Posted under Tags
I've encountered a fair deal of artists forgetting heterochromia. Would it be alright to start tagging no_heterochromia in place of error on posts where characters known for their different colored eyes- Doesn't posses them? Or should the tag name be different for one purpose or another?
That, or should error accompany it? It should, right?
We also have alternate eye color. I'm not sure about error; that tag seems kinda iffy in general.
Talulah said:
We also have alternate eye color.
I don't quite think that's the same. Also, do you still tag that if the eye colors are mirrored?
Talulah said:
I'm not sure about error; that tag seems kinda iffy in general.
What's iffy about it?
baconmeh2 said:
I don't quite think that's the same. Also, do you still tag that if the eye colors are mirrored?
I know they're not perfectly synonymous, but I would think no heterochromia would be a subset of alternate eye color. I would say no for mirrored.
What's iffy about it?
It becomes difficult to tell error vs artistic license. In some cases it's more apparent (the artist probably didn't mean to draw backwards feet) but things like eye or hair color might be intentional. It's not uncommon.
Then what about alternate eye color (heterochromatic), to solve the issue of labeling it error or artistic license; the ambiguity around it being alternate; and to clarify that the character's eyes are not their usual color?
Talulah said:
It becomes difficult to tell error vs artistic license. In some cases it's more apparent (the artist probably didn't mean to draw backwards feet) but things like eye or hair color might be intentional. It's not uncommon.
I think forgetting to make a character's eyes two different colors is on the same level as drawing someone's feet on the wrong legs. A very easy mistake to make, and exactly that, a mistake. I've never seen anyone claim to have drawn Tatara Kogasa with two red eyes or two blue eyes intentionally. The fact doing it right requires the slightest bit more attention than filling in the same color for both eyes, what you do the other 99% of the time, is what makes it so much more likely to be unintentional vs just giving someone entirely different colored eyes than they normally have.
baconmeh2 said:
Then what about alternate eye color (heterochromatic), to solve the issue of labeling it error or artistic license; the ambiguity around it being alternate; and to clarify that the character's eyes are not their usual color?
That name sounds like what happened is a character that normally doesn't have heterchromia has been drawn with two different eye colors.
Could call it homochromia.
nanashi3 said:
Could call it homochromia.
No, there is zero chance that would work out.
nanashi3 said:
Could call it homochromia.
Would need a qualifier appended to it or something. Otherwise people would throw it on every instance of no monochrome and open eyes.
I think the original proposal is fine. "no_heterochromia" doesn't state nor imply the reason why there is no heterochromia, it seems just as neutral to me as tags like no_eyewear and no_hair_ornament are (and if the tag isn't clear enough, none of those no_* contrast tags are.)
The possibility that it might be artistic license is a sound reason not to tag such images with error though.
baconmeh2 said:
Also, do you still tag that if the eye colors are mirrored?
forum #214822 suggests that mirror image could apply.
7HS said:
I think the original proposal is fine. "no_heterochromia" doesn't state nor imply the reason why there is no heterochromia, it seems just as neutral to me as tags like no_eyewear and no_hair_ornament are (and if the tag isn't clear enough, none of those no_* contrast tags are.)
The possibility that it might be artistic license is a sound reason not to tag such images with error though.
If nobody objects to "no_heterochromia", then I'll personally get started with some heterochromia characters lacking it.
magcolo said:
forum #214822 suggests that mirror image could apply.
I'll be keeping this in mind, alongside a canon pic of each character so I don't bungle it.
magcolo said:
forum #214822 suggests that mirror image could apply.
Mirror image is a terrible tag and is being used for mirror and pov combined (some non-pov reflection mistags). If you were to add flipped heterochromia to this, it would not differentiate between "entire image is flipped" (not to be confused with reversed) and "one feature is flipped" e.g. eyes are flipped but everything else aren't. I suggest reverse heterochromia.
baconmeh2 said:
(Homochromia) would need a qualifier appended to it or something. Otherwise people would throw it on every instance of no monochrome and open eyes.
That would be obviously tag vandalism like no_shoes on completely_nude solo posts or making up "humans" tag for all posts containing humans. On the other hand, no heterochromia sounds decently Danbooru-like.
Updated by nanashi3
nanashi3 said:
no heterochromia sounds decently Danbooru-like.
If that much is agreed upon, I'll get started on no heterochromia.
As for mirroring and error, I'll abstain from utilizing those until it's decided how reversed/wrong eye colors should be treated.
I'm on the fence about error to be honest. Or maybe I'm overthinking it after reading out of character's wiki-
If there is no parody, voice actor connection, cosplay, or any other artistic license reason for them to act this way, use this tag.
Would that make out of character an error? Not really. That's entirely up to the artist how they make the character act, but it's something nobody would accept- Thus the reason for that tag existing.
baconmeh2 said:
If that much is agreed upon, I'll get started on no heterochromia.
As for mirroring and error, I'll abstain from utilizing those until it's decided how reversed/wrong eye colors should be treated.
I'm on the fence about error to be honest. Or maybe I'm overthinking it after reading out of character's wiki-
Would that make out of character an error? Not really. That's entirely up to the artist how they make the character act, but it's something nobody would accept- Thus the reason for that tag existing.
I can't believe that tag still exists. That should really be a pool.
I do think people are over thinking it. Artistic license changing hair and eye color is uncommon. Out of 6 million posts only 10k each are tagged alternate hair color or alternate eye color. Not even 1%. It's much more reasonable to assume a character missing their heterochromia, or the colors are reversed, is a mistake than the artist actually made a conscious decision to do so.
Artists don't intentionally go off model as often as people seem to want to think, and they usually explain why when they do. I really don't think it should be necessary for an artist to upload a revision for us to tag an obvious oversight as an error.
