Critics have long complained that naïve realism cannot adequately account for perceptual illusion. This complaint has a tendency to ally itself with the aspersion that naïve realism is hopelessly out of touch with vision science. Here I offer a partial reply to both complaint and aspersion. I do so by showing how careful reflection on a simple, empirically grounded model of illusion reveals heterodox ways of thinking about familiar illusions which are quite congenial to the naïve realist.