Hey guys,
What's the best approach to measure proportions, in order to remember them essentialy? Like if the figure is straight I understand that from head to toe a straight line and measure is the best approach but what happens when the figure is all twisted like this image, how would you measure it? I use the red image to measure stuff (vertical and horizontal) but I wonder if the other one (blue line) is better. I will be honest I am really stuck with this freaking dilema right now. I know taht Loomis approach this problem with box for every form in perspective but that's too long if you are doing a live model. Do people 'imagine' boxes and do the central lines in their head? Even with 1 minute poses? I mean doing the boxes takes ages if you are looking for neat proportions. Anyway let me know what you think, thanks!
> i know my image is shit, but its just to show a quick example
doing it your way is like studying for a math exam by remember the answers to specific questions. you're not understanding the underlying theory at all
>>2414571
Not OP but you didn't suggest any alternatives.
Personally I don't really measure out foreshortening to such a degree, I usually just look at reference/model and get a "feel" of what the size/shape should be. Breaking it down into flat shapes helps in that regard.
One minute poses is more about capturing the general gesture and form, strict proportions aren't super important.
For quicker drawings where there isn't time to practice gridding it, just figure out the shapes/proportions through alignment, breaking down shapes, and negative space
>>2414575
I do that too but recently i tried to get more precise with my work .. but man it's so hard to keep proportions clean in twisted angle figures. and yes you might make a box, but the box can be 2 inch too far to the left or whatever and the whole drawing fails in term of correct measurements. I'm asking so I can see if there is a secret way I didnt know about, if there isnt I will pretty much keep a mix of my red line technique and 'feel' stuff.
>>2414578
yep thats what i do but thanks for posting!
>>2414585
When drawing from life, that's the main way most people do it. They aren't necessarily attempting to measure proportions of the human body, just of what they're seeing in front of them. Drawing from life like that is approached differently than trying to build a form from imagination.
If you want to get oblique or perspective'd proportions down, you need to 1) be able to break down/build up a form from more basic shapes and 2) be able to place those shapes in space in perspective.
If you have a solid grasp on perspective, the straight-on head measurements still apply, you just have to be able to turn your ruler in 3 dimensions, so to speak.
>>2414575
>>2414578
This. Break it up into shapes and use negative space to make judgements, then get really good at drawing those basic shapes arranged in all sorts of different angles.
Practice it a shit load, just the basic shapes.
>>2414582
>>i tried to get more precise with my work
By precise do you mean more accurate, or more detailed?
Picture slightly related, rough shapes vs detailed. Artist is namajake.
I find their stuff quite useful, so I ripped it all. For some reason, I could only find it in its entirety on Twitter, which is a complete abomination for easy viewing.
http://imgur.com/a/mCcP6
