*sigh*

The first point I will say: The photos in your post are actually the only such images that matches the colours quite well out of hundreds that I've ever seen that actually doesn't show the differences in colour, so either the camera has been adjusted to balance the yellows as such, the sensor is of a certain quality that does a compensatory adjustment because it doesn't have the range to show a proper representation, or it's simply been photoshopped/adjusted in post-production, or somehow, but that said, I absolutely am willing to be open-minded about the possibility that you have the rare unicorn that came from a small batch that corrected the colours, but as stated, I've yet to see a single other picture that shows such a balance in the colours.

Spoiler: TLDR

But if not the case (of the rare unicorn batch) and you have a normal version as per every other example of this figure that I've seen:

Then let's me say how this "discussion" came about. You stated that under UV / sunlight, you do not see the difference between the shades.

Quoting your original message: His issue is that paints and plastic do not react to differing light levels the same way. His colours are almost perfectly matched in one condition, but one condition only: natural sunlight. Under any other scenario, often with bright white artificial lights causes completely different reactions in the two yellows, often with the plastic looking faded and the paint going a sickly "highlighter" colour. Both look rich and warm in sunlight.

My point is that is false, under ANY light condition aside low to darkness as your eyes/vision "flips" to a B/W mode (human anatomy 101), and unless your eyesight suffers from a limited colour blindness to the shades of the colours involved, you will still see the difference in the shades of yellow. You cannot change the colour of something with light, you can change it's appearance and perception with adjustment or such, but the colours are still the same. I gave you a picture showing this, and you have done nothing but try to discredit it since, using anything and everything to argue it.

You have done several posts that comes off as very defensive and simply trying to "prove" your point, using UV, and several context about paint, thickness, and so on, involving the BB saucer that I used as an example of a figure where you have plastic and paint that are quite close to a near perfect match between a plastic coloration and paint, which Hasbro could and should have done with Sunstreaker, to which I elaborated (again). I stated that the BB saucer did it right and the colours are close enough that it doesn't stick out at all compared to Sunstreaker, and then, you (for some reason) went into that in my picture, the BB saucer was also bad/different colours, etc. because that's not they look to YOU under YOUR lighting condition. Again.. perspective.

My points are simple: 1) I am not even close to being the only person that sees this differences in the colours, 2) no matter how much you want to try and find a way out (including trying to deconstruct and come up with "possible reasons" that simply aren't as valid as you're hoping them to be), the colours used by Hasbro in the mix of the plastic and paint have been consistent for every example of this figure that i) I've seen, ii) every pictures posted, iii) what the majority of other members and other fans, including everyone that I've shown this figure to has stated.

You need more proof, take your figure to a local public place and just ask strangers: "is all of this figure the same yellow?" Do it outside, do it inside and I know that the results are going to be without doubt with a majority of "no, there is two shades of yellow" if you do the question in a non-leading way unless there's something in the local water that's affected the local population's eyesight.

My pictures (and others that I've posted before under multiple lighting conditions) do not "exacerbates" any differences in colours between the plastic and the paint whatsoever, they are accurate to the eye, are the direct images taken with the cameras being tested and balanced for colour accuracy. From the hundreds of other images I've seen of this figures, most are very close to identical in color range, some not as much, and some showed to be "adjusted" on purpose to reduce the differential.

Just try and think for a moment what is the logic here and what is more plausible:
1) "eyes/live" sees the same as the images
2) "eyes/live" sees different from what they see in the images

And now consider why both of these can happen.

That is exactly how our eyes do and what colour blindness does, it tries to balance the range of colours with what you can see. The image will look different according to how you look at it, from the quality of the sensor that took it to the screen quality that you're looking at it with.

Indoor light, next to my screen which is a high-end photography/graphic level quality one (which due to being a back-lit display as all pretty much are, will never photograph perfectly), and under artificial lighting condition will differ from the outside/sun light. (note that I am using photography lights that are balanced for frequency of light and this is as the cleanest white setting)


And my point remains the same: the differences between the two yellows is still crazy obvious, and yes, AGAIN, this is exactly how I see my figure and its colours.

The colour/visual acuity thing, it's why some people can be "fooled" with an image and state that "holy crap that image is so realistic" and another would say "I can see that's just a printed/screen" image, it's all about visual acuity.

Your point has been as I understand it "it's not that bad and can't be seen under ONE circumstance aka sunlight). Sorry, but under every possible light, I see it, and others do too, so regrettably if you are insisting that you don't see it or that it's minor, then be logical here, you just have a touch of color blindness and should accept it, and move on, as aside this figure, you'll probably never notice it and it will not impact your life unless you need to cut some similarly coloured wires to disarm a bomb. (unless, again, this is all because you have the unicorn version)

Short version: the colours of Sunstreaker are mixmatched horribly regardless of lighting and you'll see it unless you suffer from a touch of colour blindness and arguing this isn't going to change that no matter what argument you use... end of story. I'm officially done and really want to move on.

If it's a case of the "unicorn" then yes, you may have a version that the colours are much better matched, but I have yet to see or even hear about a running change, and he's already a pass wave that gone from most shelves and I've not heard anything about second runs for it.

 

Back to Starscream thanks

 

For a person who seems well-versed in photography, you're weirdly ignorant of the effects of light and UV refraction.

I just walked my Sunstreaker from a closed-off washroom with diffused white LED lighting, where I can see the pale yellow plastic and sickly greenish painted parts, over to the window, where both colours look instead warm, and well within "acceptable" colour match ranges. It's not colour-blindness if I can clearly see those differences, and every gradation in between.

It's nothing to do with camera lenses or post-processing. It's light sources and UV concentration.

 

I posted the images to show how the plastic was darker in my viewing conditions (identical to what the photo was taken in) compared to how much lighter/paler the plastic is in your outdoor photo. I wasn't trying to showcase anything related to the colour matching. At no point have I ever said nor implied that I have an Earthrise Sunstreaker that isn't mismatched nor that my copy has a better paint match than anyone else's. The paint is noticeably different (I want to say darker but I'm not quite sure how to articulate it) and it has an obvious slight green tint to it due to the blue push from the translucent blue plastic under it (all copies will have that tint/push unless the paint was laid on thick enough) as my paint looks thinner than it should be.

The photos are accurate to what I (and others) see on my copy and the (the viewing condition is identical to where the picture was taken as it's the same room). I want to stress again that these photos have absolutely nothing to do with the colour of the paint vs the colour of the plastic. I took them after I received Sunstreaker to showcase that my copy's roof sits closer than apparently a lot of copies do (the photo size of the 3/4 view exacerbates how large the gap is on the a-pillar between the windshield and the window; the front view is a vastly better representation of the gap but the light bouncing off the line break of the windshield makes it look like the windshield isn't flush to the glass on the feet even though it is). That is literally the only reason that either of those photos exists.

If you look at the 3/4 front view photo and pay attention to the window trim (the piece of painted yellow plastic in the middle of the translucent blue window) while ignoring the door (as it has heavy shadows due to the lighting and glass), you'll see there is an obvious difference between the paint and the plastic. It just wound up being a really flattering angle by pure happenstance which added to the confusion. Speaking of happenstance, you can also see how sloppy and thin some of my paint is at that image size which showcases what I was talking about with the green tint and blue push from the translucent blue plastic (the window trim looks like it was painted in a different colour from the roof). For the sake of clarity, none of the paint matches the plastic and that difference is noticeable.

It looks like we both just found the source of all of the confusion. I never said any of that, another user did. I really wish we could have both realized this sooner.

I wasn't trying to say Buzzworthy Origins Bumblebee was egregiously mismatched, it is without question a super close match. I brought up Buzzworthy Origins Bumblebee in your photo because the yellow plastic in your photo on both toys is far lighter/paler than it actually is under a lot of viewing conditions which makes Buzzworthy Origins Bumblebee look incredibly mismatched in that photo. All I was trying to convey was how the yellow plastic looks will vary wildly due to the viewing environment (which is true for any colour). I wasn't trying to use that photo as proof that Sunstreaker has super close matching paint like Buzzworthy Origins Bumblebee does.

I now understand why you thought I was though, you think that I'm another user that you had been talking to before I started replying this morning. That also explains why you think I'm trying to re-frame what I've said in order to "find a way out" as well as why you think that I need to:

I have said several times (in previous replies) that they don't match. That's not me trying to backtrack, I'm not the user that you were talking to prior to today (09.23.2021) at 10:02 am (CDT).

Your outdoor photo is the only photo of yours that I recall ever having seen (if I've "liked" any of your photos in the past, please understand that I don't pay attention to user names/avatars/etc. when I read through threads or scroll through pictures).

My exacerbation comment was about how the environment the picture was taken in resulted in the plastic looking significantly lighter/paler than in my viewing condition of they toy (as well as the average viewing condition) without affecting the paint to such a substantial degree. e.g. It looks like the paint was slightly darker and a little more tinted in your outdoor photo based on your indoor photos which unfortunately weren't in the same post as the outdoor photo (I'm not throwing shade, it's just unfortunate). The goal was for people to understand that's not the shade of yellow that the plastic looks like under all viewing conditions and, that everyone will see something different. I wasn't trying to say nor imply that you were completely blowing the difference out of proportion nor that you were trying to mislead anyone.

Your indoor photos are significantly closer to what most people are going to see. Mine doesn't look quite that "stark" (for the lack of a better word) but, that's really going to come down the lighting (my plastic looks a little darker than yours as a result of lighting) and the paint thickness (your paint looks far more yellow and saturated than mine does). I want to be explicitly clear that my paint mismatch is noticeable and, that it's something that I can clearly see without searching for it. I am in no way trying to downplay that. I'm just trying to point out that we notice the differences (likely to a very similar degree) for different reasons since you clearly have an appropriate amount of paint on your roof while I do not (or vice versa as there's no way to tell what the factory wanted other than not translucent blue plastic).

Right, that's why I said "To you under those exact lighting conditions (it's obviously overcast/cloudy and has rained) and viewed on your display under its exact lighting conditions." at the very beginning of my first reply to anything that you have said in this thread. I wasn't taking a swipe at you nor making a dig nor trying to say there is no mismatch or that it's minimal.

That is not, and has never been my point. This further reinforces my belief that the source of confusion is the result of inadvertently having me mixed up with another user. The only condition that it 100% won't be seen is in the complete absence of light.

 

You are correct, the follow-through from the other member got mixed with your response, as in part the topics mentioned overlapped enough that I believed that I was responding to one person. But you kept answering on items meant for the other member to answer, which caused this confusion.

But I will stand by what I have stated, in answering for the other member, you still did come out as condescending many times and still twisted some parts.

What it comes down to, that I believe that we can agree to is that regardless of the lighting environment, the colours do not match, something that the other member continued to argue as false with the last response being a show of the type of person he truly is.

So... I wish that I would have realize my error of you responding on my answers to another member, but I really am done with this.

Hell, if there's a mod that would want to just delete this whole mess, I'd be fine with that... I had clearly stated that I didn't want to get into it, but still got drawn into it, and it just repeated the same arguments again.

 

The main reason I want an "Earthrise" Slipstream is to get her in the voyager size class so she scales better with other Seekers. I think forcing Slipstream into the pitfall of being a moldmate of Windblade just because that's what her Legends figure was is not a very good idea. While they both turn into jets, they're both very different characters, and that can be seen quite apparently with all the faux parts in Legends Slipstream's robot mode. While Legends Slipstream is great on her own merits, she only really works in a vacuum, IMO. Timelines Slipstream is great in this regard as she fits in perfectly with the other TFP Seekers while still looking unique.


As for some other general points people have brought up; personally, I never bought any of the Siege Seekers, so having two of the same character isn't really a concern for me. I prefer my Seekers to be (mostly) uniform in appearance but I wouldn't be opposed to having some be Earth jets and some be tetrajets if no full Earth cast was available, however, the Siege and Earthrise molds are not the same size in robot mode, which makes me not want to really have to do that for the sake of consistent scale. Though I understand that some people don't want certain characters in Earth modes since they never appeared on Earth in the cartoon, but I think having the option would be nice. Ideally, you'd have each character with an Earth and tetrajet mode available so people could pick and choose, but that's very unlikely.

Collecting double digits worth of the same mold with the only major difference for most of them being the colour scheme definitely isn't for everyone, but I'm sure that the Seeker fans out there would be happy to finally be able to have a complete Seeker collection. It seems every time HasTak comes close to delivering a full Seeker cast, a few characters get left out. With the Classics Seeker mold that this Earthrise one is based on, the only characters we didn't get (not counting G2 stuff) were the Rainmakers Ion and Nova Storm (with Siege being their very first official transforming toys to ever exist) as well as Slipstream (who just had zero luck with toys until finally getting a Kre-O figure of all things in 2014), though her "G1" incarnation didn't really exist at the time so it was really just the two Rainmakers who were missing. There was also Red Wing but he only came into existence as a result of a comic getting the colours wrong for a Sunstorm duplicate due to the messy production of the Classics mold Timelines Welcoming Committee (sans Nacelle).

As some people have pointed out, a generic purple and grey Decepticon Air Warrior would be neat. But I'm not really sure I'd buy into it myself since if you get every other seeker, there's not much use in an army builder Seeker unless you want to start your own Decepticon Air Force. And if HasTak doesn't give us all the Seekers, you can always attempt to paint your own Seekers if you really want to but getting ahold of a bunch of Earthrise Seekers to repaint won't be cheap.

 

Agreed on Slipstream. She does not work as a Windblade redeco. I'm currently using a repainted Beast Hunters Starscream with a replacement head but I'm not satisfied with it. She needs to be a voyager. The Seeker molds we have are very male-coded, which is why I'm waiting to see how newer ones will look. I considered getting a PotP Elita-1 but that mold wouldn't look right in the group with Siege and Earthrise figures. With her origin as a misfit clone, I think Slipstream should fit in while still standing out. The TFP mold really was perfect for that, since it was androgynous enough she could be set aside just by the color choices.

I have a shelf full of mixed Siege and Earthrise Seekers and the size difference is only apparent if you have them face to face in a static pose. Even then, it's only a couple of millimeters at the top of the head. To me, they look good together and I like having the variety of Earth modes and tetrajets. I understand why someone would want just one or the other. However, mixing them is almost necessary with the lack of availability of the Earthrise figures, even if you just want to cover the named characters.

If you're customizing to fill out the ranks, it's easier to get Siege figures at a decent price. With Siege Starscream's multiple clearances and appearances at discount stores, they've been downright affordable. I've painted five Siege Seekers myself, which was helped by how easily they disassemble. I feel bad for anyone stocking up on ER Starscreams as project fodder. Between the current prices and the extensive use of pins, it would just be painful to get multiple customs from it.

 

More seekers the better, but I know that molds do wear out over time. In order, these are the next seekers I would like to see:

1. Slipstream
2. Sunstorm
3. "Action Master" Thundercracker
4. G2 Starscream
5. Nacelle
6. "generic" seeker color.

After all these, I think I would be good for Seekers.