have a big head, that’s fine. But this demonstrates another common photography fallacy. It is often said that 85mm lenses are the best for headshots and portraits. The idea is that compressing facial features is more flattering. But if someone has a big noggin, a telephoto lens may actually exaggerate their cranial prowess.

For people with larger or rounder heads, you may need to test different perspectives—different distances—to find a balance between compressing facial features and not exaggerating their head. 50mm might be more flattering for them.

I think photos of myself with a magnified distant perspective overwhelm people with the size of my dome and the luxuriousness of my mane.

At 85mm, the camera has to be farther away and it gives that imposing orthographic effect.

But at 50mm, I think my head feels a bit less… Megamind.

If you have a small or slender face, you may look best at 100mm or 200mm—because longer lenses force the camera to be farther away.

You can test what perspective works best for your head shape and facial features. But try not to think of it in millimeters. Think about how far away the camera is. This works even with a smartphone. You just place the camera at different distances, crop all the photos so your head has the same framing, and figure out which distance flatters you the most.

And then if a photographer is taking your picture and they seem too close or too far away, you can nudge them to the appropriate distance. And that distance will dictate what lens they need.

I hope this perspective of perspective gave you perspective on how to think about perspective.

My health hasn’t been great and this post took me about 4 weeks to finish. I hadn’t rewatched the…

Fri, 09 Jan 2026 10:06:18 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

Old is good. New is bad. The winning formula for a viral video essay.
I am noticing a lot of these videos popping up in my feed. I guess my complaints about those hard light videos made the algorithm decide I should be inundated with “modern movies suck” content.
They follow the same basic formula of “old = good” and “new = bad.”
And if you watch them with only a surface level understanding of filmmaking and photography and how to author visuals, you will probably go, “Wow, what an amazing video!”
I get why people like these essays. And I understand there are genuine frustrations with how many modern movies are made.
And the video does have some interesting philosophical filmmaking explanations. I really enjoyed those aspects.
But there is something in the very thumbnail of this video that completely invalidates the overall premise.
The Premise: Old movies look more “real” than new movies.
The Evidence: Comparing one of the greatest movies of all time (Jaws), by one of the greatest directors of all time (Spielberg), to a franchise soft reboot cash grab.
Why not compare to Sinners? Why not compare to Weapons? Or Dune? Or The Brutalist?
Also, is realism always the goal?
What about Spider-Verse and KPop Demon Hunters? Does their unreality make them lesser?
This is how they bait you with these videos. They want you to buy into their nostalgic cherry picking. They don’t elevate any modern films that look amazing. They pick their favorite movies from years ago and then compare them to the worst examples in the recent past.
But the thing I dislike the most is that problems are often blamed on artists. If artists were more competent and went back to the old school ways, movies would look better and more real.
Use hard lighting. Use practical effects. Use deep focus. Show and don’t tell.
Individual quick fixes are never going to solve a systemic problem.
I assure you that directors and all of the artists involved in making movies would love to use every tool in the toolbox. They haven’t forgotten these techniques. But most of the time these tools are not compatible with hyper-efficient filmmaking processes.
I liked his explanation of haptic visuals. To create artistic, textural scenes to help the world of the movie feel more lived in and real. That’s a cool concept. But adding a few haptic scenes into Jurassic World isn’t going to fix the story. It isn’t going to improve the weak script. Hard lighting and deep focus aren’t going to fix the systems that produce these risk-averse reboots of profitable IPs. It isn’t going to fix the rushed, fix-it-in-post mentality that doesn’t give CG artists enough time and resources to produce more realistic imagery.
But also, has he seen a Vince Gilligan show?
Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, and now Pluribus have some amazing haptic visuals. It seems like he is ignoring more modern examples to sell the story that things were “better” in the distant past.
This hurts the filmmakers who are creating legitimately beautiful work. And it also ignores the fact that bad, ugly movies have always existed.
Jaws was released in 1975.
Of the 216 movies released that year, I have seen a total of 5.
Only 5 movies from that year stood the test of time. 211 movies are completely ignored when assessing how real and aesthetically pleasing movies used to look.
That is textbook survivorship bias.
Have you seen the classic 1975 cinematic masterpiece… The Happy Hooker?
Let’s compare the visuals of The Happy Hooker to Sinners.
It’s not a fair fight.
But when you compare Jaws to Sinners…
You can see the quality is not dependent on when the movies are made. It is dependent on a director with a strong vision and a large team of artists who are passionate about their craft.
If you have to resort to this level of nostalgic cherry picking to prove your point, I don’t think your argument is very strong.
Keep reading

My health hasn’t been great and this post took me about 4 weeks to finish. I hadn’t rewatched the video essay in a few weeks and I guess my brain fog misremembered where the image in the thumbnail was from.

I saw 70s sweaty Roy Scheider and thought “Jaws.”

When it is actually 70s sweaty Roy Scheider in “Sorcerer.”

I don’t think this diminished the point I was making. Sorcerer was directed by William Friedkin. He was one of the biggest directors of that era. He did The French Connection and The Exorcist and won Best Director Oscars for both.

But if you want to ding my argument a few points for that mistake, I understand.

It wouldn’t be one of my posts without the need for an in depth clarification.

Tue, 30 Dec 2025 12:56:10 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

I am pushing hard with my weaning right now. I probably won’t be able to post much until I adapt to this new dose.
Before I go somewhat radio silent, I am going to summon some energy to clear one thing up about my “he made them bitches green” post.
Olive skin is not green.
There is no human with green skin (I will leave some room for error due to possible rare medical conditions I may not be aware of).
If you took a photo of someone with olive skin in white light and reduced green saturation to 0, it would do nothing.
All human skin tones live in red, orange, and yellow.
Olive complexions are less pink, more yellow. No green.
And even in the photos, he didn’t actually make the bitches literally green. I meant green like when you get sick and someone says “you look green.” Because you’ve lost all color in your face.
The white balance tool dictates the behavior of white light. White light has all the colors in it. You can shift it warmer or cooler (temperature) or bias it towards green or magenta.
The “tint” is a bias or cancellation function. Green and magenta are opposites.
So if white light has a green bias, it will make green things more green OR it will cancel magenta—making stuff in the reds less intense.
A human face has no green, but it does have magenta. So when green-biased white light reflects off skin, it will strongly reduce magenta and make people look sickly or “green.”
But not actual green.
The best real world example is old fluorescent lighting. People who worked in offices in the 80s often found their workplace to be quite dreary. Everyone looked sick and miserable. The lights were biased green, so everything looked blah, including people. Not only was there a negative visual impact, but a psychological one as well.
Humans get depressed when there isn’t magenta about.
In conclusion… “He cancelled the magenta intensity in them bitches” would not have been as catchy.
Nor would “he made white light look as if it had a strong green bias.”
I apologize if my stylistic hyperbole wasn’t clear.

It wouldn’t be one of my posts without the need for an in depth clarification.

This community I have built has continually pulled me from the brink. The generosity and general…

Tue, 23 Dec 2025 09:22:08 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

sirfrogsworth:
All I want for Christmas is… dental coverage.
Medicare is great. Everyone should have it. I am very grateful it covers all of my medical needs.
But, as you know, teeth are not part of the body. Which is why you need different insurance to cover your naked skull bones.
One of my teeth went bad. My favorite chewin’ tooth. I’m probably going to get it pulled tomorrow. Because yanking is cheaper than fixing.
As I have been weaning off my meds, the misery and immobility have made it difficult to take care of myself. I guess that included taking care of my teeth. I get so tired and forgetful. It’s hard to stand for any period of time. I was doing my best but I guess it wasn’t good enough to keep my rear molar from disintegrating.
I got a Christmas donation from a follower named Teresa. I don’t have a good way to contact them. So I’m hoping they will read this post and know how grateful I am. I’m hoping it will cover most of the cost. Thank you for that generosity.
But I’m struggling. While I’m weaning, there isn’t much I can do to make money. And my brother took half of my inheritance despite multiple promises that he wouldn’t. A high paid engineer took a lifeline from his disabled brother. My dad would have been so upset with him.
I’m going to have trouble paying my mortgage going forward. This damn tooth is really going to make the next few months hard. It will probably set back my recovery a bit.
I know pretty much everyone is struggling with finances lately. But I could use a little help.
I might be able to pause my mortgage for a while due to medical reasons. But I am still in the research phase of trying to figure that out. I still don’t have the loan in my name.
If you can help, you can find my donation links here.
If not, I appreciate you at least reading this. Please take care and try to unplug and enjoy your holidays.
If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to ask Santa for a new chewin’ tooth.
I have returned home from the dentist.
-1 Chewin’ tooth.
-$450.
I can’t ever seem to leave the house without an adventure. The universe doesn’t realize I am too tired to have adventures.
I decided to use Uber because I do not have the concentration levels required to drive at the moment.
An older woman with serious chaos energy picked me up.
I struggled with my seatbelt for a while and when I finally looked up, I noticed she was driving towards a dead end. I kept thinking her map would redirect her and she would turn around.
She kept going.
Then I noticed she did not have a mount for her phone. So she just drives one-handed and constantly looks down at the phone in her other hand. And she didn’t just quickly glance. She did a full head tilt and stared intently. She had no sense of direction and she couldn’t memorize more than one step at a time. To make matters worse, she didn’t have the graphical map displayed. She was full-screening the textual directions.
Just old-school MapQuesting her way through Uber driving.
Finally, I tell her she needs to turn around and she makes an awkward U-turn on my narrow street. I tell her to just go back to the highway the way she arrived—hoping she wouldn’t have to keep looking down at her phone for a while.
It didn’t work.
We got to the highway and I discovered she is an impatient speed demon. Which is a perfect thing to be when you are distracted by text-only directions. She tailgated semi trucks and when they were too slow, she passed them on the left. But she needed to get all the way to the right to make the exit. I’m sure that Fast & Furious maneuver saved an important 7 seconds.
Once we exited and there were no upcoming directions for 5 miles, she was ready to gab. Words just started flying out of her mouth. But the radio was too loud and she had a quiet smoker’s mumble. I barely heard her.
She asked, “Do you like KSHE?”
“Yes, my father was a mechanic and I grew up listening to classic rock at his shop.”
“They’ve been on the air for 50 years. Oldest rock station in the US.”
“Yep, it’s a St. Louis gem.”
“I like that Sammy Hagar show on Sundays. Do you like Sammy Hagar?”
“I’m more of an Eddie guy, to be honest.”
“Oh yeah, that’s so sad. I’m glad he and Sammy made up before he passed. I guess they didn’t like each other too much back in the day.”
“80s rock was very dramatic, yes.”
“It was all the drugs.”
Keep reading

This community I have built has continually pulled me from the brink. The generosity and general support has been invaluable. I’m so glad I don’t have to worry about paying for a busted tooth during Christmas.

Thank you all.

The photographer, Christopher Anderson, has spoken about these photos since they were released.

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 15:21:18 -0600

sirfrogsworth:

The dangers of being photographed by a photographer who doesn’t like your fascist bullshit.
There is a crazy story by Vanity Fair about Trump staffers.
And some of the photography was… interesting.
Including these wild facial close ups.
There is ZERO retouching done on these. Which is very unusual for photos taken this close up. The expressions chosen are very odd. The lighting is a ring flash very far away (probably to create a catchlight in the eyes) and then another diffused light source from the side. The ring flash was placed below their eye line, so you get a tiny bit of that creepy uplighting like in a Frankenstein movie. And neither light source was placed very close so the harder light really shows every pore and wrinkle and lip filler injection site. (See: why hard light is bad for porn.)
Basically, he used the opposite of every technique one would employ to create a flattering photo.
But the reason I think this photographer twisted the knife to make these photos look worse was his use of white balance on Karoline Leavitt and Susie Wiles.
If you want to make someone look sickly and demonic, you make their skin tone less warm and add green. When I corrected the white balance on the photos, I discovered the photographer reduced warmth by about 15% and increased green by about 45%.
This is not a camera setting oopsie.
This is not artistic color grading.
This is a photographer thinking, “I’m gonna make these bitches green.”
And when you see the photos adjusted to a neutral white balance, this act of photographic sabotage becomes clear.
The only other explanation would be that this photographer is incompetent. But when you look at his other portraits of them, they are quite well done and properly color graded.
So… yeah, he made them bitches green.

The photographer, Christopher Anderson, has spoken about these photos since they were released.

His book was called “Stump” and he extensively used this close up style of photo with no retouching and unflattering light.

His photo of Hillary was… intense.

Everyone is talking about the extreme, crunchy detail but no one is talking about the green. I have searched a great deal of his portfolio and I could not find a single example of him making people green.

I think his book gave him the precedent to say, “This is just my thing!” But I do think there is subtext where he is like, “I made these fascist bitches green.”

His quote about Steven Miller was very telling.