But in this image, the wrong detail is how the chest area rotates differently from the rest of the spine. It's not a 180, she's not an owl, yanno-just a measly 60 degrees or so, but the transition of the stomach and the chest was not portrayed correctly: the problem lies in how the stomach was drawn away from viewers, while with that pose it ought to gradually turn clockwise the more you transition to chest, toward the viewer.
But in this image, the wrong detail is how the chest area rotates differently from the rest of the spine. It's not a 180, she's not an owl, yanno-just a measly 60 degrees or so, but the transition of the stomach and the chest was not portrayed correctly: the problem lies in how the stomach was drawn away from viewers, while with that pose it ought to gradually turn clockwise the more you transition to chest, toward the viewer.
It's always funny how NONE of the example images fits the post in question. And this is always the case. The first image in your link is humanly possible...she's a human after all. But in the example you only see ONE breast. Here you see two and breasts may be squishy to some extend, however these bounds are broken here. As well drawn as it might be otherwise, this flaw leads me to not approve this image.
It's always funny how NONE of the example images fits the post in question. And this is always the case. The first image in your link is humanly possible...she's a human after all. But in the example you only see ONE breast. Here you see two and breasts may be squishy to some extend, however these bounds are broken here. As well drawn as it might be otherwise, this flaw leads me to not approve this image.
Uh, that argument was not me defending the post...I described what was wrong with how it was drawn.