Obsid
Iron
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2024
- Posts
- 133
- Reputation
- 88
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe FWHR is flawed, and I'll tell you why, although I don't have images of faces to back up my claim. I'll show you why I believe it's flawed. If you look down below, you'll see three rectangles. Obviously, they are all the same (let's think they are). WHR, but look at the sizes; they're different.
Let's say all of the ratios to the rectangles are 1.7. Do you see how different an impact its size does? I believe if we were to consider the FWHR, we should use terms such as aggressive, average, or soft 1.7, because I believe skull size matters too. Having too wide cheekbones can be bad for someone, and having too narrow cheekbones can be bad as well, and their skull size might not suit their faces, although I do agree that this ratio is good, but not all skulls are the same size, so I think we should take that into consideration.
If this has already been said before, fuck me. I thought I was onto something.
Thank you for your time. Sorry for my inexperience if this sounds stupid.
Let's say all of the ratios to the rectangles are 1.7. Do you see how different an impact its size does? I believe if we were to consider the FWHR, we should use terms such as aggressive, average, or soft 1.7, because I believe skull size matters too. Having too wide cheekbones can be bad for someone, and having too narrow cheekbones can be bad as well, and their skull size might not suit their faces, although I do agree that this ratio is good, but not all skulls are the same size, so I think we should take that into consideration.
If this has already been said before, fuck me. I thought I was onto something.
Thank you for your time. Sorry for my inexperience if this sounds stupid.
