I just did a tour of the major etailor sites. Has anyone noticed that most tailors’ websites lack any photos of their completed works? Loads of information is provided on many of the sites. We learn about the tailors background, training, what brand of marmalade he favors etc. But where on the site is there a picture of a finished jacket or suit hanging from the shoulders of a satisfied customer?
Car makers show you cars. Patek Philippe will show you a few timepieces. Carpenters show you their drawers. But tailors, with a few notable exceptions, don’t show their finished and fitted works. There are a good lot of photos of works in progress, forwards, great stitching, super lining, excellent canvas work, all of which means nothing if the garment doesn’t fit.
It is true that etailors are artisans and not marketing whizzes, though by entering into the game they should take some elementary marketing classes. Question: Why does someone go to a bespoke tailor for clothes? Answer: To have clothes that fit them.
Incorrect answer: To understand the biographies and life styles of artisans in the UK.
So if being “fit” for clothes is the fundamental reason men go to tailors, Etailors should take a few photos of clients wearing suits, jackets, overcoats and pajamas they have made and place these photos on one of the surround vision viewing programs so that potential customers can few “the fit” from every aspect and every angle before they decide to go to the shop. Now that terrifying suggestion will bring most etailors back to religion.
Notable exceptions to the trend are Tom Mahon’s site (www.englishcut.com) where one has access to many pictures of the tailor wearing his own suits.
Sartorial editorial: A suggestion for etailors
Agreed.
Nothing like seeing the goods on an actually customer.
Ofcourse most customers don't want to be photoed so that's a big stumbling block right there.
How about this idea: more photos of LL members right here on this site. Identifying their tailors, faces blocked out, egos put aside.
That would be a great educational tool to actually see tailors' clothes and styles on our many LL members.
Nothing like seeing the goods on an actually customer.
Ofcourse most customers don't want to be photoed so that's a big stumbling block right there.
How about this idea: more photos of LL members right here on this site. Identifying their tailors, faces blocked out, egos put aside.
That would be a great educational tool to actually see tailors' clothes and styles on our many LL members.
Why don’t we be a bit proactive about this…I am quite certain that most will claim the “we offer the utmost in privacy” company policy insofar as revealing their efforts. It would stand to reason they do not want to include photos for those who are simply browsing sites. (Why incur the tech cost/What is the return) There may also be a bit of paranoia (litigious or otherwise) insofar as showing a product, especially prior to payment. However, if there was an agreed upon relationship with the members of the LL there may be a quid pro quo scenario to explore. Basically the value add to the LL, IMHO, is to enjoy the process, or as much as can be revealed, from start to finish. Michael, could we not have a placard similar to the one on the main page (lower left of the GC pic) which states “photographed exclusively for…not to be reproduced…etc” and post said pics in a devoted section of the photojournal? Maybe Mr. Mahon would be willing to play guinea pig as his travels commence and he obviously understands the concept. What would be great is to eventually have the craftsmen add some commentary as to the why’s and how’s, as clearly the challenges of each body type are quite relevant. Naturally this may lead to greater exposure and potential business and one could legitimately argue that the LL crowd is a unique target audience which they would be reaching for free. By pre establishing this relationship we can only enhance our experiences. Would the quality level be affected by knowing that many a discerning eye will be cast its way?
JAS
JAS
-
Gruto
I agree but 95 percent of the potential customers are looking for a good impression. How do you communicate that? Through a common customer wearing your garment? Then you a very good photograher!uppercase wrote:Agreed.
Nothing like seeing the goods on an actually customer.
A blog like English Cut communicate through text, not pictures. So I don't think it makes sense to compare a website with that one.
I'm not sure what pictures of bespoke garments will truly show, other than the obvious. To me, bespoke is less about the obvious and more about the subtle, the discrete, the nuance. I'm not quite sure a photo of a customer in the garment conveys much more than the color, pattern, and, perhaps, drape of the fabric. Hand, fit (other than the patently obvious ill-fit), etc., cannot be viewed, but, rather, are to be experienced.
I disagree, to a large extent. Such issues as silhouette and the harmony of many small details can be judged by visual inspection. Especially for tailors who have a well-defined style (e.g., A&S, Huntsman), it is pretty easy to establish whether you aren't interested in their work.
I think that it is a great idea that Uppercase has. In my opinion, there are few more useful thing that could be done in the photojournal. What would be nice would be to come up with a standard two or three pose sequence so that each suit could be viewed the same way. A dedicated secion of the photojournal and stamp would also be good additions.
I think you will find that there are a few contributors to the LL with the experience, well trained eyes and tailoring sensibilities who can spot flaws that the only tailors would normally recognize. The minute details and nuances can be read once one has the eye.I'm not quite sure a photo of a customer in the garment conveys much more than the color, pattern, and, perhaps, drape of the fabric. Hand, fit (other than the patently obvious ill-fit), etc., cannot be viewed, but, rather, are to be experienced
Now, there is no reason for the average bespeaker of custom clothes to possess this degree of knowledge. It would, and this is part of the raison d'etre of thelondonlounge, be a good idea for customers to have enough of a working knowledge of tailoring to avoid obvious errors or dishonest craftsmen. I don't think this is too strange a concept. Buyers who can spot a real Louis Philippe chair or painting from a Grand master are the ones who have successful shopping (investing) experiences. The layman is vulnerable. The same is true in bespoke tailoring which is after all an art form as much as a trade.
I am always interested in learning and imagining how the LL can provide this kind of education to the readers of the site, so all of the contributions are valuable.
I think Mr. Alden's suggestion is a word to the wise for those tailors still looking to increase their custom.
But I'd support being concurrently proactive here as JAS and uppercase suggest. For one thing, examples posted by members will not be chosen by the tailors, and therefore will likely represent the type of work any informed client is likely to receive. Examples posted by the tailors would balance the scale by giving them a chance to select the work they feel best represents them.
Even with photos of garments on forms, member discussion has been very enlightening, at least for me. The recent thread on the "Florentine" dart style to preserve large pattern integrity on coat fronts introduced me to a completely new concept, prompted by photos of the LL tweed as made up. Calling out such details of design and fit of garments on their intended wearers is even more useful and stimulating, as recent threads on Mr. Alden's green tweed and Matt's Rubinacci have shown.
Mr. Alden, for those of us who might contribute, would you want to start a set of guidelines for standard views to be included (tips on camera height, subject pose, angles to be taken, lighting, etc.) in addition to photos of any relevant details (such as dopey's spring-loaded curtain lining)?
My current suit in progress should be finished in late summer, and I hope to have a decent digital camera by then. I'd be willing to contribute.
But I'd support being concurrently proactive here as JAS and uppercase suggest. For one thing, examples posted by members will not be chosen by the tailors, and therefore will likely represent the type of work any informed client is likely to receive. Examples posted by the tailors would balance the scale by giving them a chance to select the work they feel best represents them.
Even with photos of garments on forms, member discussion has been very enlightening, at least for me. The recent thread on the "Florentine" dart style to preserve large pattern integrity on coat fronts introduced me to a completely new concept, prompted by photos of the LL tweed as made up. Calling out such details of design and fit of garments on their intended wearers is even more useful and stimulating, as recent threads on Mr. Alden's green tweed and Matt's Rubinacci have shown.
Mr. Alden, for those of us who might contribute, would you want to start a set of guidelines for standard views to be included (tips on camera height, subject pose, angles to be taken, lighting, etc.) in addition to photos of any relevant details (such as dopey's spring-loaded curtain lining)?
My current suit in progress should be finished in late summer, and I hope to have a decent digital camera by then. I'd be willing to contribute.
Sterling suggestion! I've completed several projects in the last 12 months and would be delighted to continue to share my experiences. Some guidelines would be most useful.couch wrote: ... for those of us who might contribute, would you want to start a set of guidelines for standard views to be included (tips on camera height, subject pose, angles to be taken, lighting, etc.) ...
Why not keep it simple and submit a few shots, whatever they may be, as best as you can, whenever the spirit moves you, .
Without too many guidelines before it all becomes too complicated for us simple minded types.....
Informal, unposed photos are best if you can find someone to shoot an occassion; mug shots, front and rear, of a suit are the least interesting and pretty much want to make me cry but , granted, that's often the best we can do with no one available to shoot us naturally.
The only technical point I would suggest is to use as high a resolution as possible and post larger size photos.
I think that there is a photo size limitation on LL, so we can't post larger size photos which provide much more details.
Definitely, The size limitation in Photojournal is way too small and pretty useless for purposes of illustrating anything.
The photo below, for example, which is 600x800 pixels, is about as big as is permitted right now on LL; maybe a bit bigger would be better...??.
Perhaps Alden could open the size limitation up a bit. ?
Without too many guidelines before it all becomes too complicated for us simple minded types.....
Informal, unposed photos are best if you can find someone to shoot an occassion; mug shots, front and rear, of a suit are the least interesting and pretty much want to make me cry but , granted, that's often the best we can do with no one available to shoot us naturally.
The only technical point I would suggest is to use as high a resolution as possible and post larger size photos.
I think that there is a photo size limitation on LL, so we can't post larger size photos which provide much more details.
Definitely, The size limitation in Photojournal is way too small and pretty useless for purposes of illustrating anything.
The photo below, for example, which is 600x800 pixels, is about as big as is permitted right now on LL; maybe a bit bigger would be better...??.
Perhaps Alden could open the size limitation up a bit. ?
I'm all for posting natural shots to show how clothes move and fit in vivo. I share your sense that these will be the least lachrymose images and the most uplfiting--not to say more fun to take.
But as in comparing anything else--wine, show dogs, preamplifiers--a few samples under reasonably consistent "standard" conditions would help illuminate small differences. I would imagine 3-4 basic shots would suffice, along with unlimited "poster's choice" shots.
I've learned a great deal from the relatively frontal shots of coats recently shown. But even there, I find it hard to compare the button point on toomanypleats' lovely LL tweed with Alden's green tweed and Matt's Rubinacci because the first has a significantly higher camera angle and I don't know how much to discount foreshortening effects (and as it's on a form I can't factor in the figure). And we see fewer backs and side shots, so it's harder to compare sleeve shape, pitch, etc. I gather some tailors are significantly better at fronts than backs and vice versa; and some are better with certain figure types. It would be nice to have some reference points.
I have some jackets in which the sleeve pitch is off--with arms at rest, in normal posture, the upper sleeves bunch at the rear. If I want to put the best face on the tailoring, I can easily assume a very natural pose with arms crossed, or holding a book, or adjusting a cuff, in which the sleeve looks completely clean. But any catalog photographer could specify such tricks (I know you didn't mean to advocate intentional deception, uppercase!). What I find valuable about LL is the spirit of continuous learning and improvement at a high level, which requires an admirable restraint in one's natural pride of ownership.
I of all people understand the challenges of self-photography with suboptimal gear. And I wouldn't want to be anal about this. But it would be helpful, for me at least, to have a target, so to speak, for some basic parameters. Even if my shots are a bit off, they'll probably be more useful than if I just started clicking, or selected only what I thought looked most appealing.
I agree with your point that higher-resolution shots are especially helpful.
But as in comparing anything else--wine, show dogs, preamplifiers--a few samples under reasonably consistent "standard" conditions would help illuminate small differences. I would imagine 3-4 basic shots would suffice, along with unlimited "poster's choice" shots.
I've learned a great deal from the relatively frontal shots of coats recently shown. But even there, I find it hard to compare the button point on toomanypleats' lovely LL tweed with Alden's green tweed and Matt's Rubinacci because the first has a significantly higher camera angle and I don't know how much to discount foreshortening effects (and as it's on a form I can't factor in the figure). And we see fewer backs and side shots, so it's harder to compare sleeve shape, pitch, etc. I gather some tailors are significantly better at fronts than backs and vice versa; and some are better with certain figure types. It would be nice to have some reference points.
I have some jackets in which the sleeve pitch is off--with arms at rest, in normal posture, the upper sleeves bunch at the rear. If I want to put the best face on the tailoring, I can easily assume a very natural pose with arms crossed, or holding a book, or adjusting a cuff, in which the sleeve looks completely clean. But any catalog photographer could specify such tricks (I know you didn't mean to advocate intentional deception, uppercase!). What I find valuable about LL is the spirit of continuous learning and improvement at a high level, which requires an admirable restraint in one's natural pride of ownership.
I of all people understand the challenges of self-photography with suboptimal gear. And I wouldn't want to be anal about this. But it would be helpful, for me at least, to have a target, so to speak, for some basic parameters. Even if my shots are a bit off, they'll probably be more useful than if I just started clicking, or selected only what I thought looked most appealing.
I agree with your point that higher-resolution shots are especially helpful.
Certain poses best show technical details, but I'm all for shots of "suits in action" as well.
Regarding image sizes, if a picture is larger than 800x600 then it appears at reduced size in the photojournal. However if you click on that shrunken image, then the original monster image appears. At least, it does for me.
Regarding image sizes, if a picture is larger than 800x600 then it appears at reduced size in the photojournal. However if you click on that shrunken image, then the original monster image appears. At least, it does for me.
Gentlemen,
What stuns me is that etailors are paying loads of money for sites that do not present their products well. I can’t say that I ever spent time looking at tailor’s web sites other than englishcut (which is a model unto its own and a source of great information on custom clothes and tailoring.) After a brief survey of the sites I was flabbergasted by the lack of value in their presentations. The blah blah to substance ratio is entirely blah blah. I suppose these ads are destined for the uninitiated and those who frequent the more superficial web sites about clothes and fashion, but there is a serious consequence.
SR and other etailors are doing little to defend their trade from the real threat to their future, bogus rag merchants posing as bespoke craftsmen. Everyone claims to do custom clothes and yet, as we know, there are only a very few genuine craftsmen making truly individual, hand sewn garments any more. You would think SR and the other tailors would do more to differentiate themselves from the mass of pretenders. They don’t. Groups of interested customers, like the members of the LL, are left to do a job that the tailors should be doing themselves.
Do you remember the “protests” on Savile Row? I don’t think the real threat to tailoring is increased rents on Savile Row. The real threat is marketing in bad faith by unscrupulous merchants. The web could be used to counter this threat.
The members of the LL are interested in improving their knowledge of custom clothing and tailoring so as to be better consumers. If the end result is that more men commission clothes given the acquired confidence and education from the resources of the LL, then part of the mission statement is being achieved. But groups like the LL can’t do much to stem the tide of bad information that permeates the web. The tailors, if they want to be in the marketing business, have to take up the slack.
PS LL Certified Artisan Steve Hitchcock does a very nice job showing his work on the site entitled http://www.savilerow.blogs.com/ It is worth a look.
What stuns me is that etailors are paying loads of money for sites that do not present their products well. I can’t say that I ever spent time looking at tailor’s web sites other than englishcut (which is a model unto its own and a source of great information on custom clothes and tailoring.) After a brief survey of the sites I was flabbergasted by the lack of value in their presentations. The blah blah to substance ratio is entirely blah blah. I suppose these ads are destined for the uninitiated and those who frequent the more superficial web sites about clothes and fashion, but there is a serious consequence.
SR and other etailors are doing little to defend their trade from the real threat to their future, bogus rag merchants posing as bespoke craftsmen. Everyone claims to do custom clothes and yet, as we know, there are only a very few genuine craftsmen making truly individual, hand sewn garments any more. You would think SR and the other tailors would do more to differentiate themselves from the mass of pretenders. They don’t. Groups of interested customers, like the members of the LL, are left to do a job that the tailors should be doing themselves.
Do you remember the “protests” on Savile Row? I don’t think the real threat to tailoring is increased rents on Savile Row. The real threat is marketing in bad faith by unscrupulous merchants. The web could be used to counter this threat.
The members of the LL are interested in improving their knowledge of custom clothing and tailoring so as to be better consumers. If the end result is that more men commission clothes given the acquired confidence and education from the resources of the LL, then part of the mission statement is being achieved. But groups like the LL can’t do much to stem the tide of bad information that permeates the web. The tailors, if they want to be in the marketing business, have to take up the slack.
PS LL Certified Artisan Steve Hitchcock does a very nice job showing his work on the site entitled http://www.savilerow.blogs.com/ It is worth a look.
Last edited by alden on Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This is correct. There is no size limitation, but to avoid busting the database the smallest size possible that communicates the image would be the best choice.Regarding image sizes, if a picture is larger than 800x600 then it appears at reduced size in the photojournal. However if you click on that shrunken image, then the original monster image appears. At least, it does for me
I am all for a set of spec for PJ contributions. Not being an experienced photographer puts me at a decidedly disadvantagous spot to give counsel or specs. I will try and ask afew photographer friends. IN the meantime if we have any photographic whizzes on the site, please let us know. That means you Jan.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 54 guests