I'm sure everyone's is bigger than mine ;) I think a little more oilness to the skin would be good in my opinion. Have you tried face-off's products... they will blow your mind. But none of this address the original issue of why figures soffer in terms of realism when you pull back. Can anyone summarize the conclussions? Shadow and lighting matters more, texture matters more, what is it? I get the sense that maybe psychologically we are willing to fudge a face mentally, acccept the unreal and boost the real. As a teacher I found that the facial recognition features of optical pre-processing in human perception can overwhelm actual visual information... angles are plumbed, features are regularized , etc. The clearest evidence is to have someone draw a face head but tipped to the side... so often the result is skewed and leveled features. If a head is drawn in a three-quarters pose the eyes will be shown the same size and sometimes head on, the lips also head on... the cheeks in profile... I saw this year after year very wide spread except among the several surgens and doctors I taught in night classes. I have decided this is not weak drawing but strong pattern recognition at work. To draw well you must decontectualize the face and view its forms as shapes, you can look at the gastalt in the end for nuance. The optical system also does contrast and edge enhancement. With a mid shot or long shot render the optical pre-processing features of the brain are probably less strong so maybe we default to a predjudice for photographic representation: narrow value range, high contrast etc. This is my thinking maybe regarding the essential issue involved. Sorry to be long winded.