>>3299904>You made it look like she had color contacts onI was working from the one posted in thread, and that one had the same problem. I stated in my post that I pretty much gave up on colouring her eyes correctly, but they weren't coloured right in the first place, IMO.
[pic related] from left to right:
>the original posters second picture>the original posters offending picture>wikipedia's image of a human eye (from the "eye" entry)>my editFirst offense is the entirely solid colour. The rgb differences barely change while running an eyedropper over her iris (only the overall value does). You ain't getting that from natural eye colour in an adult, but you can get it from using the brush tool to paint the eyes blue. The purple arrows on the wikipedia eye show that even seemingly solid coloured eyes still have flecks of variation. If you looks through pictures of eyes on google images you'll see that a lot of blue eyes have a hazel rim around the pupil. I didn't replicate this perfectly in my edit, but it was what I was trying for. Only a newborn baby could have eyes as perfectly blue as those, and even then they don't look like that.
The second offense is the lack of a "limbal ring" (looked up the name and everything). Like all aspects of anatomy it can vary in intensity, but it rarely disappears. The red line of in [pic related] shows the limbal ring on the wikipedia eye. Looking at the two original images makes me think that the eyes from the one I was working on where brightened, and it was done with little regard for maintaining the limbal ring. Again, my edit isn't perfect; probably a little too dark and I should have upped the blur on it a little more, but it does add a little something back to the eye.
[cont'd]