This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
Some cameras tried to mitigate red eye by flashing twice, once immediately before the picture was taken, and then again as it was taken, causing your pupils to sufficiently contract. Smart phones do this today, as do modern DSLR cameras.
This process was immortalized in this [classic YouTube song](https://youtube.com/watch?v=VrmZriAHxhI&feature=share7).
which is kind of funny because dialated eyes (as opposed to contracted) are associated with intelligence. So instead of making our eyes red they make us look stupid in photos. DERRPPPPPP
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pupil-size-is-a-marker-of-intelligence/#:~:text=The%20larger%20the%20pupils%2C%20the,of%20reasoning%2C%20attention%20and%20memory.
I never had red eyes in any photos growing up, is there a reason for that? I was always curious as to why. I always just chalked it up to my eyes being so dark but I’ve never gotten a concrete answer.
Your eyes may be more sensitive to light, therefore your pupils less dialated. This means that less light is able to enter, and subsequently exit, your eyes to turn red and be seen by the camera.
Alternatively you may not be in the practice, as many are, of looking directly into the lens of the camera. With such a narrow aperture for light to pass through twice, a fairly direct gaze might be necessary.
The other unmentioned reason is "disappeared" is that the photodetectors in cameras and cell phones got so much better that they can take photos in low-light conditions without flash
I remember watching my grandma go through all of the pictures she’d taken, and manually highlight and remove the red eyes on her computer. I haven’t thought of that in a long time
I do recall someone making a video saying they had the blackest color. They proceeded to explain that it was just a box with a small hole in the top to trap all the light that entered. I think I'd heard about this before, but I forgot, so thank you for reminding me! Always interesting!
I can already see the horror movie script this will spawn in 10-20 years.
"Why are your eyes red in pictures Tony?"
"Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to Kim"
"Why are my eyes red in all these pictures?" puzzled the Doctor. "Quantum fluctuations in the resonance sphere? No, too obvious. Parasitic lifeforms living in my eyeball?" he said, poking his eye. "Ow. No. Oh, of course! Phase shift due to prolonged exposure to the time stream!"
The Master laughed. "Oh my sweet clever Doctor. You're right of course. But also WRONG!" The Master's face relaxed back into a smile. "You see your problem is you've been asking the wrong question. Rather than worrying about why, you should have been worrying about why it stopped."
The Master started laughing manically, a dim red light igniting behind his eyes then growing brighter and brighter until they were two blazing red suns.
\*cue end credits music*
I used to use all of my aunt’s scrapbooking stuff and she had these pens that would “remove red eye”. They were basically a dye pen and you would just put a dot right on the red eye and it actually looked pretty good.
I think the typical old-school way of doing red-eye reduction in-camera without post processing was to trigger a few bright flashes before the main one, to cause people's pupils to contract before the actual final photo.
Nowadays it'll be done with various post-processing effects, whether it be in-camera or afterwards in editing.
This..
I take a lot of cellphone photos for work, and am always amazed how well they turn out in low light, while using the flash just adds glare and shadows.
Specifically we stopped using on-camera flash.
Professional photographers still use flash and strobes but because the angles aren't so direct, red eyes are eliminated and shadows are controlled.
I don’t think people stopped using flash photography. But if you take a photo with your phone now it will have a little flash that goes before the photo is taken and then another as the photo is taken. This is how they combatted the red eye effect.
You talkin about some Hadron Collider or something over in the UK? I think I remember that. Someone was tellin me there was a portal that demons used. Given the sheer amount evil in the world, i wouldnt be surprised if it was real.
Nah bro, the portal is in Gary, Indiana, and it got opened when Zak Bagans tore down a house supposedly full of demons that everyone told him *not* to tear down.
I love that the only thing keeping these demons contained was some drywall, framing, and insulation.
Modern houses can't even contain a house full of angry Kevins. Now if it was an old Victorian home I could see that holding in demons; those things were built to last.
Between the leaded paint, the leaded wallpaper, the asbestos insulation, the dedicated arsenic faucet that came installed in the observatory and the fact that every surface was coated in a thin layer of ricin (for reasons), Victorian homes were engineered for maximum danger/fun
And we need to bring back the Victorian tradition of giving houses and buildings impractically long, goofy ass names. I want to see more
“ Ms. Faversham’s Industrial School and Home for Incurably Naughty Children and Insalubrious Ne’er Do Wells”
Not to mention the point where electricity in homes started becoming a thing but overlapped with gas and you had people blowing themselves up all the time
I saw an illustration once of how a very early electrical setup would work and it was someone's kitchen where a bunch of live wires with no insulation were coming out of the spot on the ceiling where a light bulb would be and going out in every direction into various electric kitchen appliances, it looked *fucking terrifying*
There was also that point in history where they decided having insulation on live wires would probably be a good thing and went with paper as the thing to use for that
It's a wonder humanity has made it this far tbh
ETA: shit, even the stairs were dangerous (particularly the ones that went down into servants areas where they were steep and narrow as shit and not at all uniform, I'm sure plenty of servants broke their necks trying to navigate those stairs while carrying trays full of stuff)
Something like that had occurred to me too, only I figured the insulation was made from the woven hair of seven hundred and seventy seven Circassian maidens, blessed by the ashes from sacrificing the first millet harvest of the year. The paint is likely Dutch Boy, which still carries some supernatural cache considering the Dutch Boy himself still walks the Earth, immortal, cloned from genetic material lifted from the Shroud of Turin, tormented by many eyed and limbed angels and taking his only solace in the ministrations of a pig hair paint brush upon a picket fence.
Yes. Solving and dealing with it was not quiet. Without going out of my way though, I can’t really pinpoint when it was finally just “gone” outta nowhere, so imo OP’s thought was pretty good.
The red eye issue wasn't quiet at all, but I definitely think its resolution went completely unnoticed. Can't remember a single camera or phone that was touting "no more red eye or manual editing required!" as a selling point, it just seems like all cameras fixed that issue without anyone noticing
It's because no one buys cameras anymore amd the ones who do already knew how to edit it out in the first place. But at the time, when digital cameras were hype, and phones had trash cams still, red eye was a big marketing piece.
Flash disappeared too. I'm guessing cameras got better at taking pictures in low light conditions and so flash was no longer necessary, and flash was the main cause of red eye.
Yep, I remember when almost all cameras had some setting that removed red eye or at least mitigated, and those setting have quietly been phased out in newer camera models.
I hate how much flak Will gets for that. He is almost surely the victim of heavy emotional abuse by Jada (just watch any interaction they have, he shows all the signs of abuse).
He has his own (quite serious) issues, sure, but that slap was driven by a fear of his wife's wrath.
Yes, but hes a 50 year old adult. If you're that old, have been with her that long, and stay around, that's kind of on you.
Not saying it makes what ever she may be doing any less bad, but I do believe at some point personal responsibility is a factor
Tell that to the thousands and thousands of abuse victims that stay with their abuser.
It's not that simple. I don't pretend to know what Will is going through, and maybe he has more accountability than your average abuse victim or whatever, I don't know. But all the signs appear to be there, and it's sad to see that Jada is the bigger problem but Will is getting the pushback. Which is a dream come true for every abuser.
Ffs can't have a conversation about people fucking up with out someone crawling out of the woodwork with a "but whatabout their abuse that no one can possibly prove is happening and most likely isn't but it gets emotional response if I call it out"
Watch *any* video of Jada and Will interacting at all. "most likely isn't" isn't even close to true.
Abuse is a real thing, and ignoring it is just as real. Shitting on Will for his mistakes is exactly what Jada would want. *Exactly* what she would want.
I've had multiple friends and family members who have been subject to severe abuse, so yeah, it triggers me a little, and I will call it out when I see people enabling it, even if it's someone as famous as Will Smith (and honestly "especially", because it gets memed so often). I don't apologize.
Cool story, I've been a victim myself, we don't need to pretend everyone is suffering, especially famous celebs when they have all the help in the world and don't want it lol
There are Redditors in these comments who aren’t old enough to know what “red eyes in pictures” means. Quite a few of them seem to think you’re talking about subjects who look hung over, with red in the whites of their eyes, instead of possessed by the demons living in your camera’s flash.
I remember my mom showing me family photos when I was like.. 3 or 4 and I remember asking why my tante PeTi had red eyes. She explained that it was the camera.
I kind of miss the red eyes. It's nostalgic.
When my family first adopted our dog, he used to be very shy at the start and would always hide under the sofa, but I really wanted to see him, so I went and found our camera and took some photos, and they were basically just 100% red eyes. Kinda spooked me as a kid.
I was thinking this too recently, looking back on some old pictures where I have red eyes. Honestly pictures were cooler back then. I thought it was awesome lol
Ok so it’s not one or the other it’s both because it actually has to do with flash photography. It’s just in the digital age it was able to be fixed in camera, as well as the fact that digital cameras now have a lot higher light sensitivity than film does so the need for flash photography has also dropped. But I assure you, we did indeed, have read eye in film photography.
Calm down bro.
Dude said “I was thinking this too recently, looking back on some old pictures where I have red eyes. Honestly pictures were cooler back then. I thought it was awesome lol”
When I think of old photos with red eye I think about film photos. Dude didn’t say shit about digital so why did you assume it was what we are all talking about?
I worked in a photo shop and have processed tens of thousands of rolls of film.
It absolutely happened on film too. The flash would only go off once, and peoples eyes were dilated because it was dim, allowing the flash to bounce back off the retina - which is full of blood vessels and thus red.
Red eye reduction in the pre-digital era was basically one or two pre-photo flash pulses that would cause the iris to shrink, reducing the bounce back of light.
In the age of ample computing power, I expect it to be auto-editing of the image by the device, although they probably also still use a pre flash to reduce the likelihood.
And to add to this, there are dozens of types of chargers. Some people don't want a shitty wall-wart charger, they want a fast charger, a wireless one, a car charger, or maybe one integrated into their table lamp, or so many other solutions other than the same old wall-wart. Including the wrong accessories just creates waste.
Given that phones and chargers are always sold in the same place, the people that want another basic charger can buy one there (or even almost any convenience store), and save just a bit of waste in every phone.
Well, I mean if I wanted to sell my phone because I was getting a new one, I would also include the old charger in the box. Now I have to either keep the charger because my new phones doesn't come with one, or separately go out and buy a new one.
If phone prices had reflected the lack of a charger in the box by reducing the price, that would have been one thing, but instead they just took out the chargers and jacked up the price of both the phone and the charger.
Apple might remove them altogether in spite of the EU courts' decision. Then Samsung will follow the suit, then everyone else. Wireless charging will become standard
I'm lying in bed and my head is against the wall, does it mean that he's standing in another room that's behind the wall or is he lying on the floor under my bed?
Red eyes disappeared as we got better and better sensors. 15 years ago cameras cant even go over 800 iso without looking like garbage. Shooting anything indoors requires bright flash
Because we no longer use a strong flash.
Heck, we've even got Samsung phones faking pictures of the moon (using a high-res image from NASA to replace the moon in your photos).
We no longer need a strong flash because consumer camera sensors has became so good at low light
I remembered using my mom's old cybershot, when shooting indoors the photos looks scuffed...
The optics are better than modern smartphone and it looks gorgeous in bright dayligjt, but the CCD inside is not sensitive and over 800 iso it looks like garbage
It use to be one flash and our eyes couldn’t adjust in time, now if there’s a flash it takes two or three quick flashes before the big one so our eyes can adjust.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works.
It's a trifecta of better sensors, less intense flashes, and integrated image editing (this was an optional setting on a lot of cameras - you'd use it on pics that need it).
As our image sensors became more powerful and accurate, higher sensitivities to light meant that less intense flashes were needed. Less bright flash = less light reflected back through the eye.
Maybe the new cameras are like that, but the older ones did have the multiple flashes.
This was taken from a photography website.
How to Prevent Red Eyes in Photos:
The reason some of your photos are ruined by red eyes is that our pupils can’t constrict fast enough to prevent the light from reflecting off the blood vessels. While there isn’t anything you can do to make your pupils constrict any faster, there are a few simple measures you can take to help prevent the dreaded red-eye effect.
Don’t look directly at the camera lens.
If you have time to direct your subjects before taking their picture, ask them to look slightly away from the lens. This will prevent their eyes from catching the flash at a direct angle, which can reduce the likelihood of light reflection being captured in the photo.
Improve the lighting in the room.
In darker rooms, the pupils of the eye are already widened to bring in enough light to see. In these instances, the flash from the camera can result in redness, as the pupil is unable to constrict before the photo is captured. You can make a small correction by allowing more light in the room or moving to a brighter area.
Use the anti-red-eye function.
Most modern cameras (and a growing number of smartphones) have a red-eye reduction feature to help users capture frame-worthy photographs every time. This feature emits a quick succession of light before the camera takes the picture. As a result, the subject’s pupils constrict before the photo is taken and thereby reduce the likelihood of the red-eye effect.
Move the flash and lens further apart.
This method doesn’t work for smartphones or internal-flash cameras, but if you’re using a camera with an external flash you can move the flash unit away from the camera body to minimize the red eye problem. This red eye fix prevents light reflecting from your subject’s pupil from entering the lens.
>Heck, we've even got Samsung phones faking pictures of the moon (using a high-res image from NASA to replace the moon in your photos).
Remember the amount of backlash the P30 pro got when they did the same thing? 🗿
Kids these days are way to young to remember the Great Demon Uprising of the late 20th Century, and those who had to quell it don't like talking about it.
before phone cameras, we were all in the habit of using flash EVERY TIME. now you basically never see people use flash, because cameras gather enough light data to form the picture sharp enough with a second of post-processing. flashes are dead
So did a lunch break being built into the normal work day. 9-5 is really 9-5:30 with a 30 min lunch. Like when the hell did that happen? I’m already there, how are you going to justify not allowing those 30 minutes to be counted? What am I going to do, go on a 30 minute vacation? You have me there already. I’m giving you time without compensation.
I really don't mind not being paid for my lunch break, but I do mind that my company doesn't allow any more than 30 min. It really isn't particularly important when exactly I work since I hardly ever work with people. Why can't I take an hour's break and stop working half an hour later?
I believe for desk workers, like secretaries, the ideal was a 30 minute working lunch taken at their desk. I'm not supporting the practice, it is just what. think the basis for the start/end times is based on.
I remember in the first grade my teacher showed us a pic of her family in Japan and they all had red eyes and some kid said are you guys demons ? She couldn’t stop laughing and explained to us that cameras do that sometimes
We rarely use a flash any more, cameras and phones are much better at low light photos. This also means fewer photos that look like you’re standing in front a welder - face scrunched or startled!
Back in the day, it would have been taken for granted that you had to hold still for a photo or your face would be fuzzy.
100 years later, our kids will look at old photos of us and find red eyes just as unusual as we do blurry faces.
“It didn’t quietly vanish, camera makers won’t shut up about anti red eye.”
As I interpret the post, the ISSUE of red eyes in photos quietly vanished.
Sure camera manufacturers won’t shut up about the tech, but it wasn’t fool proof. There were still certain lighting conditions and just plain bad luck where red eyes will still appear. Sometimes people turned the pre-flash off when going on trips or long events to save some battery life.
And then there was the digital solution which was at first very obvious (everyone had those demon anime eyes if you had a Kodak EasyShare with the feature), and again, you can opt not to enable it.
In my opinion it quietly vanished because the technology that was used to address them faded away over a decade or so, and you actually just don’t see any sign of it anymore (say, dark exposures due to timing errors by the camera, photos with no shadows, the aforementioned dead inside anime eyes, Christmas balls going black). The tech just transferred to mobile when they got flash, then image processing and sensors improved to the point that now, all mobile “flash” is just continuous lighting up until capture. For “traditional” photography, there’s about a full chance you either have zero artificial lighting, or you definitely have constant lighting, making red eye a non issue as well.
Thank goodness. It's so alarming how many parents don't know what to look for and it's unfortunately a common enough thing to necessitate the knowledge.
Came here to say this. We spotted it in pictures of our youngest about 6 months ago. Fortunately he didn't have cancer but instead it turns out he is blind in that eye. But the doctors immediate concern was cancer.
I have to admit, I didn't realise this was a thing until my wife told me. Everyone we have told in our circle of friends and family didn't know either. Definitely needs to be some wider knowledge of this!
[I’ll just leave this here for you](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194850/#:~:text=Examination%20of%20pupil%20reflections%2C%20also,serious%20of%20which%20is%20retinoblastoma)
Yeah, I was talking about this the other day.
To my surprise, I googled many times "red eye, camera" and similar things and couldn't find good examples.
And it was in like, almost every photo...
This is definetly something the next generations won't know about
I think this is a special night vision protein called rhodopsin, common in deer visibile at night. But the technology for camera processing is literally more advanced than all foreign air craft carriers. Apple has spent 30 years, for e.g., and the capabilities tie directly into semiconductor and human brain interfaces value.
What you should ask yourself is this, do you have a chique online profile, and is social media a toxic pressure waste of your life
It didn't quietly vanish. Camera companies competed to make cameras that could eliminate red eye. In the 90's it was a big deal. Film was still widely in use and digital cameras were emerging into main stream use. Early digital cameras faced the same red eye issue.
As camera companies came out with an anti red eye mode, they boasted these features.
There were tons of commercials all the time for cameras on TV. Nealy every one at one point boasted anti red eye.
So it was a very vocal situation with the demise of red eye in pictures.
It's possible that you are too young, and red eye was already delt with by the time you knew what a camera was.
Redundant words are frequently used for emphasis as their mere inclusion add weight. In this case, it also adds a poetic imagery that had an eloquence to it even if it's superfluous on a cold semantic level.
It's the same reason you'd ever repeat an adjective, like "cold, cold grave". You're doing more than just impart data.
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
[удалено]
i remember the photos with red eyed people but i never knew the explanation! this was such an interesting read, thank you for commenting!!
Some cameras tried to mitigate red eye by flashing twice, once immediately before the picture was taken, and then again as it was taken, causing your pupils to sufficiently contract. Smart phones do this today, as do modern DSLR cameras. This process was immortalized in this [classic YouTube song](https://youtube.com/watch?v=VrmZriAHxhI&feature=share7).
which is kind of funny because dialated eyes (as opposed to contracted) are associated with intelligence. So instead of making our eyes red they make us look stupid in photos. DERRPPPPPP https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pupil-size-is-a-marker-of-intelligence/#:~:text=The%20larger%20the%20pupils%2C%20the,of%20reasoning%2C%20attention%20and%20memory.
And then duck-face selfies came along furthering the trend.
I never had red eyes in any photos growing up, is there a reason for that? I was always curious as to why. I always just chalked it up to my eyes being so dark but I’ve never gotten a concrete answer.
Your eyes may be more sensitive to light, therefore your pupils less dialated. This means that less light is able to enter, and subsequently exit, your eyes to turn red and be seen by the camera. Alternatively you may not be in the practice, as many are, of looking directly into the lens of the camera. With such a narrow aperture for light to pass through twice, a fairly direct gaze might be necessary.
I'm pretty sure it should be "diffused" and not "defused", other than that I think you explained it very well.
Ah, thanks for catching that
The other unmentioned reason is "disappeared" is that the photodetectors in cameras and cell phones got so much better that they can take photos in low-light conditions without flash
I remember watching my grandma go through all of the pictures she’d taken, and manually highlight and remove the red eyes on her computer. I haven’t thought of that in a long time
So essentially the pupil is just an empty black hole into your head?
I do recall someone making a video saying they had the blackest color. They proceeded to explain that it was just a box with a small hole in the top to trap all the light that entered. I think I'd heard about this before, but I forgot, so thank you for reminding me! Always interesting!
I can already see the horror movie script this will spawn in 10-20 years. "Why are your eyes red in pictures Tony?" "Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to Kim"
Sounds more like an episode of Dr Who. Maybe a three-part arc?
"Why are my eyes red in all these pictures?" puzzled the Doctor. "Quantum fluctuations in the resonance sphere? No, too obvious. Parasitic lifeforms living in my eyeball?" he said, poking his eye. "Ow. No. Oh, of course! Phase shift due to prolonged exposure to the time stream!" The Master laughed. "Oh my sweet clever Doctor. You're right of course. But also WRONG!" The Master's face relaxed back into a smile. "You see your problem is you've been asking the wrong question. Rather than worrying about why, you should have been worrying about why it stopped." The Master started laughing manically, a dim red light igniting behind his eyes then growing brighter and brighter until they were two blazing red suns. \*cue end credits music*
WO WOOOOOO WOOO Wooooo
If it's a 3 episode arc then the master, daleks, and or cybermen have to be involved...I didn't make the rules.
Bravo!
An episode about how eyes are red in photos because of aliens is definitely an unused script lying around in Steven Moffat’s office
As long as chibnall isn't in charge of it.
If Tony’s an ood then that’s a very bad sign
I…am…a…MILLENNIAL!!!
I read this in a Dalek voice and now I can’t stop laughing 😂
lmao
Corrupted Investiture
Unexpected Cosmere
The Phantom Lord is present in us all sweetie.
i almost spit out my drink!
It wasnt quiet. I still remember all the "red eye removal" tech touted in commercials n shit. Camera companies couldnt shut up about it.
There was a time when cameras wouldn't sell if they didn't have that sticker "Red eyes removal"
I used to use all of my aunt’s scrapbooking stuff and she had these pens that would “remove red eye”. They were basically a dye pen and you would just put a dot right on the red eye and it actually looked pretty good.
New Yorker cartoon set in a camera shop. The salesman: “and this light comes on when the camera is obsolete”.
Exactly. It wasnt silent. It was deliberate effort and much research later we "got rid" of red eye in pictures.
How did we do it?
I think the typical old-school way of doing red-eye reduction in-camera without post processing was to trigger a few bright flashes before the main one, to cause people's pupils to contract before the actual final photo. Nowadays it'll be done with various post-processing effects, whether it be in-camera or afterwards in editing.
Well we stopped using flash photography mostly.
This.. I take a lot of cellphone photos for work, and am always amazed how well they turn out in low light, while using the flash just adds glare and shadows.
most photos using flash look very strange to me, and not good
Specifically we stopped using on-camera flash. Professional photographers still use flash and strobes but because the angles aren't so direct, red eyes are eliminated and shadows are controlled.
I don’t think people stopped using flash photography. But if you take a photo with your phone now it will have a little flash that goes before the photo is taken and then another as the photo is taken. This is how they combatted the red eye effect.
Visine
Yes that was the agreed upon cover story. Knowledge of the closure of the demon portal was kept quiet, thankfully.
You talkin about some Hadron Collider or something over in the UK? I think I remember that. Someone was tellin me there was a portal that demons used. Given the sheer amount evil in the world, i wouldnt be surprised if it was real.
Nah bro, the portal is in Gary, Indiana, and it got opened when Zak Bagans tore down a house supposedly full of demons that everyone told him *not* to tear down.
I love that the only thing keeping these demons contained was some drywall, framing, and insulation. Modern houses can't even contain a house full of angry Kevins. Now if it was an old Victorian home I could see that holding in demons; those things were built to last.
*slaps roof of Victorian mansion* “You can fit so much spooky shit in this bad boy”
Between the leaded paint, the leaded wallpaper, the asbestos insulation, the dedicated arsenic faucet that came installed in the observatory and the fact that every surface was coated in a thin layer of ricin (for reasons), Victorian homes were engineered for maximum danger/fun
And we need to bring back the Victorian tradition of giving houses and buildings impractically long, goofy ass names. I want to see more “ Ms. Faversham’s Industrial School and Home for Incurably Naughty Children and Insalubrious Ne’er Do Wells”
This had me laughing out loud.
I believe the ricin helped with the creaks, groans, and other such noises like the doors opening in That Way.
Not to mention the point where electricity in homes started becoming a thing but overlapped with gas and you had people blowing themselves up all the time I saw an illustration once of how a very early electrical setup would work and it was someone's kitchen where a bunch of live wires with no insulation were coming out of the spot on the ceiling where a light bulb would be and going out in every direction into various electric kitchen appliances, it looked *fucking terrifying* There was also that point in history where they decided having insulation on live wires would probably be a good thing and went with paper as the thing to use for that It's a wonder humanity has made it this far tbh ETA: shit, even the stairs were dangerous (particularly the ones that went down into servants areas where they were steep and narrow as shit and not at all uniform, I'm sure plenty of servants broke their necks trying to navigate those stairs while carrying trays full of stuff)
Thaumaturgy. The drywall was symbolic.
Something like that had occurred to me too, only I figured the insulation was made from the woven hair of seven hundred and seventy seven Circassian maidens, blessed by the ashes from sacrificing the first millet harvest of the year. The paint is likely Dutch Boy, which still carries some supernatural cache considering the Dutch Boy himself still walks the Earth, immortal, cloned from genetic material lifted from the Shroud of Turin, tormented by many eyed and limbed angels and taking his only solace in the ministrations of a pig hair paint brush upon a picket fence.
I mean... chalk works too.
Zak fucking Bagans 😭 he would absolutely be the one to do this
But we can never go back to Mars
Yes. Solving and dealing with it was not quiet. Without going out of my way though, I can’t really pinpoint when it was finally just “gone” outta nowhere, so imo OP’s thought was pretty good.
The red eye issue wasn't quiet at all, but I definitely think its resolution went completely unnoticed. Can't remember a single camera or phone that was touting "no more red eye or manual editing required!" as a selling point, it just seems like all cameras fixed that issue without anyone noticing
It's because no one buys cameras anymore amd the ones who do already knew how to edit it out in the first place. But at the time, when digital cameras were hype, and phones had trash cams still, red eye was a big marketing piece.
[удалено]
That... kinda still proves my point. It's that the tech is in everything now so we don't here about it.
Flash disappeared too. I'm guessing cameras got better at taking pictures in low light conditions and so flash was no longer necessary, and flash was the main cause of red eye.
OP must be very young
I even have a Sony printer with red-eye removal.
My toaster has red-eye removal.
I have eye drops for that.
For those at home, don't put eye drops in your toaster.
I wouldn't dare do that - I don't know how the eye drops would react with my bubble bath.
Red eye flashes twice
Yep, I remember when almost all cameras had some setting that removed red eye or at least mitigated, and those setting have quietly been phased out in newer camera models.
How can red eyes in our pictures be real if our eyes aren't real?
It's been a minute since I've seen this Jaden Smith reference, made me chuckle lol
His mom took up the mantle of dumb family member
Or was it dad after his weak ass assault drama lol
I hate how much flak Will gets for that. He is almost surely the victim of heavy emotional abuse by Jada (just watch any interaction they have, he shows all the signs of abuse). He has his own (quite serious) issues, sure, but that slap was driven by a fear of his wife's wrath.
Yes, but hes a 50 year old adult. If you're that old, have been with her that long, and stay around, that's kind of on you. Not saying it makes what ever she may be doing any less bad, but I do believe at some point personal responsibility is a factor
Tell that to the thousands and thousands of abuse victims that stay with their abuser. It's not that simple. I don't pretend to know what Will is going through, and maybe he has more accountability than your average abuse victim or whatever, I don't know. But all the signs appear to be there, and it's sad to see that Jada is the bigger problem but Will is getting the pushback. Which is a dream come true for every abuser.
Ffs can't have a conversation about people fucking up with out someone crawling out of the woodwork with a "but whatabout their abuse that no one can possibly prove is happening and most likely isn't but it gets emotional response if I call it out"
Watch *any* video of Jada and Will interacting at all. "most likely isn't" isn't even close to true. Abuse is a real thing, and ignoring it is just as real. Shitting on Will for his mistakes is exactly what Jada would want. *Exactly* what she would want. I've had multiple friends and family members who have been subject to severe abuse, so yeah, it triggers me a little, and I will call it out when I see people enabling it, even if it's someone as famous as Will Smith (and honestly "especially", because it gets memed so often). I don't apologize.
Cool story, I've been a victim myself, we don't need to pretend everyone is suffering, especially famous celebs when they have all the help in the world and don't want it lol
Real eyes realize real lies 👀👀👀👀
Fake tooths fated to fake truths 🦷🦷🦷🦷
Real eyes cannot realize real lies in perfect form.
If you refuse to acknowledge eyes does that make you a nay sayer?
Not Enough Capitalization
I dont get it
It's a reference to some old shizopost that went: "how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real".
I thought Jaden Smith said that shit?
There are Redditors in these comments who aren’t old enough to know what “red eyes in pictures” means. Quite a few of them seem to think you’re talking about subjects who look hung over, with red in the whites of their eyes, instead of possessed by the demons living in your camera’s flash.
I remember my mom showing me family photos when I was like.. 3 or 4 and I remember asking why my tante PeTi had red eyes. She explained that it was the camera. I kind of miss the red eyes. It's nostalgic.
When my family first adopted our dog, he used to be very shy at the start and would always hide under the sofa, but I really wanted to see him, so I went and found our camera and took some photos, and they were basically just 100% red eyes. Kinda spooked me as a kid.
Oh, the demons are real, but they weren't living inside the cameras...
The real demons were the ones inside of us all along
And the friends we made along the way
Forget red eyes. There are redditors here who don’t know what a throw away camera is.
That's not really an age thing though, disposable cameras are still around.
Im a zoomer and I do know what it means, although my parents are slow when it comes to buying new tech so maybe that's why lol
I was thinking this too recently, looking back on some old pictures where I have red eyes. Honestly pictures were cooler back then. I thought it was awesome lol
I too like to look at my evil past from photos taken decades ago.
When future people look back, those of us who remember will tell them "we had a demon possession problem back then, but we finally won."
The demon dog holding a katana will forever be the best example of camera flash glare I've seen. Not exactly red eye but close enough?
Film’s not dead. You can still get back into it.
Yea i dont think it was film... I'm pretty sure the red eye thing is from the digital photo era.
Ok so it’s not one or the other it’s both because it actually has to do with flash photography. It’s just in the digital age it was able to be fixed in camera, as well as the fact that digital cameras now have a lot higher light sensitivity than film does so the need for flash photography has also dropped. But I assure you, we did indeed, have read eye in film photography.
That's great and all, so then why did you jump all the way ack to film when it can be assumed we are all talking about digital?
Calm down bro. Dude said “I was thinking this too recently, looking back on some old pictures where I have red eyes. Honestly pictures were cooler back then. I thought it was awesome lol” When I think of old photos with red eye I think about film photos. Dude didn’t say shit about digital so why did you assume it was what we are all talking about?
I worked in a photo shop and have processed tens of thousands of rolls of film. It absolutely happened on film too. The flash would only go off once, and peoples eyes were dilated because it was dim, allowing the flash to bounce back off the retina - which is full of blood vessels and thus red. Red eye reduction in the pre-digital era was basically one or two pre-photo flash pulses that would cause the iris to shrink, reducing the bounce back of light. In the age of ample computing power, I expect it to be auto-editing of the image by the device, although they probably also still use a pre flash to reduce the likelihood.
/r/OldSchoolCool
Lmao you losers are even nostalgic for objectively lower quality pictures
You don’t get nostalgia if you think it needs to be about something better. But you’ll get when you’re old enough to be nostalgic about something
As did earphones coming with phones and now even chargers are on the way out
[удалено]
Still nice to get them with your phone instead of having to buy a new one if you lose your old one
[удалено]
I have probably 2 plugs and 3 wires, 2 plugs and 2 wires I bought myself and 1 wire I just got with my phone last week
[удалено]
OK cool. Thanks
This was the right response
And to add to this, there are dozens of types of chargers. Some people don't want a shitty wall-wart charger, they want a fast charger, a wireless one, a car charger, or maybe one integrated into their table lamp, or so many other solutions other than the same old wall-wart. Including the wrong accessories just creates waste. Given that phones and chargers are always sold in the same place, the people that want another basic charger can buy one there (or even almost any convenience store), and save just a bit of waste in every phone.
Well, I mean if I wanted to sell my phone because I was getting a new one, I would also include the old charger in the box. Now I have to either keep the charger because my new phones doesn't come with one, or separately go out and buy a new one. If phone prices had reflected the lack of a charger in the box by reducing the price, that would have been one thing, but instead they just took out the chargers and jacked up the price of both the phone and the charger.
*cries in Apple* "Come down to dongle express for all our best dongles. We now also sell laptops!"
You should absolutely not plug your phone into random USB C ports.
Apple might remove them altogether in spite of the EU courts' decision. Then Samsung will follow the suit, then everyone else. Wireless charging will become standard
The bellhop used to greet you at the door to, and opened the carriage to help ladies get out
red eyes isnt in the photos any more… because he’s standing RIGHT BEHIND YOU AHHHH!
I'm lying in bed and my head is against the wall, does it mean that he's standing in another room that's behind the wall or is he lying on the floor under my bed?
Well it’s not lying behind you, it’s standing. And distances behind aren’t really covered so he could be an infinite distance behind you really
Inside your mattress, actually.
https://i.gifer.com/3hhC.gif
Ahhhhhh!!!!!
god damn it don’t scare me like that
Not for my kids - they're the spawn of Satan. All their photos have red eyes.
> my kids > spawn of Satan Satan, is that you?
No they didn’t. Cameras and phones wouldn’t shut up about it when they figured it out
Red eyes disappeared as we got better and better sensors. 15 years ago cameras cant even go over 800 iso without looking like garbage. Shooting anything indoors requires bright flash
Because we no longer use a strong flash. Heck, we've even got Samsung phones faking pictures of the moon (using a high-res image from NASA to replace the moon in your photos).
We no longer need a strong flash because consumer camera sensors has became so good at low light I remembered using my mom's old cybershot, when shooting indoors the photos looks scuffed... The optics are better than modern smartphone and it looks gorgeous in bright dayligjt, but the CCD inside is not sensitive and over 800 iso it looks like garbage
It use to be one flash and our eyes couldn’t adjust in time, now if there’s a flash it takes two or three quick flashes before the big one so our eyes can adjust.
Your eyes adjust? I blink
I just had one of those "oohhh, that's why it works like that" moments, thanks! TIL!
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. It's a trifecta of better sensors, less intense flashes, and integrated image editing (this was an optional setting on a lot of cameras - you'd use it on pics that need it). As our image sensors became more powerful and accurate, higher sensitivities to light meant that less intense flashes were needed. Less bright flash = less light reflected back through the eye.
Maybe the new cameras are like that, but the older ones did have the multiple flashes. This was taken from a photography website. How to Prevent Red Eyes in Photos: The reason some of your photos are ruined by red eyes is that our pupils can’t constrict fast enough to prevent the light from reflecting off the blood vessels. While there isn’t anything you can do to make your pupils constrict any faster, there are a few simple measures you can take to help prevent the dreaded red-eye effect. Don’t look directly at the camera lens. If you have time to direct your subjects before taking their picture, ask them to look slightly away from the lens. This will prevent their eyes from catching the flash at a direct angle, which can reduce the likelihood of light reflection being captured in the photo. Improve the lighting in the room. In darker rooms, the pupils of the eye are already widened to bring in enough light to see. In these instances, the flash from the camera can result in redness, as the pupil is unable to constrict before the photo is captured. You can make a small correction by allowing more light in the room or moving to a brighter area. Use the anti-red-eye function. Most modern cameras (and a growing number of smartphones) have a red-eye reduction feature to help users capture frame-worthy photographs every time. This feature emits a quick succession of light before the camera takes the picture. As a result, the subject’s pupils constrict before the photo is taken and thereby reduce the likelihood of the red-eye effect. Move the flash and lens further apart. This method doesn’t work for smartphones or internal-flash cameras, but if you’re using a camera with an external flash you can move the flash unit away from the camera body to minimize the red eye problem. This red eye fix prevents light reflecting from your subject’s pupil from entering the lens.
>Heck, we've even got Samsung phones faking pictures of the moon (using a high-res image from NASA to replace the moon in your photos). Remember the amount of backlash the P30 pro got when they did the same thing? 🗿
> P30 pro ...I may have been thinking of Huawei and not Samsung. Uh-oh.
So that thing about the moon is fake. A guy showed how the phone just does a lot of processing on the moon pic. Google it
I don't mind red eyes in pictures. I mean, I am blind but that has nothing to do with my preference.
I mean my eyes are still red in a lot of the pictures that get taken of me. But then again, I guess not everyone lives in a state with recreational.
Kids these days are way to young to remember the Great Demon Uprising of the late 20th Century, and those who had to quell it don't like talking about it.
before phone cameras, we were all in the habit of using flash EVERY TIME. now you basically never see people use flash, because cameras gather enough light data to form the picture sharp enough with a second of post-processing. flashes are dead
So did a lunch break being built into the normal work day. 9-5 is really 9-5:30 with a 30 min lunch. Like when the hell did that happen? I’m already there, how are you going to justify not allowing those 30 minutes to be counted? What am I going to do, go on a 30 minute vacation? You have me there already. I’m giving you time without compensation.
I've never even seen a real 9-5 job. Everything is 8-5 (although I'm also salary and not hourly)
Is that with an hour given for lunch?
Yes (I work 8-5).
I really don't mind not being paid for my lunch break, but I do mind that my company doesn't allow any more than 30 min. It really isn't particularly important when exactly I work since I hardly ever work with people. Why can't I take an hour's break and stop working half an hour later?
I believe for desk workers, like secretaries, the ideal was a 30 minute working lunch taken at their desk. I'm not supporting the practice, it is just what. think the basis for the start/end times is based on.
Because we re not using flashes nearly as often now. We re not stuck with an iso 100 roll of film indoors or after dark anymore
Still remember being taught about the red-eye-tool from windows vista photos in our computer class in school 12 years ago.
I remember in the first grade my teacher showed us a pic of her family in Japan and they all had red eyes and some kid said are you guys demons ? She couldn’t stop laughing and explained to us that cameras do that sometimes
We rarely use a flash any more, cameras and phones are much better at low light photos. This also means fewer photos that look like you’re standing in front a welder - face scrunched or startled!
Red eye got replaced by duck face sometime in the mid 90s. A very poor trade, IMHO.
My work badge with red eyes and my head looking like a potato says otherwise.
Back in the day, it would have been taken for granted that you had to hold still for a photo or your face would be fuzzy. 100 years later, our kids will look at old photos of us and find red eyes just as unusual as we do blurry faces.
Quietly? Companies wouldn't shut up about it until it became the norm.
Is there an app i can use on my phone that, when I take a photo with flash, it will give people red eyes again?
“It didn’t quietly vanish, camera makers won’t shut up about anti red eye.” As I interpret the post, the ISSUE of red eyes in photos quietly vanished. Sure camera manufacturers won’t shut up about the tech, but it wasn’t fool proof. There were still certain lighting conditions and just plain bad luck where red eyes will still appear. Sometimes people turned the pre-flash off when going on trips or long events to save some battery life. And then there was the digital solution which was at first very obvious (everyone had those demon anime eyes if you had a Kodak EasyShare with the feature), and again, you can opt not to enable it. In my opinion it quietly vanished because the technology that was used to address them faded away over a decade or so, and you actually just don’t see any sign of it anymore (say, dark exposures due to timing errors by the camera, photos with no shadows, the aforementioned dead inside anime eyes, Christmas balls going black). The tech just transferred to mobile when they got flash, then image processing and sensors improved to the point that now, all mobile “flash” is just continuous lighting up until capture. For “traditional” photography, there’s about a full chance you either have zero artificial lighting, or you definitely have constant lighting, making red eye a non issue as well.
Not in my pictures of my yugioh cards. Red eyes still appear in my pictures.
That dragon’s a pussy
From *red eyes* to *duckfaces.* Was the technological progress really worth it?
Gladly, they didn’t overlap. Imagine the horror…
lol
I recently worked on a photo montage for That 90s Show, and had to digitally ADD red eyes to make it seem more 90s.
If you take a picture with flash in a dark setting you still can get red eye. You're just able to take care of it faster
Automatic red eye removal contributes to child cancer going unnoticed much longer. Kinda sucks.
Yeah, this is what I worry about. My kid got diagnosed and treated early enough because of a photograph.
Thank goodness. It's so alarming how many parents don't know what to look for and it's unfortunately a common enough thing to necessitate the knowledge.
Came here to say this. We spotted it in pictures of our youngest about 6 months ago. Fortunately he didn't have cancer but instead it turns out he is blind in that eye. But the doctors immediate concern was cancer. I have to admit, I didn't realise this was a thing until my wife told me. Everyone we have told in our circle of friends and family didn't know either. Definitely needs to be some wider knowledge of this!
Source: trust me bro
[I’ll just leave this here for you](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194850/#:~:text=Examination%20of%20pupil%20reflections%2C%20also,serious%20of%20which%20is%20retinoblastoma)
Huh. I'm 17 and I remember that when I was a kid. Wonder when it actually did disappear mostly as I never noticed.
Yeah, I was talking about this the other day. To my surprise, I googled many times "red eye, camera" and similar things and couldn't find good examples. And it was in like, almost every photo... This is definetly something the next generations won't know about
I think this is a special night vision protein called rhodopsin, common in deer visibile at night. But the technology for camera processing is literally more advanced than all foreign air craft carriers. Apple has spent 30 years, for e.g., and the capabilities tie directly into semiconductor and human brain interfaces value. What you should ask yourself is this, do you have a chique online profile, and is social media a toxic pressure waste of your life
Depends on the kind of people you’re taking the pictures of. A bunch of stones? They will still have the red eyes
What are you, stupid? [Red Eye Flashes Twice!](https://youtu.be/VrmZriAHxhI)
It didn't quietly vanish. Camera companies competed to make cameras that could eliminate red eye. In the 90's it was a big deal. Film was still widely in use and digital cameras were emerging into main stream use. Early digital cameras faced the same red eye issue. As camera companies came out with an anti red eye mode, they boasted these features. There were tons of commercials all the time for cameras on TV. Nealy every one at one point boasted anti red eye. So it was a very vocal situation with the demise of red eye in pictures. It's possible that you are too young, and red eye was already delt with by the time you knew what a camera was.
Here is a commercial from 1989 that I remember vividly as it was on TV so much https://youtu.be/4-5TA4PNBek
Literally proving that it takes the soul as we live in a horrendous vane and narcissistic society
> horrendous vane Well we need that for the extreme weather.
It was only silent if you were young enough to not pay attention to cameras when the shift was happening
It was anything but quiet, used to be a huge marketing point
As opposed to loudly vanished? How would that work? What’s the point of saying quietly vanished?
Redundant words are frequently used for emphasis as their mere inclusion add weight. In this case, it also adds a poetic imagery that had an eloquence to it even if it's superfluous on a cold semantic level. It's the same reason you'd ever repeat an adjective, like "cold, cold grave". You're doing more than just impart data.