The Importance of Anatomical Accuracy in Figures

[Mark S]

Please post your opinion on the importance of anatomical accuracy by choosing from the selected responses above.....
I meant to include more options but I hit the wrong button at the wrong time......

 

[Forté]

I think my post fits more here.

My issue with anatomical accuracy is that anatomy does vary from person to person and seeing miniatures that always go by the defined standard dimensions is similar to catwalk models having to be a certain height and dress size.

King Richard the 3rd for example has been found to have had scoliosis and a visible curvature of the spine. So there's no reason to get hung up on slight deviations from anatomical correctness. Get a group of people in a room and see how many of them are slightly out.

 

[DaddyO]

Absolutely vital - got a few lovely figures in my grey army who will probably reside there until I sell them on. Beautiful casting, great pose and fabulous uniforms just crying out PAINT ME! but and it is the biggest but IMO they fall down because of some anatomical fault (Heads which are too small is a popular one, but giants hands run a close second and don't get me started on heads turned like owls!

 

[mick3272]

So which one is anatomically accurate ???????????

Mick

 

[Babelfish]

"Body type" is not the same as "anatomical accuracy" though Mick!

Basically the latter boils down to (1) proportion (e.g. oversized or undersized heads/hands or whatever) and (2) posture (e.g. the aforementioned "owl head" angles).

- Steve

 

[valiant]

As I dont especially stick to collecting one particular scale of figure, I dont get too hung up on the "scale" of something, but I do have an issue with something that is out of proportion to the rest of a figure or something about a pose which looks unnatural - to my eye, at least.

Just my two pennyw'th!

 

[DaddyO]

They all are Mick

 

[mick3272]

So would someone like to post an example of what is or what is not anatomically accurate in a figure they have ?

Mick

 

[Martin64]

Distorted proportions, wrong balance that would make you fall over/down if the pose is adopted in real life, raised shoulder syndrome etc. can IMHO destroy an otherwise interesting figure.
While incorrect equipment parts, spelling on a flag etc. can in most cases be reworked/replaced an anatomical issue usually can`t be corrected or covered even by the most skilled painters.
Therefore for me the red line about a figure is the correct anatomy what btw does not mean that a figure is anatomical incorrect if it does not show a perfectly shaped body (see Mick`s post above) - but if for example the model figure in real life could not tie up his shoe laces due to a looooooooooooong body (as has happened in the recent past with some large scale busts that grew into a full figure as an afterthought - take a look into the news section in PF for I won´t mention names) any interest from my part as a customer is lost regardless of the subject.
My two cents!
Martin

 

[peedee]

So which one is anatomically accurate ???????????

Mick

.

A week away and we have to put up with holiday pictures Mick?
Seriously ....the only thing that puts me off a figure is if there are mistakes I can't fix myself, this is supposed to be a modelling hobby so swapping heads and so on should be normal practise.

Yeats ago, we used to correct the leg length on series 77 figures, and swap the hands or weapons for better ones on other kits.
It is for that reason only that I say anatomy is relatively important, and not always a hang up for me.

If I had set the poll my questions would have been phrased differently because of my experience, it will not be the same for others.

Paul

 

[Martin64]

I know what you mean Martin.
In real life I cannot tie up my shoe laces due to
a Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaat Guuuuuuuuuut So not only am I a fat b-----d.
Im am anatomically inacurate
Mick

Ok- there are of course reasons in real life that can prevent you from tying your shoes or else... - the figures I was talking about weren`t fat (sorry - ehm well fed or chubby) at all. The average viewer usually knows that "something is wrong" with these figures because we unconsciously know how a "real person" looks, moves and poses even if we don`t know anything about the historical background of the miniature. That`s the reason what makes miniatures so different and challenging from technical models like tanks, ships and planes.
And what makes things worse is that for many anatomically flawed figures there is no other remedy but to resculpt them. While this is not impossible depending on your skills and hobby-time it is not the reason why I pay for a kit.
In difference to that your anatomical problem could be solved by undergoing a loooooooooooooong diet or using loooooooooooooooooooong shoe laces.
Good luck!
Martin

 

[Tommy Brown]

Correct anatomy is critical. It is the fundamental basis for figure sculpting. If a figure is distorted and out of proportion you can kiss the figure good bye.
Here are my studies of male bones and muscles render in pencil and pen and ink.

 

[Chrisr]

.
Yeats ago, we used to correct the leg length on series 77 figures, and swap the hands or weapons for better ones on other kits.
It is for that reason only that I say anatomy is relatively important,
Paul

True Paul, but were we correct in doing so? Not everyone's legs are the same length. Only last week I noticed a woman who had a long torso and short legs. If she were a figurine most of us would say it was anatomically incorrect or quite out proportion - but there she was as living proof that there is no one standard anatomy and that everything is in strictly in proportion . As I have been reminded I have short long bones compared to others. The problem with scales is every figure is roughly the same height.

I think Martin has summed it up well - that if a figurine is well and truly out of proportion, or in a pose that isn't correct. i commented on Ellies's latest Prussian Jager of the Franco-Prussian War which to me was square gaiting on the run - ie, the left arm and leg were to the rear and the right arm and leg were forward (or vice versa). Bloody difficult to run like that, and certainly not natural, and a shame as it is a fine figure and on that I would be interested in purchasing if it looked natural. I understand Ellie's is looking at correcting it.

As long as it looks natural to me - short legs, long legs etc I am happy with it.

Cheers
Chris

 

[peedee]

True Paul, but were we correct in doing so? Not everyone's legs are the same length. Only last week I noticed a woman who had a long torso and short legs. If she were a figurine most of us would say it was anatomically incorrect or quite out proportion - but there she was as living proof that there is no one standard anatomy and that everything is in strictly in proportion . As I have been reminded I have short long bones compared to others. The problem with scales is every figure is roughly the same height.

I think Martin has summed it up well - that if a figurine is well and truly out of proportion, or in a pose that isn't correct. i commented on Ellies's latest Prussian Jager of the Franco-Prussian War which to me was square gaiting on the run - ie, the left arm and leg were to the rear and the right arm and leg were forward (or vice versa). Bloody difficult to run like that, and certainly not natural, and a shame as it is a fine figure and on that I would be interested in purchasing if it looked natural. I understand Ellie's is looking at correcting it.

As long as it looks natural to me - short legs, long legs etc I am happy with it.

Cheers Chris

.

I also, according to my tailor have a long torso.
He said to me I would be a lot taller if my legs were 'the right length'.
The point I was making was just simply, if I see something 'wrong' and I can fix it I will buy it and indeed we shouldn't always be hung up on the point.

I have been an earnest supporter of the scale perception of figures.
Ie: if the weapons and equipment on a figure are correct to scale, the remainder of the sculpt is the character part.

Paul.

 

[Oda]

I think that what makes a figure anatomically correct is the correct-or harmonious-proportions-relationships between body parts.We should not confuse anatomical "correctness" with biodiversity.There are thousands of "correct"body types and all are anatomically accurate.We should not compare a figure to a "standard".What matters to me is the correct proportions of a given figure (no matter how you see it if a man's fingers reach below his knees when standing erect then he is a chimp and if a body is about three times the size of the head-instead of between 7 and 8-then he is officialy an alien).Well I think you get the point.Having said that,a figure that is outstanding on all aspects(super-detailed,dramatic etc) but anatomically unsound is completely useless and I would never spend my money on it.Unfortunately things are seldomly so "black and white".Usually the anatomical flaws on modern figures-if they exist-are marginal.You can spot them when looking from one angle and they disappear when looked from another.They can take countless hours of discussion between modellers in order to be decided if they exist or not and so on.Bottom line is that anatomy and correct treatment of volume is absolutely crucial and central to a figure's design and construction and whereas some other faults can be remedied by the clever use of brush and colour,anatomical flaws cannot.

Oda.

 

[TADATSUGU]

So would someone like to post an example of what is or what is not anatomically accurate in a figure they have ? Mick

On this site? you must be joking!
I think what Mark is getting at here is that quite a few figures released lately, t0 favorable response, have had anatomy issues that would qualify for a freakshow.
I think his third vote option will give a clue as to which.

 

[Tommy Brown]

On this site? you must be joking!
I think what Mark is getting at here is that quite a few figures released lately, t0 favorable response, have had anatomy issues that would qualify for a freakshow.
I think his third vote option will give a clue as to which.

This is sooooo true! Just be careful what you are posting or commenting on this site.

 

[DEL]

So which one is anatomically accurate ???????????

Mick

Easy ......... top row..... .....all of them.
I've no idea what manner of things the bottom row are.

 

[DEL]

I must admit that I don't get too hung up on anatomical ratios.
If it looks good and the pose is physically possible I'm happy.

 

[tomifune]

.

I also, according to my tailor have a long torso.


Paul.

Oh, that was your torso he was referring to!!........

Bob