Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Ghost mannequine" technique, tips?  (Read 4059 times)
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« on: September 06, 2010, 12:33:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Anyone know what they use inside the clothes to achieve the popular "ghost mannequin" effect? I know you can shoot the inside and photoshop it together, but I'm looking for a solution that will require less post production. Here's a link to show the effect, and if you zoom in you can see there's some kind of contraption inside.. http://www.allsaints.com/product/?vintage=1&page=1&price_id=&category_id=&sub_category_id=26&&prod_desc_id=5051214354019&position=23 If anyone knows of anything besides photoshop and having a gazillion mannequins with different size holes sawed out, please share.

cheers



Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2010, 02:31:46 PM »
ReplyReply

This problem surfaced somewhere else a while ago, but I'm not sure where, exactly, but there was a few solutions on offer, excluding ice.

The greater question would be why?

If it's a commercial request, can you convince the client to settle for perspex mannies? I remember thinking that the smaller-than-real ones they used to use for exotic lingerie in various stores looked far more beautiful than anything real that I ever saw.

Rob C
Logged

amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2010, 04:54:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Trust me, if it was up to me I wouldn't shoot it like this in a million years, I much prefer live models.

Logged
klane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785

I live in a c-stand fort.


« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2010, 09:49:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd love to know the technique for this as well.
Logged
AlexM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2010, 09:50:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Wireframe mannequin and you will have to photoshop just a few wires that are showing.
Logged

amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2010, 12:09:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Wireframe mannequin and you will have to photoshop just a few wires that are showing.

And where exactly would you buy such a mannequin? I've tried looking for one online in the past, but haven't been successful in finding anything like that. The closest I've gotten is reading somewhere that sartorial mannequins have wireframes inside them, is that what you mean?

« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 12:12:20 AM by amsp » Logged
AlexM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2010, 12:58:50 AM »
ReplyReply

That's another question Smiley
Try to google metal dress form.
If you can't find anything suitable you might have to order a custom one at a metal workshop.
Maybe you can bring them a suitable dress form and they will measure it and weld the wireframe accordingly.

I don't have one nor I used one before. That was just my solution to your problem.

Cheers!
Alex
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2371


« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2010, 02:01:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I hate this! Most of my clients find it totally ugly as well. Unfortunately every magazine is copying each other with this and polluting their pages. This is hopefully one of those things that will go away very soon. Where are the days you had to have Abercrombie styling Wink To get your products into the magazines you have to have this 3D thingy at this moment.

Don't waste your time with perspex mannequins, the back side will be garbled and the image even more ugly. All the contraptions give you issue with the form, unless you client doesn't mind about this. Especially the shoulder area is becoming a nuisance. Which ofcourse you can fix in PS afterwards and you probably will when the client rejects what you have done. Most of my clients would have rejected your example, I can already hear their remarks. Bottom is schewed, shoulders are square, underside of the sleeves is not straight, etc..

I do it shooting on a mannequin, shoot it flat on the floor and blend it in PS. Yes, your post production work takes longer but the shoot & styling will take a lot less time, even though you have to shoot twice. The results are also much better.

I also prefer life models, even if it means cutting their heads off (in the image) to prevent having to pay them more money.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 02:14:27 AM by Dustbak » Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2010, 02:26:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I hate this! Most of my clients find it totally ugly as well. Unfortunately every magazine is copying each other with this and polluting their pages. This is hopefully one of those things that will go away very soon. Where are the days you had to have Abercrombie styling Wink To get your products into the magazines you have to have this 3D thingy at this moment.

Don't waste your time with perspex mannequins, the back side will be garbled and the image even more ugly. All the contraptions give you issue with the form, unless you client doesn't mind about this. Especially the shoulder area is becoming a nuisance. Which ofcourse you can fix in PS afterwards and you probably will when the client rejects what you have done.

I do it shooting on a mannequin, shoot it flat on the floor and blend it in PS. Yes, your post production work takes longer but the shoot & styling will take a lot less time, even though you have to shoot twice. The results are also much better.

I agree that that PS seems like the best option in most cases, but then I come across certain garments that would be a total nightmare with this technique. I'm also not convinced by the whole wireframe thing, there are just too many thin garments where something like that would deform the shape and also show through. I just find it hard to believe that people think it's worth spending this much post production time on just one garment, which leads me to believe there must be some other easier option. Especially in situations where you are shooting hundreds, if not thousands of pictures per month. But I haven't come across it yet. I might try and convince my employer to go with either straight up mannequins or preferably actual models. It looks better and I'm 100% sure it's more economic too.


Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2371


« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2010, 02:35:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I charge triple the amount for 3D that I would normally do for flat. I also advice clients to have a careful look at what they want to do this way, this way I prevent having to the nightmare things of which you know upfront it will become horrendous. Normally from a collection of a couple of hundred items I only do 50 or so this way. These go on press CD-roms.

I find it pretty obvious that the ones that do their entire collection. eg. for on webshops have it done on the cheap (it was still a sizeable chunk of money probably) and it shows!

Actually when you get the hang of it, it isn't even that bad doing it in post. As long as you remember to lay-out the garments on the floor a bit wider and make it just a tad bigger than what you need to blend in.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 02:38:35 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Imaginara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2010, 03:42:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Get a display mannequin one that is hollow and maybe even transparent. Cut out the neck and parts of the chest (depending on how low the cleavage will go) and as much of the back that you can get away with (it still needs to support some parts). Post production will be to remove wherever it shows through, but generally a lot less than shooting the back separately and photoshopping it.
Logged
tetsuo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2010, 07:00:37 AM »
ReplyReply

There are specific forms for that kind of photography.
Specifically, do some research on G-star and Marc Newson campaigns.
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2371


« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2010, 07:07:36 AM »
ReplyReply

If I have a look at the G-Star collection I see it is mainly 'filled flat'. I don't see the 3D thingy, actually I prefer the 'filled flat' style. If you have links please post them?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad