Friday, March 24, 2017

Pattern Review: Advance 4779 (1949 shirtdress)

My latest project is a vintage pattern, Advance 4779, a 1940's shirtdress.  I loved the snazzy pocket detailing and had to make one of my own. 
Naturally, this shirtdress lends itself to some film noir styling.
Look!  I'm a wanted criminal!
I made this dress out of brown handkerchief linen and lined it with black silk habotai.
The back is more or less unremarkable.

I predictably ran into a lot of problems fitting the bodice, since the pattern is for a 36" bust and I'm more like a 32" bust with shoulders proportioned for a 34" bust.  I had to take in an inch and a half at both of the side seams.  Predictably, this did crazy things to the armholes and I had a creative time getting the sleeves in.
Speaking of sleeves and shoulders, I decided to add shoulder pads.  The pattern called for them, and while I'm normally not a fan of such things, they subtly improved the look of the dress.  I made shoulder pads out of halfmoons of cotton batting covered in lining fabric.  I then tacked the shoulder pads to the lining of the dress.
I used vintage mother-of-pearl buttons and a vintage mother-of-pearl belt buckle.  Originally, I was hoping for dark buttons, maybe with some art deco styling, but I had these on hand so I used them. 
I love this buckle and think it fits perfectly with the aesthetic of the dress.
 
In retrospect, I think the light colored buttons bring out the lines of the dress, especially in the low key photos I was taking.
I made bound buttonholes in the shape of diamonds.  In retrospect, this was a bad idea, because I couldn't get the size and shape consistent.
On the other hand, it's not like you can tell unless you're inspecting the dress up close.
All the bound buttonholes took forever and put me off the entire idea of shirtdresses.  But, now that it's done, I like it so much I might have to pull out some of my other vintage shirtdress patterns.  Must....resist....!
Happy sewing!


Monday, March 13, 2017

Pattern Review: EvaDress C20-6681, 1929 Coat

I loved this coat from first sight and knew that I had to have it.  Oh my god, those pintucks!
And, now I DO have it!  It's just as awesome as I imagined!

I used pink wool crepe for the shell, leftover purple silk velvet from this dress for the contrast, and silk charmeuse for the lining.
I picked an appropriately Art Deco button for the closure, but I might try to find a replacement in darker purple at some point.  The pattern didn't call for any closure other than that one button, but I found that I needed four 1" snaps in order for the coat to stay closed if I was sitting or leaning over.

This coat was such an ordeal.  I added a few inches at the hips so that the coat would fit me.  This threw off the way the coat hung, so I had to design inserts for the shoulder seams so that the front of the coat would hang right.  This then threw off the armscye, so I had to do a really creative job of setting in the sleeves.  By this point, there was no way the scarf collar piece would fit, so I ended up designing an entirely new collar following the general aesthetic of other 1920's coat designs (see for example, this, this, and this.)  It was crazy.  I spent so much time drafting and fitting and refitting for this coat.

And that's not even counting...those pintucks.  Backstitching to secure the thread tails would have been ugly, so the thread tails had to be threaded through a needle and tied off on the wrong side of the fabric.  It took forever.
Didn't do such a great job on these.  Oh well.

Anyway, the moral of the story should be ALWAYS MAKE A MUSLIN, but I'm not sure I feel that way here.  I didn't want to make a muslin because I didn't want to do all those pintucks twice, and I figured that 1920's garments are generally shapeless enough that it wouldn't matter so much, but, nope.  Still plenty of adjustments to be made.  On the other hand, if I had made a muslin, I would have redrafted the coat front instead of adding that trapezoid of material, and I really like the extra bit of creative seaming that it added.  I also would never have invented that collar, and I like it way better than the original collar.  I prefer the look, and plus, gathered velvet around the neck is nice and toasty warm!

Another note:  Truly, my K-3 is the honey badger of camera bodies.  I took these photos at a windswept schoolyard.  There was a high wind advisory in effect.  As I was posing for these photos, the wind blew my tripod over, and the camera went smack against the ground.  Camera don't care!  Camera don't give a sh*t, it just takes what photos it wants.  I'm going to have to bend the hotshoe bracket back into position, but that's really no big deal. 

Friday, March 10, 2017

Sidebar: 1920's makeup vs. 1920's photography

For a photoshoot for an upcoming 1929 coat, I thought it would be fun to do authentic 1920's makeup and photography.  Naturally, I researched the heck out of both these things.

It turns out that the goth makeup we associate with the 1920's-- heavy eye makeup and dark, almost black, lipstick-- aren't period-accurate.  Instead, most color magazines and makeup guides of the time show bright red lips, lots of rouge, and pale eyeshadow in blue, green, violet, and brown.  The look I was going for was Ms. Shaping The Brows here.

Out-of-camera JPEG
Things get interesting when we bring photography into the picture.  Film from the early 1920's (orthochromatic film) was sensitive to blue light, but relatively insensitive to reds, oranges, and yellows.  We humans tend to have pink and peachy tones in our faces, which made for some very creative stage makeup in an effort to make the actors to look normal on film. 

I made a Lightroom preset off of the color wheel provided at the link (see bottom of post for details).  Applied to my photo above, we get the photo below. 
Orthochromatic film simulation, ca. early 1920's
Holy wow, do I look terrible!  No wonder they needed special UV lights and stage makeup for anyone to look halfway decent.


In the mid-1920's, a new type of film came into effect (panchromatic film), which was sensitive to the entire spectrum.  I made another Lightroom preset off the provided color wheel, and here again is what my portrait looks like.
Panchromatic film simulation, ca. late 1920's
You can see why studios had to radically alter the way they did stage makeup-- panchromatic film is worlds different (and better) at representing skin tones than orthochromatic film. 

 It still looks a little flat, though, so here's my own B&W version of the image, postprocessed in Lightroom.
Postprocessing in Lightroom

There are several points to be made here.  First, we generally assume that photography necessarily gives an accurate representation of the world around us.  This is not the case.  Photography is always governed by the technical capabilities of the recording medium.  This is no less true today.  For instance, this is the RAW file of my portrait with no postprocessing applied-- this is what my camera sensor saw.
No postprocessing applied to the RAW file
Even though this is the version of the photo with the least processing applied, it's clearly not an accurate representation of the real world. 

Let's be a little generous and say that the camera got the white balance wrong.  Here's what Lightroom thinks the white balance should be:
RAW file with white balance fixed
Now, here's the out-of-camera JPEG.  This is the result of the postprocessing my camera did using the default settings. 
Out-of-camera JPEG
It's a lot better, but the colors are still a little too cool.  Is it objective reality?  Well, probably not.  There's a surprising amount of variation in the JPEG output of camera brands.  Take this test carried out by The Camera Store TV.  If cameras' JPEG engines were capturing reality, we would expect the results to be identical.  They're not.

Maybe we can't expect a cold, hard machine to nail something as complex as JPEG processing.  Maybe we need a human touch, an artist's touch.  Here's the image postprocessed by me in Lightroom:
Postprocessed by me in Lightroom
The colors are warmer, which is good.  You might think I overdid it on the saturation, but I really did rouge my cheeks that much (back to 1920's sensibilities being different from our own).  And yeah, I got rid of the blemishes on my chin.  This is the sort of thing people complain about when they denounce photoshopping.  Is it vanity?  Partly, sure.  This is the sort of thing people try to hide with makeup, after all.  I thought about hitting it with concealer, but for me, it's just easier to deal with in post.  But, it's also an artistic decision.  I was going for a Tamara de Lempicka effect with this portrait-- the glamour, the defiant gaze.  Was the blemish on my chin adding to that effect, or detracting from it?  Detracting.  So, it had to go. 

Forget the question of whether a photo depicts reality or not.  Instead-- do you like the art?  Do you like the message the art conveys?  If not, why not?  And, if you don't like the message, criticize the people making the artistic decisions, not the tools.  The tools will always be a necessary part of the mechanics of photography.  Photoshop is just a smokescreen distracting from the larger issue. 



---


Orthochromatic film simulation in Lightroom:
Red -96
Orange -89
Yellow -91
Green -93
Aqua -80
Blue -31
Purple +53
Magenta +58

Panchromatic film simulation in Lightroom:
Red -10
Orange -19
Yellow -11
Green -69
Aqua -76
Blue -100
Purple +15
Magenta +3