had a dream that the hot new meme here was a photo of a rat color shifted to be yellow and dark blue and captioned "this is the kind of foolish film that always receives praise and accolades these days"
While the big annual survey continues (until 13th August), I'm here to give you the results of the nonbinary name survey!
This is on the blog because it's technically a side survey for fun. The survey ran from 5th July to 3rd August, and there were 11,340 usable responses. You can see the spreadsheet of results here.
Top 20 names
Alex (1.01%, 204 people)
Jay (0.69%)
Sam (0.51%)
Charlie (0.49%)
Robin (0.48%)
Rowan (0.41%)
Ash (0.40%)
Max (0.33%)
Lee (0.31%)
Eli (0.31%)
Kai (0.31%)
Moss (0.29%)
Quinn (0.28%)
Wren (0.28%)
Aster (0.28%)
Jamie (0.28%)
Kit (0.26%)
Jack (0.25%)
Morgan (0.25%)
Ari (0.24%, 49 people)
Here's that top 20 as a graph, for the visual-brained folks:
The gender intentions of 18 of the top 20 names was "gender-neutral"; the two exceptions were Eli and Jack, where people were more likely to be aiming for something more masculine.
Here's the last name survey I ran, in 2023. The design was quite different, but the top 4 were the same names in the same order. The top 10 are the same names in a different order, but with one change: last time Kit was in the top 10 (this year it's at #17), and this time Lee is in the top 10 instead (last year it was #20).
This time I gave participants three slots to enter names. 20,118 names were entered in total, of which 2,358 (about 12%) were entered more than once. 22% of participants used all three slots, which seems like a lot to me, and maybe if I do this again I should provide more slots.
There were 8 names in the top 100 where people entering that name were more likely than not to be keeping a birth name:
Hannah (93.8% of Hannahs were keeping a birth name)
Elizabeth (93.3%)
Emily (91.3%)
Anna (86.8%)
Sarah (84.4%)
Emma (84.2%)
Laura (80.8%)
Claire (75.0%)
On the flipside, there were seven names entered over 20 times that were exclusively chosen by the participants themselves:
Aster (56 participants)
Rain (39)
Crow (29)
Niko (25)
Nyx (24)
Elias (22)
Briar (20)
Here's a graph of the gender intentions of each name:
Of the names that were not given at birth, here are the gender intention options and their top 3 names in each:
Gender-neutral:
Riley (74.2%)
Quinn (70.2%)
Sasha (68.8%)
Nonbinary:
Echo (50.0%)
Moth (35.3%)
Mars (34.1%)
Feminine:
Luna (64.5%)
Alice (34.3%)
Willow (30.3%)
Masculine:
Oliver (75.6%)
Alexander (70.6%)
James (65.9%)
Which means, this time, we have achieved our goal and discovered that:
the nonbinariest name is Echo! (24 people, 0.12% of participants.)
the most common name among nonbinary people is Alex, with an incredible ~1 in 100 nonbinary people going by this name.
And finally, despite the stereotype that nonbinary names are all three characters long, the most common number of characters in all names entered (including every name entry counted individually, and including names entered only once) is 4 or 5. Here's a graph:
As promised, the full spreadsheet of results doesn't contain individual responses, and any name entered only once is left out of the list. This is because names are identifying information and I don't want to risk anyone accidentally outing themselves due to having a very unusual or unique name.
Here's the results spreadsheet link again. Enjoy!
[ Take part in the 2026 Gender Census before 13th August 2026 ]
These outtakes where the flash didn't go off are also AI generated.
I like this spooky dutch angle one.
I was just starting to learn flash and I didn't have all the equipment I needed. Since corgis are quite short, I had to put the lighting on the ground. The off camera flash was on a tipped over lightstand with a shoot-through umbrella to diffuse the light.
But I had no wireless triggers. And the only other way to trigger a flash, is with another flash. So I used the on-camera pop up flash to trigger the main flash.
But I had two issues.
First, I did not want that dinky on camera flash affecting my picture.
Second, triggering a flash with a flash is best done indoors. The flash will bounce all around the room and eventually hit the sensor so the main flash triggers. When you are outdoors, there is no bouncing.
SO... I took a little handheld makeup mirror and angled it toward my main flash. This blocked the dinky pop up flash and sent the beam of light towards the main flash to trigger it.
I was lying on the wet morning grass, holding a camera in one hand, a mirror in the other, trying to aim the mirror exactly toward the main flash, making crazy noises to get Otis's attention, and trying to get the focus point on his face so I didn't get a blurry photo. Also, Otis was much more interested in sniffing things than posing for a photo.
Here is an overhead view that might help explain.
I await all of your comments saying my amazing drawring is clearly AI generated.
Only 30% of the time did the flash actually go off. Aiming the mirror was tricky and I was doing like 8 things at once. I wasn't even sure I got the photo I wanted. But when I came back to the computer there was one that stood out and it is one of my favorites I've ever taken.
It was the best combination of monumental effort, great discomfort, perfect foggy sunrise light, and just pure luck.
Unfortunately, people like me who use advanced sculpting light techniques are getting accused of using AI more and more. Not really sure what to do about it—other than show the 30 awful photos it took to get the good one.
My 80s sunglasses photo and spoon photo get called out the most.
But it's just good old fashioned gradient lighting which has been used in product photography since the days of film.
Most of my photos with artificial light added would be considered "unmotivated lighting." I think that is the term you were looking for.
The short explanation is that motivated lighting always has a logical source. Like the sun or a window or a lamp off to the side.
That doesn't mean there are no lighting shenanigans used.
The overhead office-style fluorescent lights depicted in this scene were actually powerful diffused light bars that were much closer to the actors. They replaced the ceiling in post with more traiditioinal looking lights. So the lighting was still very crafted—but it has a logic and realism that doesn't set off alarm bells in your brain saying, "Where is the light coming from?"
Unmotivated lighting is the opposite. It's crafted, artificial light that doesn't need to make sense. It just has to achieve the aesthetic goal of the artist.
All studio lighting is unmotivated. I just re-edited this old photo of my dad.
There is no room in the world where he could have sat down and had perfectly sculpted light hitting his face. I intentionally directed the light to accentuate his features and capture the best, most idealized version of what he looked like.
Coincidentally I just wrote a post about motivated lighting in films.
💬 20 🔁 208 ❤️ 349 · First, thank you to everyone who is nerding out with me about motivated lighting. I love that I can have these convers
Weirdly, I expressed a preference for motivated lighting in movies with a realism-based aesthetic and a lot of people disagreed. They said that the lighting comes from the same place as the music and that you just have to suspend your disbelief.
(Personally I think that is a bad analogy because music is *very* motivated by the emotional vibe. I would say unmotivated lighting in movies comes from the same place as women's apocalypse makeup.)
But I *love* unmotivated lighting in still photography. I love crafting an image and creating it in a fantasy realm where perfect, beautiful, sculpting light can come from anywhere. I want the most idyllic lighting possible.
It's the only way I could make fingernail clippers look beautiful.
And now people are saying unmotivated lighting looks like AI or CGI and isn't authentic. Even though this aesthetic was created before computers were invented and the tools of post-capture manipulation were done in a darkroom.
I'm fairly certain this is because AI does not have a great understanding of motivated lighting. It never thinks about where the light is coming from so it almost always creates images where the lighting comes from a fantasy realm. And now people are heavily associating unmotivated lighting with AI, even if it is a subconscious observation.
I think at this point in time, people are yearning for authenticity. We know so much of our imagery is heavily manipulated for nefarious purposes. Beauty advertising with retouched skin like porcelain dolls and liquified torsos that don't leave space for vital organs. Every fast food ad shows the perfect juicy hamburger because they paid a food stylist $500/hour to perfectly cook and arrange things.
But fast food workers are not food stylists and your burger isn't going to have perfect lettuce and a non-smooshed bun.
(Before you reply with urban legends about food styling, they don't use fake materials. They are required to use the actual ingredients. Those myths came from movie prop masters who needed to maintain the look of food during hours of shooting.)
I think AI just turned our uncomfortable relationship with unrealistic imagery up to 11.
It's a little depressing for me because I love to use light as my artistic medium. I say I am a photographer, but my passion is more focused on lighting.
And I often incorporate my other passion, which is image manipulation. I sometimes add another layer of unreality to my images by artistically editing them.
This is days of work.
I worked very hard for the in-camera image. Dragging a heavy chair and lighting equipment into a field on a hot summer day was not easy for me.
But I also worked very hard on the edit. The RAW file is overexposed, but once I corrected that, the lighting on him and the grass is actually what I captured. I hid a flash in the lampshade and lit him with my big 7 foot umbrella off to the right.
I could have shot this at night, but my area has so much light pollution, I would never have achieved the sky I wanted in my head. So I took the photo knowing I'd replace the sky later.
I like crafting images. I like picturing something in my head and then trying to manifest it in a photo.
I get why people are starting to prefer more natural looking images. I understand why they are currently preferring everything to be captured as it was in the moment. I know why they disparage the amazing work of CG artists and demand that every movie use only practical effects.
When everything is fake, a small dose of reality feels special.
But I see my photography more like a drawing or a painting. Light is my paintbrush and I am just trying to manifest my imagination into an image. I don't claim I don't use artificial light. I never say anything is "straight out of camera." I am very open about my use of Photoshop. If I were able to leave my house and go to more beautiful places, perhaps I would take a more motivated approach.
I mean, I love when the world is just beautiful all on its own and all I have to do is competently pick settings on my camera.
But I enjoy my artistic process and while some of my images may not be realistic, I think my artistry is always authentic.
I don't need every person to like every one of my photos. But when I work hard on a photo and there is clear talent and skill involved, I'm hoping people will still acknowledge that. I hope they will respect the effort and artistry involved.
I didn't enjoy the show Breaking Bad. I disliked all of the characters and the story just depressed me more and more as I watched it. But I still think it is an amazing show created by talented artists. I can acknowledge the monumental artistic achievement even if it wasn't my cup of tea.
once you get over your ass and realise you will never get some people and that’s ok you are basically immune to right wing fearmongering. otherkin? none of my fucking business
I must not fall victim to disgust. Disgust is the heart-killer. Disgust is the little-death that brings total apathy. I will face my disgust. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the disgust has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
ellievsbear
stormborns
origamiaround
izzy806
discoholicmusic
