why choose acrylics rather than oils for faces and other vital blending areas ?

[Ronaldo]

Well with acrylics you can have all those lovely bottle holders and racks on your desk which look impressive , oils are usually stashed away in a drawer or box and you have to rummage to find the specific paint stained tube you are looking for and get some unwanted paint in your hands.
I see quite a few oil guys still in the mix ; myself included.
Re poor drying time with oils is just down to poor technique as is unable to blend with acrylics.

As for unrealistic flesh tones and the now common practice of almost black lower cheeks taken to the extreme which I now find myself leaning towards because if you enter a competition without this it generally gets ignored ; although I just cant bring myself to go the full Monty

I here all the pro and cons for specific paints esp oils . they don't smell , turpentine does and if its the pure stuff I like it

I have never licked acrylics is this some secret technique .

I tend to hold three bushes when painting with oils two in my hand and one in my teeth like a movie commando ; when blending , a real bad habit esp when using cadmium pigments but enables a quick change to blend .

One last thing as far as I am concerned water soluble oils are the worst of both worlds

 

[JasonB]

I love the smell of oil paints. And as the name implies, odorless thinner is, well, odorless. If it has any smell at all, I can't detect it...though years of exposure to MEK, paint stripper and laquer thinner might have a little to do with that...
Grumbacher odorless is so mild that I can do oil washes over acrylics that haven't been dry for more than a few minutes and it won't remove it. If you tell me the smell of oils paints is offensive, than sir, we have a problem!

 

[Ronaldo]

You go your way and I will go mine. After nearly twenty years of oil stink, thinner stink, etc., I worked my butt off to get the same result from acrylic. I do not understand the need of people to suggest their way is the superior way.

I don't recall saying my way with oils is better , I really like the results that are achieved with acrylics , they are just not for me.
Many moons ago before the acrylic revolution I painted with Humbrol paints until they started messing with the recipe some of it due to the fact that the factory burnt down .
When I changed to oils I spoke to a sculptor from Glasgow and asked why he didn't go down the oil path ; his answer was its taken me a lifetime to perfect the Humbrol approach. I am now in the same boat with oils

 

[Wayneb]

Whatever works for you and makes you content with what you do is the way is go. After all, I don't think there are any artistic geniuses on PF that would advise otherwise.

Except maybe Winny…….

 

[fogie]

This is one of those perennial discussions of which we never tire - we all have our own ways and means of painting which
we believe to be the best. The fact is that Oils and Acrylics produce equally wonderful results if we use them properly. Each
require different techniques, neither necessarily require any 'gee-whizz' additives, under-painting, over-painting, or any sort
of varnish. We choose to use such things because we believe it helps us achieve the results we're looking for. Others of us
believe we can get by without any of that guff. Which is right or wrong ? The answer of course is that you do whatever works
for you. (As for me....I'm a dyed in the wool oil painter simply because of 'the old dog new tricks' thing.)

Mike