Anatomy Study: Need expert advice

BradMyers82

Hey, been working on this off and on for a while now. Going for a very realistic bodybuilder anatomical model. Lots to do still...

- Refine forms a bit more
- Start working on A symmetry (especially in the abs)
- Tighten some areas up, smooth out others and simulate skin better
- Maybe play around with scale a bit more?
- Work on details like veins and crap

Looking for advice on areas that are incorrect. I keep running into stuff all the time myself so I'm sure there are plenty more. Anyone who has a good eye for anatomy feel free to tear me apart! Thanks!!!

Progress from beginning:


Current Progress:

BradMyers82

*Crickets* lol

Well, one thing I know I need to work on more are the forarms. I def. just "fudged" a lot of that.

btw, I challenge anyone to show me a real human with the inner part of the forearm between the brachioradialis muscle and the palmaris longus muscle completely split like you see in all the anatomy models. Its frustrating because you see the muscles so defined there in anatomy models, but in a real life human you see a hint of the muscles and a lot of tendons and ligaments. No where near the kind of depth carved in the forearm as you would expect when looking at anatomy models.

Anyway, I am using a combo of real life images and other artists models as reference and I see almost everyone making errors in the forearms specifically. Gonna have to really gather some more good references here cause its really challenging to wrap my head around this area.

BradMyers82

Here is an example of what I mean...

anatomy model:


Real human not showing hardly any forearm detail where you would expect.

Evil raz

I like it. Probably better than what I can do.
But if you want an amateurs advice here's my two cents...

The quads set (specifically rectus femoris) seems pretty messy from the overall sculpt. Also the sartorius seems like it's disappearing or going way too back. But it isn't supposed to be like that. Even on your reference.
kinda hard to find relaxed pose so here is the left leg not flexing.

I think more depth is needed around the back and the glutes because it seems kinda flat for a bodybuilder.



And comparing from your reference, the pectoralis major needs to be more buffed/mass and the same goes for the arms. The depth in the striation of the pectoralis major connected to the ribcage is too much, it doesn't look realistic it looks more comic book style.

The navel is just fucked.

BradMyers82

Hey Evil raz, thanks for taking the time to post such indepth feedback!

Sorry, the last images I posted were probably misleading as to what I'm going for with this anatomy study. I'm trying to make a more "average" bodybuilder. A amateur look instead of a pro because now a days the pro's have these comic book proportions and although they really exist they are not as believable imo. Plus it would be silly to make the absolute biggest guy to ever walk the earth then pass him off in a video game as some bounty hunter or something. This is a pet peeve of mine. lol.

Anyway, I felt if anything I was already making him too big and I'm planning on making some areas smaller yet.

So those images I posted earlier were just to illustrate how even the very biggest guys do not show separation in the forearm like you see in anatomy models and nothing more.

Here is one of my main references actually:


As you can see the naval does actually stretch like that from becoming ultra lean for a show and standing tall in the upright position stretches it further vertically. This is quite common. I would be interested to hear if you think I am off still after seeing this reference. But really I would like to hear more about the insertion points and specifics like that where I am fully incorrect rather than specific muscle development for example. I'm probably asking too much and just need to hunker down and study more.

[edit] oh and partly the naval might look bad cause I need to add more geo there. I can get away with 1 more subdivision but I'm at 1.5 million right now.

Spiralface

I think you might be getting a bit ahead of yourself with the mussel definitions.

In your work in progress, many of the primary and secondary mussel masses are appearing "lumpy" with flow lines that are very Stiff and ridged. (Especially true in the Legs and feet.)

Try not to focus on the details of the mussel masses, but the core shapes and shadows that form around those shapes. Detailing comes easy (albeit VERY time consuming) when you are working from a clean structure. And if the underlining foundation is clean and supports what you are trying to do with the model, your model will look much better for it.

BradMyers82

You're totally right Spiralface. I'm used to focusing on the forms in the head (you sorta have to otherwise faces look like complete crap), but not so much in the body. I'll take some time to move around the body and check the shapes from all types of angles. I know in the back I was totally guessing on stuff, and when I looked at it from 3 quarters I had no idea if I was hitting some of those shapes properly.

disanski

Awesome forms Brad. I am definitely no expert but I think I notice something that might be helpful.
Looked from the profile view your deltoid is a little too round and strait. I could not find the perfect image to illustrate that, but I am attaching an image from Zack Petroc anatomy figure. You can see how the deltoid drops down a little on the back side where it attaches to the scapula. Front part of it should be the one that is most elevated. Perhaps that changes on a very developed muscle but I wanted to point this out any way

Evil raz

@disanski
I would't use a single artist as a source of anatomy because your going to inherit their mistakes. Here is a comparison of Zack's and Scott's anatomy.



And here is Ryan's male anatomy, which he seems like it's midway of Scott Spencer's and Zack Petroc's

BradMyers82

Yea, I think the shoulder rotation is probably one of the biggest factors here. I think it does stand higher in the rear delt than what you are seeing in that reference though. But its certainly isn't correct as it stands right now either way (on mine that is). I have to dig up more ref to be sure. Really hard to pin point a lot of this stuff.