Andrew Loomis orthos for all you kids
polycounter lvl 18
don't worry, i'm still working on my other projects. there will be more enviro destructo and concept tagging, but today i did something a little different.
while checking in on Abhishek's workflow improvement thread and thinking about tips i could give him about proportions and making orthographics for characters, i dug up Andrew Loomis' figure drawing book Figure Drawing For All It's Worth on fineart.sk.
particularly this classic drawing, whom i'm sure many of you have used at some point for either reference or as an ortho (especially if Mr. Scott Ruggels has anything to do about it
).
the only trouble is, while i was recommending this to Abhishek, i was struck once again at the image's inadequacy as an ortho. it's a great proportions study, but Loomis never intended those figure drawings as modeling guides.
so anyhow, i figured as a nice little freebie to one and all who would like a decent orthographic for ideal (if slightly "classic") male and females, i took the time to clean up and fix the Loomis male and female proportion studies into orthographics. i tried to keep as faithful to his style and linework as possible, but i had to make many of my own adjustments, mostly to get a nice neutral pose (and fix his crazy monkey arms). still not perfect, but i figure it's a damn sight better that trying to model off the original drawings. so here you go:
i would just like to point out that Loomis is the one that chose to do the female proportion study with her wearing high heels, this isn't my doing.
so rant all you want about what exactly that says about feminine ideal proportions to an illustrator at his height in the 1940's. that's what i wanted to capture, anyway--the woman certainly isn't today's idea of body beautiful, but i think both these have a great deal of classic charm. enjoy!
i used to hate doing orthos, but this was kind of fun. i might do a few more 'generic' male/female orthos in different styles, just to give people some leeway. cause i do it for you guys, you know. i do it for the kids.
while checking in on Abhishek's workflow improvement thread and thinking about tips i could give him about proportions and making orthographics for characters, i dug up Andrew Loomis' figure drawing book Figure Drawing For All It's Worth on fineart.sk.
particularly this classic drawing, whom i'm sure many of you have used at some point for either reference or as an ortho (especially if Mr. Scott Ruggels has anything to do about it
).the only trouble is, while i was recommending this to Abhishek, i was struck once again at the image's inadequacy as an ortho. it's a great proportions study, but Loomis never intended those figure drawings as modeling guides.
so anyhow, i figured as a nice little freebie to one and all who would like a decent orthographic for ideal (if slightly "classic") male and females, i took the time to clean up and fix the Loomis male and female proportion studies into orthographics. i tried to keep as faithful to his style and linework as possible, but i had to make many of my own adjustments, mostly to get a nice neutral pose (and fix his crazy monkey arms). still not perfect, but i figure it's a damn sight better that trying to model off the original drawings. so here you go:
i would just like to point out that Loomis is the one that chose to do the female proportion study with her wearing high heels, this isn't my doing.
so rant all you want about what exactly that says about feminine ideal proportions to an illustrator at his height in the 1940's. that's what i wanted to capture, anyway--the woman certainly isn't today's idea of body beautiful, but i think both these have a great deal of classic charm. enjoy!i used to hate doing orthos, but this was kind of fun. i might do a few more 'generic' male/female orthos in different styles, just to give people some leeway. cause i do it for you guys, you know. i do it for the kids.
Replies
btw... Nice heels!
As I mentioned in another thread, this is all Loomis book, is copyright free so enjoy it.
http://acid.noobgrinder.com/Loomis/
Thanks Gauss!
Think of the children that will view this thread cover those things up. j/k.
By the way, your contributions to the concept tag thread have always made me wonder if you were really human, or some kind of painting machine.
These are helpful... but the the indication of the forms of the lines seem a little off. The upper torso/shoulder/upper arm areas look strange.
Bhrazz: Thanks for link, I did'n know about it.
So if anyone wants to take a look here...
http://basangpanaginip.blogspot.com/2006/01/downloads.html
Go to that web page scroll down the page and ignore the nonsense at the top, you will see a section called Andrew Loomis books there should be a sub heading beneath that called Fine arts the links to the books are there.
Also there is a super Jack Hamm book there called drawing the head and figure.
LoTekk: i don't need guff from you, mister
poop: well of course, this is for the kids, less privileged and knowledgeable than the inimitable Mr. Mathis. :P
jgarland: my pleasure. i haven't done a whole lot of 3D work, but it was enough to know what a bitch finding orthos was.
Jackablade: Loomis is there for your subtle 40's styling needs, brother.
Bhrazz: yep, definitely a handy link.
gir: well modeling in perspective is a good idea, but sorry to say that orthographics by definition don't include 3/4ths views. but skim around those free to download Loomis books and i'm sure you'll find 3/4ths view figures very close to these two.
Richard Kain: your guess is as good as mine, i didn't add the heels in there... actually, i do have a pretty good guess: many people, today as in the 40's during Loomis' heyday, considered heels an indispensible aid to feminine beauty. i myself will not comment either way, i'm just stating the status quo. wearing heels changes the posture and makes the legs appear longer, since visually the top parts of the foot look like part of the leg. and of course the woman looks taller overall.
that said i still think it's pretty ridiculous that Loomis would draw the female ortho in heels--it would have been some work to undo, so i left them intact. granted if you look through the rest of the book it's a little less mysterious--there are more than a few female nudes wearing heels.
$!nz: haha yes, i am thinking of the children, and how i will horribly scandalize them. though i'd point out that mine would not be the most innocence-threatening post on these boards
sandbag: you're welcome man, i'd like to contribute more orthos in different styles if i can. and as far as the concept tag thread goes, that's merely the product of not having a day job, brother
steady: lol wut
Soul: the aim was to redraw as little as possible, but there more to do than i thought there'd be (particularly in the hands and shoulders). there was also a bit of work on the bilateral symmetr: Loomis' left and right sides tended to differ somewhat dramatically in places, so i did my best to stabilize it overall. again, he never intended these as modeling refs, so i just tried to do just that work.
but i will agree that i didn't quite nail the form lines in certain places, especially in the areas you mention.
MatOaf: obliged, it's always a good idea to help spread this stuff around. i think it's funny that in some ways Loomis is probably more widely seen and copied because his books are out of print and images so widely available on the internet... but i could be wrong about that impression.
anyway, you're welcome again everyone, and i hope to have some more orthos for you all later.
I hope that You don't mind that I' going to post some human reference
what I've found somewhere (I don't remember where)on the net. I don't think that commes from Loomis work but it can be helpful for someone.
... I've never seen a pair like that. In my life. Please move the nipples outward and give her some upper inflation. They are looking decidedly strange right now.
thanks!
and don't worry, i'll be hard at work on a improbably tall and buxom japanese lady ortho soon enough, just for you.
i definitely hear what you're saying Per, and it's worth saying. even tweaking them to be more amenable to modeling, they're far from ideal, and my never getting seriously into character modeling means that my alterations aren't exactly stellar, either.
and yes, i did shorten the arms. they were looking really off to me before i shortened them, so chalk it up to my own skewed perceptions of proportions.
that's why i'd like to treat Loomis only as a start. maybe do some orthos basedd on other artists and hopefully winding up with my own take on an "ideal" male/female set, give some options.
doing male/female "ideal" orthos is pretty daunting, not to mention always subjective to particular ideals. but that's part of what appeals to me about doing multiple sets--i'd love to capture the particular forms of artists with particular hangups... like a Frank Frazetta set, etc. nobody draws the ladies like Frazetta!
bravo, per. i particularly support the point about avoiding muscleymen pictures for reference. not only is it scientific fact that looking at them will turn you gay, but it also sets you up for bad habits and reinforces loathsome character cliches (throw that muscleyman in some space marine armor, pronto!).
per's right, the variability of real peoples' unstylized anatomy is enough to net you just about all the extremes you could possibly want to portray. a sinewy-thin ahtlete, the hard-packed body fat of a bouncer...with people as in many other things, reality offers far more weirdness than you could possibly invent on your own. come to the US Middle West, and marvel at shambolic fat-beasts! how can they even stand up?!
what i'm reading from per is that essential lesson: there is no substitute for good reference. especially with people, since as with per notes, everyone spends their lives looking at people, so we're very good at telling when something isn't right. and yes, seeing a piece of figurative art and saying that something isn't right doesn't automatically net you the ability to understand how to fix it, much to the artist's eternal chagrin.
so, where forward from here? loomis is pretty poor reference for modeling, it's true, but the idea of fixing up these orthos came only from my knowing that people are already using them, so they might as well have them better presented. that was the initial aim.
but now i'm more intrigued about the idea of providing base-type male/female orthos as a more concerted effort, but still building off the work of great artists. since i myself am pretty piss poor with human anatomy. hence my thinking over Frazetta. certain artists fixate on exactly one male or female build, and they ritualistically hone the depiction of that rather specific archetype--and i think anyone who knows Frazetta has no trouble recognizing a Frazetta girl. so it's likely a fool's errand to attempt to capture that in an ortho that will be at all viable as a modeling guide, since i do such little modeling myself, but still... if i'm working to improve on my own comprehension of anatomy, i might as well be offering the fruits of my benefits to others. granted, it'll be some lopsided fruit, but that's why we have critiques. i've got no compunctions about revising the Loomis orthos further from this point, and in the future if i get some more orthos done, i also expect to get them passed through the ringer.
on that note, i'm away visiting right now so there won't be any new tags or orthos or whatever the hell posted for a bit. but when i get back, worth a shot, right?