|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Body proportions
So, I've read that fashion designers draw their models based on the following proportions: Draw a head. Ideal length of head = 1 unit. Draw a torso. Ideal length of torso = 2.5 units. Draw legs. Ideal inseam measurement = 3.5 units. Total ideal body length (height) = 7 units. i.e.,: Total body = 7 units Head = 1/7 units of total body length (height) Torso = 2.5/7 units of total body length (height) Legs (Inseam) = 3.5/7 units of total body length (height) Can anyone speak to this, whether it's accurate, or complete garbage? The source is questionable... but the topic does interest me! I'm snowed in & entertaining myself with measuring tape and math skills.  I'm really more curious than anything, not trying to use this info to try to justify becoming a fashion model (I know I'm too short)... I just found it interesting when I did these calculations on myself and found they came out near perfectly aligned with the "ideals" (1/4" off head, spot on for torso & inseam). Feel free to share yours! Feb 08 13 05:42 pm Link That formula is not wrong, but nor is it particularly useful. I take a full set of measurements of most llamas that I photograph because I do a lot of underwater photography which requires using a short focal length which can introduce considerable distortion, so I keep a record of a llama's dimensions so I know what I am aiming for if I need to correct the perspective. My records show that there is not that much variation between people at the level that that formula specifies, so, in a sense, nearly everyone is "perfect". However, if the units are refined a bit, you might start to see some diffences e.g. head 7.1 vs head 7.0. However, what happened to the neck? Is it part of the torso or part of the head? Can you see where this is going? A lot depends on definitions and where measurements are made from. Also, that formula does not capture other important dimensions. Ideally, bust and hips should be within 5cm of each other and waist should be 25 cm less, but, as height decreases (below about 165 cm), so should bust and hips. So, to return to my original comment, the formula is not wrong, but it is too simplistic to be of much use. Feb 08 13 06:35 pm Link That formula is NOT bs; it is in general use by painters and sculptors and all sorts of other artists, except perhaps photographers. Depending on the lens used in making the image, all sorts of distortions can be introduced starting with the relative position of the photographer and the model. Feb 08 13 06:42 pm Link natural beauties of qld wrote: Oh, I see! Feb 08 13 07:33 pm Link grandart wrote: The source did say it was used by fashion designers, hmm. Makes sense why it wouldn't be useful for photographers because of lens/distortion/angle/position, etc. Feb 08 13 07:34 pm Link I think my proportions don't add up!!:-))) Feb 08 13 07:38 pm Link Feb 08 13 07:52 pm Link e m i l y wrote: Ooh this is interesting. Feb 08 13 09:24 pm Link e m i l y wrote: These are for a basic drawing and illustration classes. Feb 08 13 10:27 pm Link Most sketches that fashion designers do are not realistic to human bodies. Example:  Feb 09 13 12:14 am Link This might be interesting to you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AZe9g2Huz0 Feb 09 13 04:59 am Link Marc Damon wrote: I'm not reading all of that -- what's important to know? Feb 09 13 06:38 am Link Tzalam wrote: Yes! I know about facial proportions, that's great, was also curious for body proportions. Feb 09 13 06:39 am Link Krystell Barraza wrote: Cool! Feb 09 13 06:42 am Link If you were snowed in for a long time there are a bunch of proportions for male figures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man Feb 09 13 06:59 am Link Artists were taking note of sets or proportions that tend to be seen in nature back during the Renaissance and Enlightenment Era. They came up with the notion that certain proportions were a part of the Divine plan for nature. They used these proportions in their drawing and painting to good effect. For an artist it comes down to understanding golden ratios - the golden section or mean, golden triangle, golden rectangle, golden spiral etc. The work of the great painters of the time took basically an evolutionary step over and above what came before, based on applying these ratios - I make an attempt to apply golden ratios to a lot of my photography - I can't alter the size of my model or subject - but I can choose angles of view and focal length combinations - perspective - and composition - to make use of them..... Feb 09 13 07:00 am Link http://www.anaface.com/ I scored a 9.21/10. Pretty cool! Says my face is too narrow/too long (which I knew) - haha!  I tried it with a different photo and got a 9.03/10:  I imagine it will differ a bit depending on the photo and the preciseness and accurate reporting of point placements (just a little off can affect a lot, too easy to fudge numbers, IMO; would be more accurate to have others do it and take an average). Feb 09 13 07:12 am Link The inseam measurement "ideal" is nowhere near reality. Since you started the thread, I have taken the inseam measurement on several models and they are all closer to 3 than 3.5. Out of curiosity, I took my own measurements because I am tall (185cm, 6'1") with unusually long legs, and my inseam is only 3.1. Feb 12 13 04:28 pm Link Weird, I thought the "ideal" was closer to 8-head-figures (based on posing for sculpture workshops and drawing groups geared towards animation especially). I think my proportions are close to 7.5 head figure thanks mostly to my child-sized head. One artist swore I was an 8-head figure but he was a bit kooky. All of my proportions in general are on the smaller side; for reference: (snapshot from Nov) neck: 12" arm: 9" wrist: 5.25" bust: 33" waist: 25-26" hips: 35.5-36" thigh: 18.5" calf: 13" ankle: 7" Different styles call for different figures. For myself, I find different body types are necessary for different studies. If I want to do a skeletal study, a very slender person with obvious bone structure is required. If I want to do more of a texture/creases study, I find a larger person with folds, dimples, and creases is necessary. There are many other figures that are useful to different artists. I know many "classical" areas of the country prefer larger, taller women; many of the more successful art models I know in Central California are 5'9"-5'11" and a size 8-12. Some artists prefer tiny people who can fit into boxes, baskets, refrigerators, or just a very small space that they want to shoot in. Animators I've met prefer muscular, dynamic figures that are on the lean side while still curvy; I've found being bald is a plus. For fashion, I find a lot of fashion models are fine-boned in general; they have longer, more slender legs relative to me, smaller hips, smaller ribcage (even though mine is on the small side), as well as shorter torsos. Hope some of this rambling was helpful. Feb 13 13 11:33 am Link For fashion design normally proportions are a lot more stretched (about 9/10 units as somebody says before). That's the classical art proportions and they are not usefull for real anyway: people have normally shorter legs or they will look bizarre... Feb 13 13 02:33 pm Link no, those are the average human proportions. Head is about 1/7th of the entire body, and that is the case for pretty much everyone (roughly speaking). So it's not that strange that your proportions fall within these measurements, at all  for fashion design drawing, the proportions are exaggerated actually . Then the head is easily 1/10th of the body and even more. for instance:  but that's just part of the designing process. Feb 13 13 02:37 pm Link e m i l y wrote: I went to fine arts school. It's a general guide for figure drawing - to be taken with a grain of salt. Feb 14 13 12:41 am Link e m i l y wrote: I would have no problem photographing your body! Feb 14 13 02:22 am Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: LMAO. Feb 14 13 04:15 am Link |
