>>55457409>>55457242>>55457184finally someone with a brain.
There's certainly lots of NSFW pictures, and weird pictures, but ultimately macro(/micro) is a character being big (or small), which is barely even a difference when compared with normal images.
They don't need to be doing anything bad, they don't need to look different, they just need to be taking up more (or less) pixels in comparison to another thing.
And I think the apparent relativity is relevant too. The only way to see how big a thing in a picture is, is by comparing it to something else with a known size in the picture, which can be way harder than even lots of anons think.
(all of the thing must be in the view, or at least some way to relate the thing in the picture to how it's known to look in-full
if the things are not both the same distance from the viewpoint then you gotta account for perspective scaling
you gotta account for rotation
for creatures you gotta account for hair/crests and sometimes footware
if the character isn't in profile or facing straight forward you gotta account for the rotation of their bodies along with perspective scaling
the complications just keep going and going)
You have to know all of this shit to accurately measure characters in pictures, and most people are walking dunning kruger effects in this regard. I've seen so many shitty character comparisons that miss the mark wildly.
All the naughty shit comes from the -extra- stuff that most pictures have.
I don't have anything new for the record 