Is IPD/bizygomatic (ESR) a bad ratio? A new ratio for eye spacing?

[ShowerCelling]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ). I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc. But it might be harder to pinpoint the start and end of the eyeball by looking at a picture. But what do yall think?

finally a decent thread

 

[Djimo]

So I guess the only issue with your ratio is the naming and the potential of eyebrow frauding? Seems fine to me, even with those

Naming is an issue yes, but eyebrow positioning isn't an issue of the ratio, since it doesn't change the ratio bc it's eyebrow hair. Unideal lateral eyebrow length could play with how esr is perceived, to long eyebrows = appearance of closer esr and vice versa for short eye brows

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Get a ruler dude lol. Btw, the pupils are usually 2-4mm unless dilated, so you can use that to convert pixels into mms.

isn't accurate. the eye doctors use digital tools, they can get it accurately

 

[NuclearGeo20]

finally a decent thread

take EVERYTHING you read with a grain of salt

 

[Djimo]

So I guess the only issue with your ratio is the naming and the potential of eyebrow frauding? Seems fine to me, even with those

Measuring the distance is very stable since it's lateral canthus to the furthest side of your face, the line from the lateral canthus must be straight to the left or right depending on what eye side your measuring

 

[Djimo]

@mandiblade @NuclearGeo20 what's all dc? So we could figure out the ideal distance from lateral canthus to the temporal region

 

[NuclearGeo20]

@mandiblade @NuclearGeo20 what's all dc? So we could figure out the ideal distance from lateral canthus to the temporal region

The temple region? Personally, I dont think so

 

[mandiblade]

what's all dc

What does DC mean?
EDIT: Sorry, but I'll be AFK for about 12 hours(food + sleep).

 

[Djimo]

The temple region? Personally, I dont think so

The blue dot is where about his LOR's widest point is, as you can see there's still some open space left there and that could be the zygomatic if they are really highsett or the temporal region, I might be wrong naming it the temporal region since I'm not 100% sure if that's what jb has as open space next to the LOR

 

[Djimo]

What does DC mean?
EDIT: Sorry, but I'll be AFK for about 12 hours(food + sleep).

Same it's 02:30 am rn for me, see you tmrw
Dc means discord

 

[Djimo]

The temple region? Personally, I dont think so

This is the difference I got from esr and the other ratio (lateral canthus to the side) I was thinking about for example if someone has an esr of 43.00 that the other ration would have to be contradicting that 43.00 so that would be 57.00 for the other ratio for those two to become 100.00

 

[NuclearGeo20]

This is the difference I got from esr and the other ratio (lateral canthus to the side) I was thinking about for example if someone has an esr of 43.00 that the other ration would have to be contradicting that 43.00 so that would be 57.00 for the other ratio for those two to become 100.00

idk anymore I can't think but I think your onto nothing unless yall are talking about something else completely

 

[Djimo]

idk anymore I can't think but I think your onto nothing unless yall are talking about something else completely

I'm talking about the reason why jb doesn't seem to have close set eyes, but I can't think anymore aswell I'll do more tests tmrw to see what's real and not I need some sleep

 

[Djimo]

Here's the measurement that made jb his close set eyes appear more normal, this means there's an ideal ratio for each esr there is. Ill try to find the answer on that tho.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ). I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc. But it might be harder to pinpoint the start and end of the eyeball by looking at a picture. But what do yall think?

Overall DNR this whole thread. It goes back to the argument of whether measurements matter more than ratios.

DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Overall DNR this whole thread. It goes back to the argument of whether measurements matter more than ratios.

DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.DNR.

@Lookologist003 @ShowerCelling @flatcheck213 @iblamemygenes @mandiblade @Djimo

 

[mandiblade]

Overall DNR this whole thread. It goes back to the argument of whether measurements matter more than ratios.

I did not claim that. I said that using ratios that include static values may as well be pure measurements. The idea that measurements are better than ratios is cope.

@Lookologist003 @ShowerCelling @flatcheck213 @iblamemygenes @mandiblade @Djimo

Only first 5 get the tag I'm pretty sure.
So @Djimo @thecel

 

[NuclearGeo20]

I did not claim that. I said that using ratios that include static values may as well be pure measurements. The idea that measurements are better than ratios is cope.

My point was that the ESR didn't matter for eye spacing, and that the actual thing that affected the eye spacing was the actual space between the eyes. I'm not retracting the statement, but the ratios are unreliable, and actual raw measurements would be more ideal for calculating facial harmony. I'm going to the eye doctor to get my IPD measured I encourage everyone to do the same. We also have to prove that ESR doesn't matter for determining the "setness" of the eyes. So that's why I said this thread goes back to the debate on measurements vs ratios. It would be nice if an actual black pilled surgeon could give their opinion on the issue. Cough* Cough* @RealSurgerymax

 

[NuclearGeo20]

@thecel do you think ratios or measurements matter more for attractiveness. For example a 65mm IPD is the average. Is that also the ideal? Or do you think it depends on the width of the face?

 

[thecel]

@thecel do you think ratios or measurements matter more for attractiveness. For example a 65mm IPD is the average. Is that also the ideal? Or do you think it depends on the width of the face?

ratio mogs measurements

angles are underrated as well

 

[thecel]

@thecel do you think ratios or measurements matter more for attractiveness. For example a 65mm IPD is the average. Is that also the ideal? Or do you think it depends on the width of the face?

When surgeons measure your skull they measure angles such as SNA, SNB, etc. These angles are scale independent unlike raw measurements.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

When surgeons measure your skull they measure angles such as SNA, SNB, etc. These angles are scale independent unlike raw measurements.

yes but those are for cephalometric analysis and determining dental occlusion, occlusal angle etc. Nothing for the front profile really.... unless I don't know how to correlate it with the front profile

 

[NuclearGeo20]

ratio mogs measurements

angles are underrated as well

Proof?

 

[soggra]

Short hair on wide faces looks so incredibly ugly

 

[thecel]

yes but those are for cephalometric analysis and determining dental occlusion, occlusal angle etc. Nothing for the front profile really.... unless I don't know how to correlate it with the front profile

 

[NuclearGeo20]

View attachment 3758899View attachment 3758900

EME is pretty unreliable imo

 

[aloooeJIEEES]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ). I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc. But it might be harder to pinpoint the start and end of the eyeball by looking at a picture. But what do yall think?

Decent thread

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Decent thread

decent thread with no clarity on what's attractive and what's not

 

[Lookologist003]

The ( IRIS TO INNER CANTHUS / INTER OCULAR DISTANCE ) ratio in this guy is 23 percent.

That can never be useful because iris to inner canthus is itself a dimensionless number, it's a ratio. Multiplying one ratio by another is chaotic and arbitrary, because neither are bound to reality. Fact: the only useful facial ratios are produced by two parts of the same dimension (i.e. mm to mm, or mm to inches, or inches to feet). What I mean is: there are many ways that a • b • c can equal one constant like 23%. If you want to propose any facial ratio, it has to involve only two physical measurements of the face.

Yea among women and men, of all races, the eyeball doesn't really change in diameter unless you have a condition

The visible part of the eyeball is a physical constant which can be used to find a rate to solve the physical dimensions of a face by a digital photograph. The part of the eyeball that we can't see vary in its length, which causes focusing errors and the need to wear glasses. The "Iris method" is pretty bullet-proof because of this. The length from cornea to the fovea, the front of the eyeball to the back is around 24-mm in the average adult.

isn't accurate. the eye doctors use digital tools, they can get it accurately

Coincidentally, I had to get my IPD measured this afternoon because needed to get specs so I can see. The optician told me you can measure your IPD at home and order the glasses online. They said you can measure your IPD with just a ruler and a mirror. I'm not convinced this precision matters if doctors can make your glasses using these crude measurements.

@thecel do you think ratios or measurements matter more for attractiveness. For example a 65mm IPD is the average. Is that also the ideal? Or do you think it depends on the width of the face?

Shape is proportion. Proportion is the quotient of ratio. The difference between a subhuman and a Chad is proportion but proportion of physical distances, which make physical shapes. You think ratios are more important if you think that difference in shape is the difference between Chad skulls and incel skulls.

Proof?

Angles are proportion, proportion of a geometrical or planar constant, pi.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

That can never be useful because iris to inner canthus is itself a dimensionless number, it's a ratio. Multiplying one ratio by another is chaotic and arbitrary, because neither are bound to reality. Fact: the only useful facial ratios are produced by two parts of the same dimension (i.e. mm to mm, or mm to inches, or inches to feet). What I mean is: there are many ways that a • b • c can equal one constant like 23%. If you want to propose any facial ratio, it has to involve only two physical measurements of the face.

It's not a ratio/ratio. You are just dividing the distance from the pupil to the inner canthus of anyone of the eyes. They are both the same most of the time so it doesn't rally matter.

The visible part of the eyeball is a physical constant which can be used to find a rate to solve the physical dimensions of a face by a digital photograph. The part of the eyeball that we can't see vary in its length, which causes focusing errors and the need to wear glasses. The "Iris method" is pretty bullet-proof because of this. The length from cornea to the fovea, the front of the eyeball to the back is around 24-mm in the average adult.

What is the iris method. Do you just scale the iris to 12mm because the average iris is 12mm?

Coincidentally, I had to get my IPD measured this afternoon because needed to get specs so I can see. The optician told me you can measure your IPD at home and order the glasses online. They said you can measure your IPD with just a ruler and a mirror. I'm not convinced this precision matters if doctors can make your glasses using these crude measurements.

I couldn't do it, so I will wait to get it measured digitally to the best extent.

Shape is proportion. Proportion is the quotient of ratio. The difference between a subhuman and a Chad is proportion but proportion of physical distances, which make physical shapes. You think ratios are more important if you think that difference in shape is the difference between Chad skulls and incel skulls.

That proportion will have to do with measurements. Lets say we scaled all the bone, cartilage, and soft tissues in a face. The eyeballs would stay the same size therefore causing disharmony with the eyeballs.

Perfect measurements always give perfect ratios. Perfect ratios doesn't always give perfect measurements. For example the white average ipd is 65mm and bizygomatic is 143mm. This leads to a perfect .455 esr.

But lets say we scaled the ipd to 66mm and bizygomatic to 144.9 to compensate. Is it still ideal even if the measurements are non average. I don't think so.

Angles are proportion, proportion of a geometrical or planar constant, pi.

They don't tell the whole story. It's just like ratios. Ratios tell you something is unideal or ideal based off one number accounting for 2 variables. You can never tell which one is the culprit of the disharmony.

 

[Lookologist003]

I like this idea of inner canthal distance to IPD, but it doesn't describe the same thing as ESR. So both ESR and this ratio can be useful. This ratio does go a way to explaining the feel of close set eyes, and that might be because inner canthal distance sort of describes the length of the eyes like PFL, whereas IPD only describes the distance between the eyes, but not how large the eyes are, or how perceptually large, because eyeball is physcial constant. Perceptually large, meaning PFL. Inner canthal distance is one part of PFL

I just calculated Marko Jaric and he got (46.33/155.67) around .3; which makes sense because since his IPD is so low, the inner half of the eyeball would take up more space then it would in the average ipd (.23).

I think you've found a neat thing here. It like describes the apparent size of the eyeballs in relation to their closeness. Well done. Something I overlooked.

The way I imagine this is two spheres separated by a distance, which is IPD. The radius of each sphere is the inner canthal distance. There is a certain distance between the two spheres in relation to their size which makes them look aesthetic and sexy.

What I especially like about what you've just found is that it allows description purely of the eyes, without mention of the width of the face. It's actually more profound the more I think about it.

Well done. Got nothing else to say but this is important theory. Oh I gues I have one more thing to add to this post, to show my gratitude

 

[NuclearGeo20]

What is the iris method again?

 

[NuclearGeo20]

View attachment 3758944
Picture describes the theory well! Good job.

 

[Lookologist003]

It's not a ratio/ratio. You are just dividing the distance from the pupil to the inner canthus of anyone of the eyes. They are both the same most of the time so it doesn't rally matter.

Oh sorry, reading comprehension pill might be the next in line for me.

They don't tell the whole story. It's just like ratios. Ratios tell you something is unideal or ideal based off one number accounting for 2 variables. You can never tell which one is the culprit of the disharmony.

That's because describing a complex 3-D shape like the skull is difficult. There will never be one equation to describe all of what makes a face attractive or that factors in all measurements, that's just impossible because of the nature of information. There's a minimum amount of data needed to construct a Chadly or incel skull, probably about maybe seven numbers of ESR, Facial depth, cephalic index, chin-to-philtrum, mid face ratio. etc.

But lets say we scaled the ipd to 66mm and bizygomatic to 144.9 to compensate. Is it still ideal even if the measurements are non average. I don't think so.

It would make the face more masculine because of something involving the size of the eyes to the width of the face. Still kind of ideal ratios, just makes the face more masculine and imposing and commanding of respect.

The orbits of these two skulls are edited to be the same, because eyeball is physical constant. The skull on the left would be more masculine with smaller features like eyes and nose. The skull on the right in contrast is more feminine with features that are bigger like eyes and nose.

Women have smaller skulls typically around 10% in volume. My theory is that a ratio of PFL or eyeball diameter (which is virtually constant) to biyzogmatic breath (which varies upto 30-mm between the smallest human skull and the largest) can explain the element of masculinity of femininity in a face that does not explicitly indicate sex. This kind of makes sense when you think that female beauty is netony or lack of growth.

@thecel I think you're interested in this. Cuz it's related to transmaxxing. A reminder for you.

What is the iris method again?

The diameter of the iris is a physical constant. in photographs where somebody is looking at the camera, you can measure the iris in pixels and get the coefficient which relates physical space to image space. They have to be looking at the camera head-on, though. Works best with photos of high image resolution.

---

This is an awesome thread. I gotta think about this more.

 

[Lookologist003]

probably about maybe seven numbers of ESR, Facial depth, cephalic index, chin-to-philtrum, mid face ratio. etc.

@thecel imagine you could classify all of humanity with a few bytes of data on your computer.

Lets say its ten bytes to describe coarsely what makes a skull aesthetic.
10 multiplied by the number of humans on earth = 80 billion bytes or some shit? That's barely the size of Batman: Arkham Knight.

You could submit an SQL query in that database and round up all of the craniofacial subhumanity like that.

 

[Djimo]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ). I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc. But it might be harder to pinpoint the start and end of the eyeball by looking at a picture. But what do yall think?

Jb both has CLC to bizygonial + CLC to ICD in t2 which isn't bad, I'm not sure yet if this has impact on how esr is perceived,

But this definitely does have impact on his esr; lower than ideal (1-1.5) CLC to ICD means that the eyes look more wide set than their esr vice versa for above the ideal

CLC to Bizygonial width = 18-20%
CLC to ICD = 1.25-1.5
CLC to eye width is 1-1.5

Yes I just spent 4 hrs figuring this out it's 6 am rn

 

[NuclearGeo20]

It would make the face more masculine because of something involving the size of the eyes to the width of the face. Still kind of ideal ratios, just makes the face more masculine and imposing and commanding of respect.
View attachment 3758993
The orbits of these two skulls are edited to be the same, because eyeball is physical constant. The skull on the left would be more masculine with smaller features like eyes and nose. The skull on the right in contrast is more feminine with features that are bigger like eyes and nose.

Women have smaller skulls typically around 10% in volume. My theory is that a ratio of PFL or eyeball diameter (which is virtually constant) to biyzogmatic breath (which varies upto 30-mm between the smallest human skull and the largest) can explain the element of masculinity of femininity in a face that does not explicitly indicate sex. This kind of makes sense when you think that female beauty is netony or lack of growth.

The diameter of the iris is a physical constant. in photographs where somebody is looking at the camera, you can measure the iris in pixels and get the coefficient which relates physical space to image space. They have to be looking at the camera head-on, though. Works best with photos of high image resolution.

The iris method seems unreliable for the following reason. The iris diameter accounting for 3 standard deviations is from 10 mm to 13 mm. That is too much of a deviation to be a reliable measurement in facial analysis.

Btw, size wouldn't make the face more masculine beyond a certain point. For example Jordan has proper ICD/IPD, but his skull and cheekbones are wide. It doesn't make him look more masculine. I think it makes him look a little uncanny when it comes to that aspect.

 

[Djimo]

Jb both has LCL to bizygonial + LCL to ICD in t2 which isn't bad, I'm not sure yet if this has impact on how esr is perceived,

But this definitely does have impact on his esr; lower than ideal (1-1.5) LCL to ICD means that the eyes look more wide set than their esr vice versa for above the ideal

LCL to Bizygonial width = 18-20%
LCL to ICD = 1.25-1.5
LCL to eye width is 1-1.5
LCL means lateral canthal line
Yes I just spent 4 hrs figuring this out it's 6 am rn

@NuclearGeo20 @mandiblade @thecel @Lookologist003

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Jb both has CLC to bizygonial + CLC to ICD in t2 which isn't bad, I'm not sure yet if this has impact on how esr is perceived,

But this definitely does have impact on his esr; lower than ideal (1-1.5) CLC to ICD means that the eyes look more wide set than their esr vice versa for above the ideal

CLC to Bizygonial width = 18-20%
CLC to ICD = 1.25-1.5
CLC to eye width is 1-1.5

Yes I just spent 4 hrs figuring this out it's 6 am rn

4 hours for nothing tbh. PFL has nothing to do with how wide/close set your eyes are. They are independent. Even the outer fifth would have nothing to do it with it since we already know JB's face is too wide in the first place. Mirin effort tho

 

[Djimo]

4 hours for nothing tbh. PFL has nothing to do with how wide/close set your eyes are. They are independent. Even the outer fifth would have nothing to do it with it since we already know JB's face is too wide in the first place. Mirin effort tho

Ofc those ratios doesn't change the esr but they do perceive the esr to looking wider or closer

 

[Djimo]

Ofc those ratios doesn't change the esr but they do perceive the esr to looking wider or closer

Bc jb his ICD is slightly bigger then the LCL it gives the perception of the eyes being more in the middle

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Ofc those ratios doesn't change the esr but they do perceive the esr to looking wider or closer

I think you're overthinking. Just use 3 terms; IPD, ICD, bizygomatic width. Anything else is too confusing. With those 3 terms, you can determine if eyes are close/far set or not.

 

[Djimo]

Bc jb his ICD is slightly bigger then the LCL it gives the perception of the eyes being more in the middle

I'm 99% if we factor every ratio I just made we could make a better version of esr

 

[NuclearGeo20]

I'm 99% if we factor every ratio I just made we could make a better version of esr

I already tried that 3 months ago. I factored in facial fifths. I did it for the eyeball and the canthi (2 versions of facial fifths). I got an average but it didn't matter. That's why I'm here. I've already attempted what you have. It didn't work like I wanted it to. Trust me getting your actual measurements will be much more of a help for you to understand your facial harmony. Your onto nothing, I already tried.

 

[Lookologist003]

The iris method seems unreliable for the following reason. The iris diameter accounting for 3 standard deviations is from 10 mm to 13 mm. That is too much of a deviation to be a reliable measurement in facial analysis.

Hard to argue with that. It's just an estimation. How confident are you that the range is 10-13? Where did you learn that from?

Btw, size wouldn't make the face more masculine beyond a certain point.

Does the left or right look more masculine?

 

[Djimo]

I think you're overthinking. Just use 3 terms; IPD, ICD, bizygomatic width. Anything else is too confusing. With those 3 terms, you can determine if eyes are close/far set or not.

Example 1 og Pic wide LCL

example 2 edited Pic to havenarrow LCL, narrow LCL gives the delusion of wider set eyes while the esr is still the same.

LCL Isn't the same as bizygonial width since LCL is a 180° line from the lateral canthus to the temporal muscle, bizygonial width is widest part of face so it's different.

if the LCL and bizygonial width aligne then the LCL to eye width ratio and LCL to ICD ratio determines how his eyes are set

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Hard to argue with that. It's just an estimation. How confident are you that the range is 10-13? Where did you learn that from?


Does the left or right look more masculine?
View attachment 3759132

The right looks sped imo.

Iris study; https://www.researchgate.net/figure...s a colored muscle,light that reaches the eye.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Example 1 View attachment 3759128 og Pic wide LCL

example 2 View attachment 3759129 edited Pic to havenarrow LCL, narrow LCL gives the delusion of wider set eyes while the esr is still the same.

LCL Isn't the same as bizygonial width since LCL is a 180° line from the lateral canthus to the temporal muscle, bizygonial width is widest part of face so it's different.

if the LCL and bizygonial width aligne then the LCL to eye width ratio and LCL to ICD ratio determines how his eyes are set

I disagree, the eyes look the same in both photos because they have the same ICD and IPD, proving that LCL has nothing to do with eye separation perception. The only thing it looks like you've done is zoom in onto the photo, which you have done. The eyes don't look wide set because properly set because of the LCL, they look proportional because they ARE proportional already. The only thing that messes up his harmony is his overly wide face.

 

[Lookologist003]

The right looks sped imo.

But does it or does it not look more masculine?

Here's that morph, but ICD/IPD is preserved

 

[Djimo]

I disagree, the eyes look the same in both photos because they have the same ICD and IPD, proving that LCL has nothing to do with eye separation perception. The only thing it looks like you've done is zoom in onto the photo, which you have done. The eyes don't look wide set because properly set because of the LCL, they look proportional because they ARE proportional already. The only thing that messes up his harmony is his overly wide face.

I zoomed in bc I can't morph it to that length, and that's obviously an exaggerating example but still