Strange Anatomy

Waterbear

I'm confused by a number of oddities when comparing photographs and anatomical drawings.


First up are the pecs. The insertion point looks like it's on the arm by the deltoid. The drawing shows that, but why does it look so differently on human male? I image it's the skin and fat doing their job, but how does one sculpt this correctly when using reference?

disanski

You should also pay attention to what part of the pectorals goes under and above . I am still learning too but as far as I know there are 3 main sections and what you see on the photograph is exactly what it is on the drawing.
Take a look at this for example - could not find better image but this should do the job

you can see how the clavicular part of the pectorals actually goes above all the rest so this is what you see on the photo.
Hope that helps

Edit: you might need to find some better reference. I love Paul Richer anatomy book that was recommended by Scott Eaton and he was also using to teach his class.
Or what Slosh said below

slosh

I think you're confusing the muscles:



The angle on the 2 images are different. Both are accurate. The pectoral does originate from the same place. In the photo, the man is hunched over whereas in the illustration, the body is completely upright.

MagicSugar

Waterbear wrote: »

I image it's the skin and fat doing their job, but how does one sculpt this correctly when using reference?

Deltoids overlap the insertion area of the pecs (which is the upper arm bone).
Anatomy illustrations sometimes are based from cadaver referenses when muscles have dried up and contracted.

SuperFranky

You should learn points of origin and insertion of muscles, it's an essential knowledge for a character artist. If you know that stuff, you won't be confused with photo references.

Shiniku

The pectoralis minor under there also has an effect on how that appears. Depending on how developed it is, sometimes that will cause a bit of a different shape with how the pecs wrap around. The other posters really covered it though, and the pose is different, the shoulders are pulled back quite a bit in the ecorche ref you posted, whereas in the drawing the shoulders are rotated forward a bit. This area in particular changes a lot depending on positioning, even well-developed pecs will almost totally flatten out when arms are raised for instance. When sculpting just think about the pose you will be seeing that area in the most, and find appropriate ref, but make it neutral enough that it will work in other poses.

MagicSugar

Multiple muscles can also looked merged under cover of skin, fat, tissue. Inner thigh muscles for example. There's a bunch of short and long cords of muscles anchored to the pelvis and upper leg bone. But on live human photo refs, it's mostly invisible. Like one bulk.

You can use artistic license of course, exaggerate cuts and definitions to suit your needs.

Waterbear

Thanks for the fantastic responses, guys! I can see it now.

DireWolf

Taking hints from the muscle drawing, there is indeed a plain change suggested there. Maybe not as drastic as my lines but you should get the idea.

JacqueChoi

That drawing isn't 100% accurate either. The striation that runs along the clavicular head should be quite a bit lower, and originate closer to where the clavicle joins the sternum.

Also, there's a wrong number of serratus anterior, and the striation direction on the obliques seem off wrong when compared to the pic.

MagicSugar

Mask_Salesman

People are unique, they may all follow a similar anatomical guideline but we are not clones. Also the problem with anatomical drawings is that they have been drawn by another artist, who is fallible. When googling, anatomy figure. Alot and I mean ALOT of the ecorche's you'l come across have incorrect proportions or weird differences in how the same muscle groups are displayed.


The trick is to learn a Generic 'Average Human' Anatomy, this is where the muscle groups go and what the optimum proportions are.
Then this becomes your base upon which you tweak the weight, muscle build, fat, bone structure and proportions to fit real photo references. While still keeping the correct groups etc.

Also one major thing you have to be very wary of is body builders, they train their muscles unproportionately. When you should treat them as a whole body rather than individual muscle growth.

Waterbear

I'm working on the lats. This isn't the only image I'm looking at but it'll serve as a conversation starter.

See where the lat "ends" by the lumbar facsia, what's going on there? What is the muscle attaching to? In most images, it looks like its white connective tissue?

Ruz

sounds odd but I generally look at photos for my stuff. no harm in learning anatomy
but it can look a bit boring if you copy anatomical ref exactly

FourtyNights

This is significantly harder to sculpt for females. I mean the pecs and deltoids together inserting to the humerus. I seem to fail doing it every time. Considering are you using t-pose or a-pose, and the head of the humerus poking out on lean female bodies as well. So hard.