Female Proportions help..

[Ghost222]

Hi, I have a question concerning female body proportion. I have a diagram, that I'm looking at, and I need some help figuring it out.

Here it is: http://fineart.sk/show.php?w=902 (It's the Andrew Loomis Diagram Quick-Setup of proportions.)

On the female diagram, does he split the top and bottom in half, then divide the bottom in half, and then divide the top portion into thirds? I measured it, but it seemed kinda off. Thanks for the help.

[Hexokinase]

Looks to be the case. The measurements may not be exact because Loomis probably eye-balled it.

[Viridis]

Dunno about the measurements, but the position for the breasts is a bit off. Generally, the bottom curve of the breast just about lines up with the crease of the elbow. At least, it does for me, and that seems a fairly good guideline from what I've seen.

(Despite what anime and fantasy art seems to think, breasts do have to obey gravity and do not magically levitate to appear more 'perky'. The bigger they are, the heavier and lower they'll fall. Unless the woman has a miracle bra. Chainmail bikinis don't count.)

EDIT: Looking at the drawing again, it occurs to me that the woman is standing 'at attention' with the back very straight, which would make the breasts higher. However, if someone is standing at rest, my comment stands.

[Noah Bradley]

It would also be worth reading Loomis's texts. He explains these matters quite thoroughly in the book, as well as providing an abundance of other useful material. Don't just look at the pretty pictures.

[Hyver]

loomis was wrong; the correct female proprtion chart is something like this:

BOOBS+ASS > Head > rest

(seriously though, as Noah said, read the texts.. )

[TASmith]

The sketch is not of a realistic woman, but an idealized one (8 heads tall) as used in fashion sketches and advertising.

[nickydraws]

I was just looking at the page OP mentioned, and I thought I was going crazy. The measurements on the female diagram don't make sense. Especially compared to the previous page of proportions: http://fineart.sk/photo-references/f...rew-loomis/013

Seeing as the figure is supposed to be 8 heads high, the Middle Point should be at 4 heads, and then 4 heads again until the heels, plus a little extra for the shoe heels as shown in the Ideal Proportions. But in the Quick Proportions page it shows 4 heads being above the Middle Point.
The distance from head 2 to 3 or 3 to 4 doesn't seem to correspond to the other head lengths. What he seems to have done is put a head distance from the tick-mark above the 3 hds point and then reached an incorrect 4 hds point. It should be a bit lower. Still, the head lengths were incorrect from the start, because even with a correct 4 hds point they still don't reach the Middle Point.

Such a simple diagram shouldn't give me this much confusion. Did Loomis make a mistake or am I missing something here?