Official Anatomy Thread

[Willows]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew.

I didn't notice the ball till you said it, helm, but compared to the muscles it's hardly an offence.

As for crits, his shirt is flattening the crap out of his chest. Make it follow the contours of his pecs... all his muscles, for that matter, so that you don't lose so much volume. Also, avoid the tangent lines you've got in places for the shirt, it's not helping the whole volume issues as it makes the shirt look tattooed on rather than worn.

I dislike how his neck is wrinkly and how his face kinda melts into it, but that might just be personal preference.

You also seem to be missing an entire muscle between the pec and shoulder. Look at the man with the exposed ball, he has some peculiar muscle located where the straps of your man's shirt are.

One last thing, you seem to have a set way of drawing elbows when they're anything close to 90 degree bends viewed from the side. I could be wrong, but I believe that's a pattern you might want to break out of!


@Ryumaru (or anyone, really)

Thanks ("Very good gestures" :O), and I agree that my drawings lack structure, but I'm having a bitch of a time figuring out where to get started on that problem. Any chance you've got any tips?

[Ryumaru]

Draw with basic forms- cubes and spheres. You will never have structure in anything when you draw with lines.( obviously not meant literally)
Bridgeman's anatomy books are wonderful because they show the body as interlocking " wedging" masses.

[Feron]

drawing an arm withdrawing a sword from the back is quite tough.

any suggestions?

also i think the rest of the anatomy is getting better

[huZba]

Your own body can be a very useful reference. Check out what happens when you lift your arm like that. Pay attention to your shoulder area. Just flexing around you can get a good feeling about the range of movement of the joints and so forth. Do what Ryumaru suggested. Use primitives to block out the character and see if it makes sense in a 3D space. Go ahead and draw more NAKED MEN and don't obscure or leave out areas like you did with the face and feet. Just draw them all in, you'll be later thankful that you did.

Proportions are better than before, but still a bit all over the place cause i can't eyeball a point of reference to determine the scale everything.
Try and re-iterate this picture by checking out what you like about this one and playing around with areas that don't seem so good. Draw in a bit of a hurry and don't be too specific about things, just doodle away and you'll end up with happy accidents when your eye picks up something that looks nice. Even if you can't remember everything about the human body, you still recognize one when you see it. Let the subconscious side do a bit of work for you.

[Ben2theEdge]

Feron, this drawing reveals 2-dimensional thinking. If your character were trapped in a petri dish then this is how he would reach behind his back. But in 3 dimensions his elbow would move forward towards us, instead of to the side.

[Feron]

well i found some of my grandfathers ink pens, so i thought i'd try them out on a new anatomy sketch.

[Helm]

reference charts again. Second head ends at where the nipples are, third head ends at navel, fourth head ends at genitals.

[Evil-Ville]

You should probably draw both sides of the body. Also don't bother with detail until you've got the whole thing sketched.



He's colossal!

[Opacus]

I'm not exactly good at anatomy. But, I have some basic knowledge of it. Made an edit. Also just for some practice for myself I guess .
I still think he looks quite large but w/e.

[miascugh]

The overpaint's getting there, though the shapes all around still seem improvised, knees are way too far down. I don't think there's much point to practicing anatomy without references. And if you have trouble eye-balling the proportions use aids like grids and guidelines.. and start out rough to block out the proportions



I counted 7 1/2 heads in the reference (not Tom Hanks) and used those as basic reference point.

[Conceit]

that's so wrong it becomes right...somehow.

[ndchristie]

evil-vile - your edit has extended the shins too far, which are really quite short in life (a thing I always forget and so have been studying).  The proper size i think lies somewhere between the yellow you put down and the black you made. 

In general though these legs seem a bit short for me - perhaps a third of a head - you can't turn an eight headed figure into a seven and a half headed figure without raising the ass slighly, and it was already too low in the original.  Although the bottom of the bottom should never quite be as high as the midline, for it to be 4.25/7ths of the way down (about 60%) is a bit silly .

[miascugh]

If by evil-ville you mean miascugh, then let me say, that my overpaint is strongly referenced from an anatomy book and sticks very closely to the head grid (I made the head-count on paper first, then by eye-measure in ps, might not be 100%-ly accurate, but looks decent enough to me). Anyway, I didn't use the underlying old sketch at all, but made it all new according to the material I had, so one can pretty safely say, that this is how the guy I looked at was proportioned.

Please don't make me scan just to see how far off I am

[ndchristie]

sorry, that was my bad looking though the names.  I did mean your edit.

While it may be based solidly in anatomy books and charts, these vary greatly, many of them are poorly done, and in a studio full of say 30 people from 18 to 48, I don't need a ruler to see that, according to your head counts, the knee is too high in the black and the butt is too low in the yellow .

Interestingly enough, your sketch (when i fit it all on one screen, rather than scrolling by halves like I was), actually places the butt nicely, because you haven't measured the heads equally .  So the message here is to trust your eyes and hands more than your books, because the books here would have been off ^^.

[miascugh]

(Reference, while from a book on anatomy, was a photo of a - very well-trained - average guy, though, no chart involved)

[ndchristie]

Well, I don't have that photograph so I can't deny it, but most humans are equal from the top of the knee to the hip as they are the top of the knee to the heel.  Perspective and anomalies can change this, photo-references are actually trash for charts becuse there's so much to go wrong - so i'll tell you what i've been told several times here - if you're making a chart reference and selling it as a learning guide, best to make it properly measured and representative of the average man.

[TrevoriuS]

I'll post some of my own studies later perhaps, though I'd like this to be removed from the starting post:
Prehistoric anatomy: http://pixelheart.net/anatomy/diagrams/muscularsystem.jpg , there's a picture of the skeletal view from the same author - both don't match, and both are wrong ><).
Overdrivern anatomy: http://pixelheart.net/anatomy/diagrams/muscles.jpg (possibly good for some muscle names, and attachment points).
Made up spine: http://pixelheart.net/anatomy/skeletons/Skeleton-Side.jpg (9 Cervical, neck, vertebrae? devision in my book's still 5/12/7).
Cubic thorax: http://pixelheart.net/anatomy/skeletons/human_skeleton.jpg

And ndchristie -> 'hip' is a broad area. I assume you mean the top edge, no?

[chriskot]

Wow. I just realized how rarely I actually draw things from life. It's like I go months without actually drawing anything that exists in reality... Gotta change that.

Okay. So I tried doing a few quick pencil sketches of my left hand a little while ago, maybe about 5-15 minutes for each.

(apologies for terrible quality- my scanner wasn't working so I had to use my webcam)


I can tell just by looking at it that my palm is too small in the last one. Did I mess anything else up? I don't really know any of the anatomy rules for hands.

well i found some of my grandfathers ink pens, so i thought i'd try them out on a new anatomy sketch.

I'm not sure if anyone's pointed it out yet, but one thing that keeps catching my attention is that the feet on your people seem to consistently be a little on the small side. I think that the length of a foot is supposed to be roughly half of the distance from an ankle to the bottom of the knee, or something like that. Yours look to be closer to a third of the distance in most cases.

[Atnas]

Hogarth says the length of the foot is equivalent to the length of the forearm. It checks out alright on me. 

[TrevoriuS]

You'd have to remove the.. <insert correct word here> expanded masses at the end,the places where muscles attach and where you can recognize the bone from the outside of the body - such as the ankle, elbow and wrist.
Well back to my point, if you remove these, and keep only the piece of (more) constant thickness, you would have the length of the foot. Put your big toe against your wrist, you'll see your heel is far from your elbow. Note that my feet are average (at least out here in the Netherlands) So perhaps Hogarth's as well as your, feet are large

[big brother]

In case you haven't seen this already, I'd recommend checking this out:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334333/Constructive-Anatomy

[ter-o]

In case you haven't seen this already, I'd recommend checking this out:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334333/Constructive-Anatomy

I have that book and I gotta admit that it was too cumbersome for a newbie like myself. I first need to learn how to construct the basic proportions and masses of the hand (or any other anatomy) in different postures and after that I might be able to practise all the constructive anatomy beneath the surface.

Andrew Loomis said nicely that "If the artist looks for the big planes, the big lights and shadows, the big values and relationships, he will do a better job. One can easily get lost in a lot of little truths without seeing the big ones."

Thus I can't recommend that book for someone who's new to anatomy but it's worth while for more advanced artists.

[Krut]

Ah!, this is great, ill be sure to post here once im out of my tight schedule, i've been meaning to get out of my comfort zone, and go a bit more realistic anatomically speaking.

I know its a bit of a stretch here, but taking in account the recent changes here...is it possible that in a near future, a section dedicated to traditional drawing is created? Sure, there are other places already dedicated to that...but dunno, this feels like "home" in the art department, you kno?
I know, i know, pixelation is dedicated to pixels, heh, but... hell, if i can get out of my comfort zone (try to at least), why cant pixelation? 

Cheers! 

[Helm]

Krut, I was thinking about that too. Probably it would diffuse the focus of Pixelation a bit and that's not exactly good. We don't want separate cultures from the pixel art board and the 'traditional art' whatever theoretical board. This happens a lot to big forums, there's people there and people here and they don't mix too much. Everything must come down to pixel art for this place to survive. We have the OT creativity threads if you want to post non pixel art and if you explicitly ask for critique you will get it from the keen eyes we have around. I've used it a lot, it works!

[EyeCraft]

This is a great thread idea! Here's something I've been fiddling around with for an hour or so. It's a re-approach of an old piece I did in opencanvas a while ago;



I feel like I'm getting a lot closer to how a face is actually structured, but I'm sure it's still off   

[TomF]

Well it's miles better than the old piece, but something about the mouth really bothers me.

[Dokozai]

Not fleshed out, I'd like help with the basics.

Arm length, leg length, the works!
 

[Helm]

let's look at the chart:



Use your own judgment? Are the legs in good relative size to the torso? How about the head to the overal height? Look in relation, look good, make internal connections about ratios between lengths of body parts. Then draw again. Repeat every day. Eventually you'll get the hang of it.

[xdjkittiex]

The images are two assignments that I did for school last week.

Arm Skeletal & Muscle


Leg Skeletal & Muscle

[Atnas]

  The hand is backwards.

Also you're missing some of the bones in the palm in the skeleton view as well as the foot.

I mean, it looks nice so I'll have to nitpick. What grade did you get?

[Dusty]

The hand is backwards.

I don't think so. Looks like he has the hand turned thumb-out.

[EyeCraft]

The hand is backwards.

I don't think so. Looks like he has the hand turned thumb-out.

Aye, the hand looks correct to me.

[Atnas]

It looked like a tricep to me XD

But upon further research it is not. 

[xdjkittiex]

Atnas -

Like Dusty and Eyecraft said, the palms are facing the viewer with thumbs out.
I hadn't realized it but I did get a little lazy with the smaller bones in the foot and the wrist / palm in the skeletal examples. 
(I think I got away with that because we're doing foot and hand skeletal & muscle sketches this week)
I got an A on each.

[Atnas]

Yeah I knew about the hand's position, the direction the arm was facing just confused me. It's good work!

[Helm]

Center of gravity. She's leaning. Never draw an incomplete figure on a limited canvas. The actual anatomy doesn't suffer so much as body language and posture does, the fundamentals.

[Helm]

Definitely. I suggest this method: draw a series of thumbnails. Literally, as big as thumb little sketches. These are great for capturing vitality. Then blow up the best thumbnail to about a4 size and overdraw (just put another paper on top, or do it digitally,whatever you want) pulling together the thumbnail, getting good anatomy in there on that level. This is how most pro illustrators work.

[khorin]

I've been drawing from Sara Simblet's "Anatomy for the Artist". Here's one of them turned into a digital piece:

[Helm]

Try it and see. Just rough doodle. If a construction works, it will work at this size.

[Helm]

Yes this is a great first step. Now it depends on which one you choose to work more on.

[Helm]

well I can't parse the pointing at the skies body language, emotionally. What does it mean? Who does this? The pose is not connected with something actual for me and therefore I can't really suggest those poses. If you care to explain what you're going for perhaps I'll see it.

[Helm]

The backstory's all well and good but your concern is how much of this communicates - or can communicate - in a single picture. I couldn't tell she was pointing as a specific thing in the sky until you pointed it out to me just now so yes, definitely go with the difficult pose (the top left one) where we can at least see the Aurora. Make the hand point to IT with foreshortening and not directly above (where there is nothing) and if at anything attempt a more 3/4 look with the girl on the side of the image so we may see a bit more of her than her back while she points.

[Helm]

Well you can communicate that the character is surprised by an environmental effect that occurs and is pointing towards it in amazement. That's I think, pretty fair.



Does this help? The little graph next to the picture shows how the points of interest are placed in the plane, and bigger is more important. A pleasing construction on this level will help the picture later on much.

[Helm]

Well first of all this is much better than before as it is. Yes, pull the whole scene down and have more space than ground. Space is alright being empty because that's what... space... is. The pose is quite alright. It won't be an easy thing to draw, but you certainly can do it. Keep in mind this: When you're done with something and finally finished with it, it stands on its own merit and almost always that merit is something you could never believe would be there when you're doing an early sketch like this. Stuff... happens, when you draw a while thing like this and you'll be pleasantly surprised with yourself if you go along with it.

[Akira]

Do you point at things when you're alone? Pointing is used to convey information to another person. I'd suggest you change the gesture to one of surprise. Then emphasize the aurora to show that it is the cause of the surprise.

[JJ Naas]

IMO you can have trees, bushes and stuff on the edges of the picture to help frame the scene, but the problem with the tree on top of the highest point of the hill we can see is that it makes the pic unbalanced, too many heavy elements on the right side of the picture. I think you have too many elements here as well. This is clearly an atmosperic pic, so get rid of all the elements that are not necessary for the picture. If you want to have buildings in the pic, you don't need to show every detail of the buildings, just specs of light in the windows or the roof. The mountain in the distance wouldn't have any details visible either, just the outlines. The campfire may be too much as well.

Were you considering the golden ration when composing the picture?

[JJ Naas]

Well, here's my take on the scene. This one's not about the anatomy but the general composition of the image. The tree's still there, sort of framing the image on the right side plus there are some bushes on the left side for framing as well. I moved the tallest mountain to the left to counterbalance the heaviness of the right side. The attention is on the sky, so I brought the horizon down more. The buildings are only hinted.

[Jad]

I don't know what the golden ration is. I just threw things together that I thought might make sense or look good. I'm really only used to drawing figures/humans. Landscapes, wildlife, and buildings confuse me. I don't know where to begin or how to do them. I've even screwed around with point-based perspective and nothing's ever come out looking good. This is ending up like every other drawing idea I've gotten.. starts out cool and somewhat exciting, then as soon as my pencil or stylus hits the page/tablet it all goes to hell.

[edit] I am thankful for the help I've received.. I don't want anyone to think I'm being ungrateful. It's just a matter of personal disappointment. I guess I'll try my hand at it again later today.

Actually, with the amount of verbal disappointment of yourself that you often drench your posts in, I actually thought you were all enormous amounts of talk about stuffs and no skill. :O

So srsly, that's obviously not the case at all, since your skills are actually good. It's really that disappointment in yourself that hinders you from actually completing your images. Actually, if you just took the first sketch with the sitting girl and tried to flesh it out a bit, that'd be good enough. And now you're actually improving on that, that's even better! So just hang in there, guy

[tocky]

This is essentially the reason why JJ Naas's composition works, I think:

Big ol' swirly line.
Generally, people start from the top, find something that goes somewhere, and follow it. If that's a clear path that leads past all the focal points, and lands somewhere interesting, that's about the best you could hope for. There's more to the edit than just that, but this is a really useful trick, and it's dead simple, so I figure I should mention it.

[Argyle]

These are scans from a page of Richard Williams' The Animator's Survival Kit (by the director of animation of Who Framed Roger Rabbit), a book which I cannot recommend to enough people.  A while back I was ambitious about getting better in my drawings enough to go to the local college's life drawing sit-ins to draw nude models.  Although I only got a chance to go about 2 or 3 times, the studies drastically improved my knowledge of how a body should look and understanding what separates a drawing of a character from looking like a hunk of ridiculous ground meat shaped like a stick figure.

Drawing from picture references helps out a ton in the understanding of anatomy.  But drawing a model in person with time restrictions for poses ranging between 5 and 20 minutes is invaluably helpful in getting your mind trained to cut to the core of defining a body's truly defining shapes and restrictions without becoming overburdened with spending 20 minutes making sure the eyes look nice and pretty on your picture while the rest of the head looks like a melon.

Anyone seeking to pursue a study of drawing human anatomy should seriously consider looking up life drawing sessions that are hosted in your area.  I plan to look into going back and doing more of this regularly for a couple years in the future (after life settles down... moving in a week and our first baby due at the ending of October ).  This thread was just the driving inspiration that reminded me of this goal.


If the recent flood we had didn't destroy my old huge sketch pad I'll look into snapping some photos of the sketches from the sessions later on tonight.  I have not done much studying of anatomy in the 5 or so years since I did them so some critiques should still help me learn more