I was browsing finally finished today and came across a set of pictures that, while in need of some improvement, got the critique that the bodies were out of proportion - legs too short and arms, torsos too long. And I was looking at these pictures and thinking I've seen WAY WORSE in real life. I've seen people with ridiculously short legs and unbelievably long ones, and arms. So what are we critiquing based on? Some average? what about variety? What if I'm drawing Matthew Mcconaughey (http://barefoot.provocateuse.com/ima...naughey_09.jpg).
I think everything has to be in the context of the picture/subject. Solid anatomy helps
to break the rules effectively which can make a picture work when all the elements are in place.
It's all pretty subjective, but sometimes its glaringly obvious where an unintentional flaw is trying to
get fudged in by the artist or is otherwise bringing down the rest of the picture. A good solid gesture
can go a really long way to make a picture work where anatomy is unusual.
I think I can kind of see what you are getting at...when I type in Matthew Mcconaughey
in google, I got a "short arms" search query option...so clearly you are not alone in this.
I've never noticed before. It's like when you notice Shannen Doherty has one eye higher
than the other...after you see it. You'll always see it:
Matthew has short legs and arms compared to his torso, enough to stand out imo. Look at where those elbows reach.
thats not what i get from this picture... its just foreshortening on his upperarms... theyre bent back... also foreshortening on his legs. thats the main trap of believing in photography as a perfect representation. to me as said his proportions are perfectly fine even in this pic.