ChaosWolf: Looks like it's about to get pulled off under its own weight. Terrible boob anatomy here, they're not oranges in socks stapled to the collarbone.
Anonymous1: Leaning on no authority greater than my own simplistic preferences: I think the overall execution is above average for most of what I have seen on this site, although my first glance misidentified the hand as ambidextrous. Also, agreed: The breast structure is not strictly anatomically correct, but sometimes it is the aberration that causes the artistic attraction.
(Wow, I used a lot of a-words. Sorry, I really need to buy that second volume of the encyclopedia.)
Looking at real women or pictures of them, keeps me grounded in the reality of what they're supposed to look like, and sometimes even real bodies have weird anomalies. I often find them strangely fascinating. Shakespeare wrote, "Is there in truth no beauty?" I believe correctness is most true, and perhaps most beautiful. However, artistic rendering provides fuel for fantasy, which can also be beautiful, so I like this.
jimsugomi: Actually based off real breast physics. Check big boobs on google image search, there's a type of droopier sagging boob types like this, where the base droops quite a bit from where it connects, but the main part of the breasts is fairly firm, so you get a rather odd "90 degree angle boob" when lifted with a tinier base. The world of boobs is large!
- Reply
(Wow, I used a lot of a-words. Sorry, I really need to buy that second volume of the encyclopedia.)
Looking at real women or pictures of them, keeps me grounded in the reality of what they're supposed to look like, and sometimes even real bodies have weird anomalies. I often find them strangely fascinating. Shakespeare wrote, "Is there in truth no beauty?" I believe correctness is most true, and perhaps most beautiful. However, artistic rendering provides fuel for fantasy, which can also be beautiful, so I like this.