Pictures of finished garments in mags...(a rant)

[yarnyviolet]

Is it just me or do the photographers who take the pictures of the finished product have no clue as to what a crocheter would like to see in the picture? I can see in a fashion mag that you want all different angles to make something look really nice but as a crocheter I would like to see what the whole thing looks like clearly. Sometimes I start something and I am not sure if there is an error or if it is supposed to look strange. I bought the magazine to make the patterns and I would like to have all the help I can get not fancy pictures. Sorry...it has just been something that has been bothering me lately.

 

Well while I am on a rant don't you hate it when a project calls for some yarn that is more expensive but not necessarily the best for that project. I saw this pattern that called for alpaca yarn for a tea cosy. Alpaca is really nice and soft but needs to be washed carefully. It is a better choice for a nice sweater or scarf I think but that is only my opinion. It just makes me upset that beginners are forking out for this yarn and then the thing gets wrecked when hot tea gets spilt on it and wrecks it.

 

Rant over

 

Rachel

[grrlsmom]

YEEESSSSSSS! I've spent a lot of time scrutinizing photos in mags or flyers to figure out exactly what the item looks like! And don't even get me started on yarn! I understand yarn companies create patterns to SELL their lovely, expensive yarn, but other than that, could designers give us a break? I am not going to buy 'MegaRichSpunGold - 30 10 yd. skeins for $15.95 each' to make a scarf, let alone a full sweater. I might as well go to Macy's and buy a sweater - more chance of getting a sale price. Options, people, options! Tell me how much 'SuperCheapSpunCrappola - 10 300 yd. skeins for $3.00 each' I could do the design in.

[nightowl]

I know what you mean, Rachel, but we shouldn't really blame the photographers -- they can only work to the brief they're given. It's an editorial decision whether to include a back view, close-up pics of the stitches, etc. so it's worth putting the point to the editors of the magazines you feel are the worst offenders.

 

Most would probably say they haven't the space for extra pictures/diagrams, or that it would mean cutting the number of patterns, but I think it can be done. I suspect the reason it (generally) isn't is because of a marketing mindset. . . they go for the attractive, eye-catching shot that will make you fall in love with the project and avoid the "mechanics" of charts, schematics, stitch pics and detailed technique for fear it will make the instructions look "too hard" and put people off (perhaps that "new young audience" we keep hearing about? )

 

One example is a pattern a member recently posted about. . . to shape the sleeves, the instructions called for a separate chained "extension" to be attached on 9 consecutive rows -- each one with 2 ends to weave in and no illustration of how to do it, or explanation of why! (So the increases at each side would be made on the same row.) I'd be interested to know how many requests for help the mag received on that one! How hard would it have been to have shown it, or better still, how to do a foundation stitch increase instead?

 

The best magazine I've ever seen from the point of view of actually making the items is an Italian tatting publication, Il Lavoro Chiacchierino. It has the "eye candy" shots -- and they are beautiful! -- but also includes a life-size colour close-up of every item. You can count the stitches and see exactly how it should look and the details of joins, etc. They are so good that many doilies and motifs can be made straight from the pic without ever needing to look at the charts and instructions And they still manage to pack in about 30 designs in each issue.

 

As for the alpaca tea cosy, words fail me. . !

 

Guess I'm in a ranting mood too

 

Smiles,

[darski]

This is a freebie that drives me nuts. Free patterns dot com has a pattern for a little girls' Sugarplum Sweater. they have a (matching scarf) around the neck and a huge Christmas present in front of the whole front. all you can really see is a sleeve. if I want to see the thing (to see if I want to make it) I have to make it. Puleeeeze,

 

Regarding the tea cozy... I'm guessing they are marketing brains and know nothing about crochet or tea drinking by us plebes

[Nan-Nan]

When I come across a pattern I like that calls for an expensive yarn, I'll make a swatch from several different cheaper yarns that I have on hand untill I get the right guage so I can get the size right, then I either use what I have or buy a bit better yarn in the same weight & do it in that. Still looks great & I've saved a ton of money.

[Yearnin' for Yarn]

You should check out Crochet Today! magazine---the pictures are attractive and functional, I think, anyway. They are clear and close up and sometimes have different angles.

 

Nicole

[ksknits]

I agree with you on both rants:

Pictures: I once saw a pattern that I wanted to do, and I asked a question about it on another group that I am on. It was a knitted pattern and the picture was of the model standing sidewise, so you couldn't see the whole item. The pattern was from a well known pattern and yarn company. A wise and wonderful longterm knitter replied back to me about photography. He said that if they don't photograph the whole item, there is a reason. He pointed out several design aspects of the pattern that would not make it a wise choice to do. After reviewing his comments, I realized that he was right, and I would have been disappointed with the garment, and did not make it. The moral: An item will be photographed how it is most flattering - bear that it mind when deciding if you want to do it.

 

Yarns and projects - I have found that many people are paid to design for a specific yarn, or design for yarns that they love. I agree that a tea cozy in aplaca doesn't make much sense to me. Fortunately, I have learned to substitute yarns and make items out of yarn that I like and can afford. I still appreciate all the diffferent designs that are out there.

 

Kathy

[margrue]

I agree that the photos do not always show the details of a garment. So many times the model's long hair obscures a collar, or the arms are arranged in such a way that you can't really get a good view of the button front detail. and then the magazines do their photo shoots in the Bahamas or someplace! I could care less about the scenery behind the model. I would just as soon see the model standing in front of a plain white background with perhaps another view of the garment laid flat or hanging on a hanger (front and back views).

I suppose if the garment isn't shown on an attractive model in a pretty landscape the magazine editors think we won't be tempted to make it.

[angel]

I'm lucky that I can't even get most of the yarns recommended for particular patterns, I just use what I have and 'wing it' (I haven't made clothes yet...I would be a bit more careful with those!).

 

When I started crocheting and looking at patterns, I probably would have spent a fortune on the yarn recommended but now I'm a bit wiser

 

Regarding the photographs - Erika Knights' books (I have two) are beautifully photographed from an artistic point of view but that makes it very hard for me as a crocheter because I just want a plain, straightforward picture of the item, not a corner of it draped over a piece of furniture etc...from what I understand, though, her patterns are quite good but it is frustrating!

 

-- Michelle

[craftybutterfly]

I agree that the photos do not always show the details of a garment. So many times the model's long hair obscures a collar, or the arms are arranged in such a way that you can't really get a good view of the button front detail. and then the magazines do their photo shoots in the Bahamas or someplace! I could care less about the scenery behind the model. I would just as soon see the model standing in front of a plain white background with perhaps another view of the garment laid flat or hanging on a hanger (front and back views).

I suppose if the garment isn't shown on an attractive model in a pretty landscape the magazine editors think we won't be tempted to make it.

 

 

Yep, I totaly agree! They could save all the money they spend on expensive photo shoots, and pass the savings on down to us in making their mags cheaper to buy (Interweave Mag cost like $7 where I am). I recently made a really cute pullover sweater, the picture in the mag was so cute!! but then I understood why they had the model posed in the rediculous way that she was, it was because that was the only pose that wouldn't show how "funky" the sleeves looked other wise. I frogged a weeks worth of work, totally discouraged. If I'm buying a ready made bikini, then MAYBE I might want to see how it would look in the bahamas, otherwise, just hang it on a clothes hanger, give me both views, and move on. They don't seem to understand that we don't need all the "fluff" pictures to be enticed to buy their patterns. the best displayed patterns, to me, have the finished project displayed on a dress form or manequin, with a plain background.

 

Something else I just thought of. I've been working on the Caron Simply Soft Circle Jacket. The pattern (I won't even go there about the mistakes it had) only showed one view, the front. The only thing that got me through it, was the fact that Donna posted pictures of her finished project, front and back, and I could actually SEE how the back was sapposed to look. It's frustrating.

 

As for them using expensive yarn to make tea cozies, that makes no sense. It's like making a dish rag from cashmere. Duh.

[thecrochetdude]

Sadly I think they are "fashion magazines with patterns" instead of actually being pattern magazines. A pattern magazine would be determined to help us make the items correctly. A fashion magazine wants us to look at all the pretty pictures.

 

I haven't seen the new Crochet Today magazine, but I've heard that it is more geared toward helping us make the items. I wonder if their photos are any clearer?

 

[yarnyviolet]

Yes, it was looking at Crochet Today that I realized that pattern mags could actually give clear pictures. It is a really helpful magazine. As for Erika Knights books they were exactly what I was thinking. I have 2 of her books (I also got a knitting one for my sister) and they are beautiful coffee table books but sometimes I can't figure out how something should go. Especially because the ones I have use UK terms when I don't. Even though I don't use symbols (I have been meaning to learn) they can be helpful if they can't show a decent picture. At least you can get an idea. Sewing patterns give tonnes of info most of the time so why not crochet patterns?

 

As an aside I have always joked to dh about learning and he would look at a pattern and say he wouldn't be able to do it. Then one day he looked at a symbol diagram and he actually showed interest. He is an electronics tech so works with circuit diagrams and needs something more visual to figure things out. I have actually noticed a lot of men like pictures when doing something and hardly read the words. I wonder if more men would do crafts if they had more visual aides? Just wondering...

 

 

Rachel

[Tiga]

Regarding SuperExpensiveImpractical yarns, I just found yarndex.com today. You can search for almost any yarn and get ALL the info on it.

 

I want to make a cardigan for my mom, but the pattern calls for a yarn that she doesn't like. So, I went to yarndex, and found a yarn with a similar number of yards per ounce, a similar ply and wpi, as well as being the same type of yarn (worsted, in this case).

 

It was really easy, and I intend to use this resource again and again so I can make those fancy things in the magazines with Walmart yarn!

 

And I agree, I want close up pictures of stuff!

[Tiga]

Yes, it was looking at Crochet Today that I realized that pattern mags could actually give clear pictures. It is a really helpful magazine. As for Erika Knights books they were exactly what I was thinking. I have 2 of her books (I also got a knitting one for my sister) and they are beautiful coffee table books but sometimes I can't figure out how something should go. Especially because the ones I have use UK terms when I don't. Even though I don't use symbols (I have been meaning to learn) they can be helpful if they can't show a decent picture. At least you can get an idea. Sewing patterns give tonnes of info most of the time so why not crochet patterns?

 

As an aside I have always joked to dh about learning and he would look at a pattern and say he wouldn't be able to do it. Then one day he looked at a symbol diagram and he actually showed interest. He is an electronics tech so works with circuit diagrams and needs something more visual to figure things out. I have actually noticed a lot of men like pictures when doing something and hardly read the words. I wonder if more men would do crafts if they had more visual aides? Just wondering...

 

 

Rachel

 

I know that while I don't crochet FROM the diagrams, I've found that they are really useful when doing complicated stitches. I've been working on a stole using two stitches from the Harmony stitch guide, and having the schematic right there has helped me no end. It's better than a picture to figure out what is going on in a stitch pattern.

 

I still need a traditional pattern, though, b/c I can't remember what all those symbols in the schematics mean!

[WendyLee]

I just got a request from my MIL to make a bed jacket. She sent me a mag with the pattern she would like. The yoke used the star stitch. I had never done this stitch before. The picture in no way gave me any idea what the stitch looked like, never mind how to do it. So I went through the magazine looking for the stitch diagrams that a lot of them have. The stitch examples given were for basic stitches and one puff stitch. What good is that? None of the rarely used stitches in any of the patterns were demonstrated. How stupid is that? You would think they would give the rare stitches instead of how to do a single crochet for crying out loud!

[lhasaapsolady]

An alpaca tea cozy, hmmm wonder what turnip truck they fell off of.

 

As for the pictures, you are absolutely correct. I've completed projects that family members pick out and by the pic you think I don't think I'll like this, but it turns out beautiful. It would just be nice if they would give different shots of the finished project.

[L-A]

I totally agree with everyone's comments... In addition to better photographs, I wish all patterns had diagrams of the dimensions of each piece of the garment to show how the pieces should look before you sew them all together.

[ErinLindsey]

Sadly I think they are "fashion magazines with patterns" instead of actually being pattern magazines. A pattern magazine would be determined to help us make the items correctly. A fashion magazine wants us to look at all the pretty pictures.

 

I haven't seen the new Crochet Today magazine, but I've heard that it is more geared toward helping us make the items. I wonder if their photos are any clearer?

 

 

I just checked my copy of Crochet Today (bought it right before I injured my eye last month, so I hadnt actually read it yet) and it does look like they've made more of an effort to be helpful rather than just showing us some pretty pictures. It has the ever-so-helpful symbol diagrams (love those!) and for a lot of the patterns they show the items from a couple of different angles.

 

I love the magazines that use the symbol diagrams...I'm more of a visual crocheter than one who works off of a written out pattern. The symbols keep me from losing my place like I usually do with a written out pattern.