/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

>>7494851
I think Firefly Path has lovely creations, but I have seen seagulls bitch about how she "ruins" cosplays somehow.

I think it can make a costume look much better irl. It still depends on the costume, but generally I think interpretations are better as long as they don't go too far off of the actual design. Especially with things like ballgowns, it makes no sense for them to be plain and with no intricate details. That shit just doesn't get animated because it would be incredibly difficult and time consuming.

It still has to look like the character and their costume, if you're not going 100% accurate to the anime then make sure to keep the materials used within the realm of realism/possibility in terms of who the character is and what their standing is(ex: it would make no logical sense to make a AoT jacket out of silk.)

>>7494906
Exactly. Along with ballgowns, I like to see a little more glitz and glam on magical girl costumes. I see it being done a lot with Precure cosplayers and cosplayers from old school magical girl shows. I wish more Madoka cosplayers would start using more detailed designs. It would help them stand out at the very least.

Suits are also something that gets animated simply, but probably shouldn't be made so simply. Is your character rich as fuck? Show it. Cufflinks, higher quality fabric on things like ties, etc.

>>7494928
I agree with you, nobody has done anything of the sort and looked good yet with madoka. I hope I get to see a lacey glitzy embroidered madoka cosplay someday...

>>7494851
i love her stuff. so much. want it.

Most of CGL seemed to be super unhappy with it but I actually really liked Ardella's interpretation of the ballgown Sarah wears in Labyrinth. It's less 80s but no less stunning, imo.

>>7495133
This dress is ugly. And her interpretation is just terrible. Please don't post this mess again

>>7495133
it looks like a cheap prom dress. Why would you make an interpretation of Sarah's dress? It makes no fucking sense.

>>7495133
Because it's an ugly dress that put in much less detail and is very inaccurate.

It's perfect with things like OP.

It's the difference between "What would this character look like in real life?" vs "What this character looks like pulled straight from the cartoon."

>>7494851
>Firefly Path
how much is it to get something from her?

>>7495137
>>7495138
>Complaining about innacuracy and interpretation in an interpretation thread.
Panties are very bunched right here.

>>7495170
Op asked for opinions about how important accuracy was.

Like >>7494928 said, I think it should only be used on designs that are otherwise plain for animation's sake, like ballgowns and magical girl outfits.
If you're cosplaying something from a military source, like AoT, embellishments make no sense and you should just stick to accuracy (except for Hetalia).
Same with sources involving normal outfits or school uniforms.

Although one thing I've started liking recently is using slightly-textured fabrics for something solid-colored. I don't really have any examples, but it's really nice when used properly.

I think inspired pieces can be really creative. But, I have to know who you're dressed as, even with the embellishments. I mean, that's still the point, that you're dressing up as a character so I should know who you are dressed as. If I can't tell (like with the Sarah dress above) then I think it's a failure.

>>7494857
To be fair, Firefly Path's work is basically "oh this looks pretty!" until you examine them up close and see the mediocre construction.

>>7495178
>I think it should only be used on designs that are otherwise plain for animation's sake

More or less this. Kind of like how just about every Disney Broadway show takes the basic animation outfits and gives them details that make them look more real, Belle in pic related

>>7495353
See, I wouldn't really like this if a cosplayer made that sort of choice. I think those fabrics and little additions in design are made to stand out on stage, but on what's supposed to be such a simple outfit, that much detail would be a bit overwhelming up close. That, and I always got the impression the Belle and her father were not wealthy, so I'd think a dress with even that much additional detail would look twice as out of place when not on a stage.

I do like when cosplayers take a little artistic license, but it has to be appropriate to the character's taste and background.

One of my favourite examples, though I can't find a picture, was a May from Guilty Gear; the cosplayer used a belt buckle with a fancier shape and with some designs on it that the official designs lacked. When I asked her about it, she said when she saw it, it made her think of something a pirate might steal off a wealthy victim, and it really did pop more than the plain belt buckles other May cosplayers have used that have been more accurate.

>>7495395
I disagree. I haven't seen a Belle cosplayer that uses the flat/plain fabrics that hasn't looked cheap (and not in a "oh they're not wealthy" way, but as in it just looks cheap) and too costumey for a real-life version of the character.

>>7495406

>>7495406
That's fair. I'm sure I'd agree with some examples, but I think with the right fabric choices and maybe just a few extra touches, not quite as much going on as in the broadway show, that a simple Belle would look wonderful. Broadway-level decoration just seems too much to me, but different strokes.

>>7495418
I hope you weren't trying to use this cosplayer to prove the point wrong...

>>7495406
I feel like a lot of this problem comes from construction, too.

Like...realistically, someone in Belle's situation may not have the fanciest of fabrics, but she could still sew little details in that would make it look cuter, rather than cheap/flat.

But honestly, a lot of the people that pick plain fabrics also pick a lower-quality fabric to begin with. I feel like plain fabric with a boost in construction details and attention to the blouse and bottom ruffle and apron would really make or break the cosplay.

I think a mix of the two can make a costume really stand out, as long as you do it in a good way. For example a friend of mine is dressing up as Ice Queen from Adventure time, and instead of doing the light scallop parts flat sewn against the darker blue, she's doing it all as separate pieces and then ruffling the darker blue just to add a nice touch to it. It looks great, less flat, but still represents the original design well.

I always goes for what looks realistic, compared to what looks closest to the original. But that's kinda my style of cosplays, and I've mostly done characters with somewhat realistic designs

>>7495430
>plain fabric
>good cosplay

Not really, was just pointing out that not all cosplayers who pick a plain fabric for Belle look "cheap".

>>7495431
I feel like "flat" is a good way to describe a lot of cosplays for Belle's blue/regular dress. I don't think people even necessarily have to add lots of new details, but there's a certain something it needs to make it look like it's Belle wearing actual clothing... if that makes sense.

>>7495472
Like wearing linen instead of cotton/polyester fabric.

I think if it's done well (makes the clothes look more like real clothes) it's a great addition.

In recent years I've thought a natural-kei take on Sophie from Howls Moving castle would be lovely. Keep the same colors and parts to the dress (long sleeves, long skirt, high neck) but add some pin tucks and other details like that.

>>7495353
The teapot is beautiful!

>>7495431
This, and another factor I think that make "simple" cosplays look too flat is fabric choice. Belle lives in 18th century France. Cotton was not a widely available fabric at the time. The more accurate, and better looking, choice is something like a homespun linen fabric. You'd probably have to dye it to the right shade, but it would give it a way better texture and look. People need to break the habit of jumping to quilting cotton for every simple cosplay.

>>7495350
To be fair, I see this all of the time on here and it sounds like bitter jealousy. Especially when you neglect to mention whether you've seen the gowns in person or up close or actually ordered one.

On this board, it's incredibly easy to label someone's creation as shit and just not offer a legitimate reason or your personal distaste as opposed to an actual, "This fabric etc.."

>>7495431
So, are we all just ignoring that she didn't make the yellow ballgown and was living in the castle of a wealthy Prince?

>>7496114
>bottom ruffle and apron

Clearly referring to her pre-castle costume, which is what most people choose to cosplay because it isn't as difficult or complex.

The outfit referenced changed between OP and there, anon

Going back to Firefly path...
While her Jasmine was slightly spot on...

Things like this bother me. Queen Serenity had gold borders. Not silver. I don't know what she's using for the skirt, but it's not moon princess-y at all.

</butthurt faggot>

>>7496111
>not liking the quality of a company run by someone with a reputation of mediocre commissions
>BITTER JEALOUSY

>>7496177
It's pretty, but it looks more like a wedding dress. I think they should've done it empire waisted like the original. I wouldn't have been able to tell that was a from Sailor Moon just by looking at it.

Here's the original Dior dress for comparison.

>>7496196
>Dior dress
Is that what Serenity's dress was based on?

>>7496198
Yup! There's a lot more where that came from, too.

>>7496206
Holy hell. Were this meant to be references or just blatant rip-offs?

>>7496198
Yep. If you search around. You find a lot of the creator's color illustrations and outfits are inspired by fashion.

>>7496226
>>7496206
>>7496196
imagine being the model who got to wear the original princess serenity dress..

>>7496196
>It's pretty, but it looks more like a wedding dress.

Thats what she was going for. JoEllen has opened up a bridal shop along with her costume commissions. Taking famous characters and changing them into bridal wear and do doubt charging a butt load for them. So in this case it actually isnt a cosplay or costume.

>>7496214
References. Naoko Takeuchi was a huge fan of fashion. it's basically fanart

>>7495647
I really love your idea for Sophie. When you mentioned pin tucks my mind just started reeling.

ahh I hope you dont mind, but I think I might play off your idea too!

I think if someone takes the time to construct a costume they can do whatever the fuck they want with it

>>7496299
Technically, you're not wrong.

And technically, we can critique what the fuck they've done with it without their permission.

OP here. I share the same opinion as lot of you that some artistic licence in fabric choice can really bump up a costume as long as it is appropriate for the character.

I am usually a stickler for accurate but with my next costume I think I will take some liberties with the design/fabric. I'm making a fairy character and I wanted to play around with fancier fabrics and burnt hem to try to simulate the edges of leaves. Maybe even add some jewels on the leaves to try and make it look like morning dew. Not too much but just enough to give it a bit more. I just think it would be fun and be something different that I have never tried before. Also with taking some artistic liberties I will be trying my hand at some new skills I wanna try like corded pintucks, and piping.

>>7496281
no it's fine, I don't really cosplay or go to conventions anymore so it's unlikely I'll ever get a chance to do it.

Someday I might do an illustration of it though!

>>7496185
Then, offer some legitimate reasons as to why it's "mediocre" instead of just acting Tumblrtard sassy with a gif.

>>7496185
How is it mediocre, though?

>>7496308

Technically, you may need to get a life

>>7495472
Definitely. It should be done in a fabric that would have been available to a rural French girl of the era. Presumably wool or linen. To really kick it up a notch, it should be worn with period stays or constructed in a way that emulates the silhouette and style of that era's clothing.

>>7496299
They can, but we're just discussing how many alterations are too much.
After a while, it becomes less of a costume and more of an outfit based off of a character, which isn't cosplay.

Obviously I think accuracy is the most important. I think a person should go for accurate cosplays before they branch out, though.

The problem with making artistic decisions on altering things is that not everyone is /actually/ good at them.

There are a lot of things that do look better in 2D than 3D and should be altered to better suit 3D (eg: Nui Harime's pigtails). However I think making things suitable for 3D is slightly different than ritzing up an otherwise plain design like OP pic.

>it offends me when someone alters the clothing of my precious animu characters

>>7496325
Says the one also on /cgl/

With classic characters (things like disney princesses, comic book characters etc) a different interpretation of the same design we've known for a number of years is always nice in my opinion. But it really bears on knowing what elements are integral to the design and what you can play with and change.
sort of like what >>7495353 said. It gives the eye something more to look at and isn't as flat.

>>7496318
I don't attend many myself anymore.
Though the few costumes I have planned are more for garment construction practice than anything else.

your idea sounds prefect for my means.
also I just really love pin tucks.

>>7495350
I'm waiting.

>>7496544
I couldn't let it be so I did a quick 5 minute sketch for Natural-kei Sophie.

The dress would be a soft green cotton of course with green buttons, the collar of the dress would be trimmed with white eyelet lace.

The white underskirt would peek out and would be made with an eyelet ruffle. The apron is also made of eyelet fabric with matching pockets.

I hope this is some help or inspiration!

>>7495160
over $20k

>>7496322
>>7496323
Google Lillyalexandra and educate yourself.

>>7496831
For sequins and plastic beading? Ugh. Sorry, but I never considered those two "luxury" when decorating dresses and stuff. And for 20k? That's a joke right? right?

>>7496870
No nigger you don't get to say that kind of shit and then come up with "Google it hurr". I asked you why. If you're not capable of coming up with an explanation then don't bother to say shit to begin with.

>>7496870
>this is mediocre
>ask for an actual critique on the outfit and reasons why it is mediocre
>USE GOOGLE BAKA CHAN!1!!!!!!11!!1

Lol? And, then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously when you all criticize something and instead sees only bitterness and envy? You twatted off about it, so back it up. You telling someone to Google still gives us results of costumes that appear to have nothing wrong with them.

If you want to convince, learn how to argue instead of pussing out.

>>7496879
It'd be like you saying "omg! Why don't people like Traci Hines? Ya'all jelly bitches!!!" or "you can't just say Candy Violet isn't great!!!" Common sense, common knowledge. Do it yourself or get over the "bitter jealousy!" defense, dumbass.

>>7496888
Do you not know how the fuck a critique works, dumbass? You were asked how something is and you couldn't even give an explanation as to why YOU think it is a certain way. You act like people are peons for daring to question your fucking opinion. Get the fuck over yourself and your unwarranted self importance. You're a bitter cunt on 4chan and you still, after hours, can't offer examples as to how the dress itself is mediocre.

>>7496885
>uses cheap materials
>has produced commissions which were WAY off in measurements
>basically disowns those commissions and gets spotty communication when people complained about said poor measurements (which were on costumes that arrived well after the deadline, anyway)
>charges thousands of dollars for costumes made with cheap materials, produced with unfinished elements (those wonderful unfinished seams on her Jasmine!)
>but they look pretty and flouncy!!

Oh dumbass /cgl/ bitches, this is why you get screwed over with commissions time and time again. Y'all jelly!

>>7496896
Boo hoo, cry more.

>>7496888
>>7496910
It's not so hard to answer to a question directed at you, now is it?

I wasn't asking you about common sense or knowledge. I was asking you -why- she's mediocre. Keyword being -you-, dipshit.
I wanted -your- answer, and now I got it.
Also, it's not "being jelly", stupid. It's asking a fucking question. Asking you to elaborate about an argument you made isn't always a challenge.

>>7496917
Says the person who was kicking and screaming at people for not "just using Google". You can stop samefagging and continue to actually detail your "evidence" with something aside from unsourced conjecture.

>>7496917
You pitched a tantrum because someone asked for you to elaborate on your opinion, for a statement that you chose to make by quoting someone else. If you can't finish something, don't start it.

Not the anon(s) who has/have been posting, but I have a secondhand story about Lillyxandra from someone who commissioned a wedding gown from Firefly Path. The gown arrived on time, but it looked like she had rushed at the end. There were hot glue drips down the back of the bodice and in the chiffon ruching details on the skirt.

Vague as balls story, I know, but I can't find the original thread.
In personal assessment, Lillyxandra is a savvy businesswoman who knows how to photograph her costumes most advantageously, and she knows how to use fancy fabrics and notions well. I like her creative vision and her reinterpreted designs, but her construction isn't commission-level.

And here's a separate review someone left on another Lillyxandra commission:
>http://www.cosplay.com/showthread.php?p=2000827#post2000827

>>7496827
Oh I really like the layers of the skirt.
I was also thinking of the pin tucks on the collar yoke and the hem.

Great inspiration so far!
Man I think I am going to make this a full project for myself and do a inspiration board and everything.

Have a huge soft spot for Sophie
Im so glad you shared your idea.

>>7496877
no. didn't you see her website? she prides herself about being all in the media

>>7496924
>unsourced conjecture.

That's what Google is for, lazy ass.

http://www.cosplay.com/showthread.php?p=2000827#post2000827

You whiteknighting crybaby cunts, I swear.

>>7497208
>posting the same link posted earlier in the thread
>one example
You've taken half a step. Keep going with your evidence.

>>7497264
>it took you that long to dry your whiteknight tears

maybe you can spend $3000 for some Michaels-brand sequins half-stitched on mass-market silk to cheer you up

>>7497280
I wasn't even involved in this argument until now, but I find it cute that you're monitoring the thread so diligently.

I'd like to hear opinions on this series, it's a bunch of artwork depicting the Disney princesses in the correct historical outfit for the time/place of their movies.

>>7497289

gotta admit, not all that impressed by the actual cosplay of it

>>7497289

Belle

>>7497292
Megara

>>7497293

I love this Cinderella heaps, always thought the original looking too plain

>>7497295
Tiana.

Love this too

>>7497299

Ariel

You don't need to post them all. It's a fairly famous fanart series.

>>7497300
Pocahontas.

Considering the original story involved something like pedophilia and god-knows-what, I'm not really sure I want to do "historicallly accurate" Pocahontas. I did like the movie a lot until I looked up the history, so this is one where I would stick to the movie version rather than the historical version

>>7497301
>>7497303

I know, I just wanted to stop the pointless arguing up above.

All right, two more photos, this one is one I couldn't recognise at all, and would never ever recognise at a con.

>>7497305

And this one is the cosplay of it.

>>7497305
>>7497307

Ah, one more. Another cosplay of Aurora.

Her gallery has some real misses imo, not sure how people haven't pointed these out.

The sequence is messy on the side and the seam is puckering. The pin tucks look lumpy and unironed. The large sequence look cheap and the bottom lacks fullness.

I would have been disappointed if I had paid for this.

>>7497332

>>7497332
That's hideous in an 80's prom explosion kind of way.

>>7497332
I always get sad when I see something that obviously had a lot of time and love put into it but ended up looking so fucking bad.

>>7497289

>>7497292

>>7497425

>>7497425
>>7497426

I'm guess that she's actually quite skilled at making historical costumes, but this kinda misses the mark for me, they look tacky and I wouldn't recognise her as Belle.

>>7496177
>Queen Serenity had gold borders.

I'm fairly sure that in the manga the Queen goes back and forth between silver AND gold as her color.

I would not have know that dress was Sailor Moon related though. Too much of the shape is off. I do like the broomstick crinkle fabric though. On the proper shape it would have looked nice.

>>7497422
>>7497290
>>7497289

The detail and fabric choices in these costumes look so good, I just with they would have used an era appropriate corset and a proper skirt shape

>>7497437
It's a cosplay of fanart.

>>7496177
>>7497468
I don't think this costume was intended to be queen serenity, but neo-queen serenity (usagi, not her mum)
IIRC both of them are almost always, if not always, drawn with gold details. Sometimes it's as simple as the jewelry, not even on the dress, but then we're in the separate issue of mixing gold jewelry with a silver gilded dress
I don't think this dress is very moon-princessy, either. With her talents, she could have done something a lot closer. But it's possible her client said something like, "I want this style, but Sailor Moon themed with these colors" and that's what she came up with.

>>7497437
Belle's yellow dress looks nothing like something from 18th century France so any historical version is going to look really different. IMO it deviates the most out of the whole fanart series.

>>7497290
Resources for Cranach gowns are so easy to find, the sleeves could be so much more polished.

And that skirt just looks sad : (

What if the character design already is an interpretation? I've been contemplating doing oiran Miku for the longest time but I'm having maximum trouble with the wig design. It's super simplified compared to real oiran wigs and it bugs the fuck out of me. Yet I'm afraid that if I go full retard and try to imitate the real thing (add the 'side-bumps', ton of oiran specific hair sticks and other ornaments, I've researched it quite a while now) it will be attention whoring. Where does that line go? I personally think it would make the design better and less cheap looking but I'm your average Scandinavian girl so anything that specific to Japanese culture could be a mad miss. What to do? Pic related.

>>7498150
It's a modernized version that's not meant to mimic but to reminisce the traditional style. It isn't an exact copy, and I don't think it will look right if you change it to make it look "more realistic" because it's not supposed to be.

>>7496177
It's not the gold that bothers me, its the entire fucking design. It looks nothing like the original and imo doesn't work as an "interpretation" - there is nothing about this that says Princess Serenity to me. She just made a white dress with a layered skirt and some round shit at the neckline.

I am continually amazed with the amount of pure shit she's churning out lately. It sucks .. I used to be such a big fan, but I think she's really just a poor designer ..

>>7497316
It's sequins, not sequence.

Let's also not forget that she didn't sew the horse hair on right, she just sewed it to the edge and left it like that. You're supposed to fold it under into the hem

>>7497425
>>7497426
i think what bothers me the most about this girl's interpretation is that she's clearly wearing the wrong foundation garments (if at all) and the wig is all wrong. if you're going to make a historically inspired gown, you should be using historically based patterns and doing your research on how clothes were actually worn in that period (boning, undergarments, etc) she at least chose some nice fabrics, but the execution is mediocre at best.

- the bodice is wrinkled and puckered at the front and sides (and what's up with all the white trim/lace on the bodice?...wasn't in the art and really detracts from the look), meaning she's either not wearing stays, or didn't bother to fit the bodice to her corseted shape and then bone it as well (which is the correct way to go....at the very least at the front center).

- pocket hoops instead of a full court pannier....it makes the proportion look off on the entire bottom of the dress.

- this would look 1000% better if she was wearing color-matching opera length gloves....the bare arms kill it.

- wig really is much too high-styled....should probably be more of a later 18c style where the hair wasn't worn so vertically, but curled/ratted/puffed out around the head with multiple dangling lovelocks and tails (if you've seen the film "the duchess, keira knightley wears her hair this way very often in the film)

as someone who does a lot of historical stuff, it always bugs me when people don't do their homework when trying to make a historical piece....i mean, you don't have to handsew your entire dress, but AT LEAST go with some patterns based on extant garments and wear the correct foundation pieces!

polite sage for my rant

>>7497426
why are all these skirts not full enough. why. why do people leave that out.

>>7497332
Is she seriously charging over 20k for those kinds of disasters? I should probably start my own business then, after overcoming my disgust towards raschel lace.

>>7498196
to follow up, this is actually what i think of when i think 18c belle......it's based off a painting of marie antoinette. full sacque back robe francais with sleeves and period appropriate trims on the underskirt and bodice.

It seems to me that accuracy is much more important than interpretation, but on something that allows interpretation; it's bullshit. For example:

>Few months ago submit my Metro cosplay
>probably one of the best kits (not a lot of people do Metro, and most do it haphazardly)
>some stuff isn't 2,000% correct, but everything is lore-friendly
>get yelled at for no reason (even when I asked what was wrong with it)

>>7498216
It was Madame Pompadour, actually.

>>7495350
THIS

If she made costumes using plain fabric with no glitter, jewels, trim or patterned fabric to distract your eyes then you would see how bad her sewing is. The Ezio costume she made was a good example.

>>7498206
Better?

>>7498256
theyre both fugly, and the one on the right's costume looks like shit they should have tried harder wuth a petti, hoopskirt, etc.
On the left, I dont hate the dress but the stripes are costumey and she needs serious makeup and accessories.

>>7498216
>confusing Marie Antoinette with the king's mistress

how dare you

>>7498256
Have these women never heard of makeup?

>>7498206
Because she's not making an exact replica of that fanart but her own take on a "historical" Belle?

>>7498262
Long live the Austrian Bitch!

>>7498273
better the Austrian Bitch than a Pompawhore!

>>7498236
WHOOPS, yeah that's what i meant lol

>>7498262
mea culpa, lol

>>7498268
except that historical garments often use proportion heavily to create a silhouette......so for many of these a full skirt is actually what the historical silhouette would be. and almost everyone ignores that. makes me rage so hard.

>>7498392
You probably shouldn't rage so hard over someone's cosplay interpretation based on the idea of a historical fanart interpretation of a Disney dress

>>7498196
Yo, pocket hoop Belle here. I'm actually using a set of fully boned stays under the dress with boning down the stomacher. It's a historic robe a la francaise pattern with some modifications but you're right - the bodice still wrinkles like shit no matter how tight it's fit (pretty sure this wouldn't be as big a problem if it wasn't sleeveless or was just attached to the stays but oh well). I chose the wig and smaller pocket hoops because the art is specifically supposed to be from 1770 but yeah, now that it's made, not a fan of either. If I remake it I'm definitely going bigger hoops and smaller hair. Since you know your stuff, any suggestions on creating a more flattering waistline with the stays without necessarily cinching? Would using a half boned style make a big difference?

>>7498268
I don't think that's what anon means. It's more that the construction of the dress needs more support.

>>7498515
Looks fully supported to me. Why would you say it needs more support?

>>7498512
hm....about the waistline. did you use the JP ryan gown pattern by any chance? (if i remember right it has the bodice and overskirt cut as 1 piece) you'll want to use a pattern that has the bodice and overskirt cut separately, especially with a bigger pannier underneath. this creates a more defined waistline. i don't think using half-boned stays will help much....i would just stick with the stays you're using, since it was obviously the overdress fabric wrinkling and causing issues. i would however, lightly bone the entire bodice (similar to what's done in victorian garments) along the seams to alleviate the wrinkle issue and help with the "inverted cone" silhouette above the waist. having a bigger skirt will help with this as well.

you really picked some lovely fabrics, so you're on the right track!!! historical shit ain't easy and it's nice to see it tackled!

>>7498674
Actually I did! I ended up chopping the bodice and skirt into two separate pieces because of the strange waistline, but I think the stays are the main culprit. I have a pretty small (shortwaisted) waist but even without the dress on the cone shape visually adds inches. I wanted to stay away from cinching since the whole weight of the gown is on the stays and hips, but that may be my only option. Boning the sides though is a great idea.

>>7498714
(is it sad that i can pick out patterns from looking at the finished garment? LOL) yeah, i couldn't tell if the bodice and skirt were 1 piece or not from the photos. i feel you on the shortwaisted thing too (have to shorten alllllll my bodices and it's annoying). if the thickness of the stays is causing issue, then the half-boned ones might be a good idea, to cut down on bulk on the torso.

>>7498735
also, how heavy is the skirt part? i think when you increase to a bigger pannier you'll find the weight distribution is better and it doesn't feel quite as heavy. these gowns are exhausting to wear, so i understand your concerns on cinching.

>>7496206
Wow, that's straight up copying. Not even inspired by. Just sit and trace. Disappointed. I'm surprised the creator never got sued.

>>7498735
They're a little thick but tbh I sometimes wonder if I just fitted it poorly. Other finished photos I've seen made from the same pattern have a similar shape, but imo the silhouette just looks like a barrel. I agree though that a bigger skirt would probably help a lot. Sage for hijacking this thread.

>>7497292
Oh, this is beautiful! I'm definitely loving this.

>>7497290
I know antiquity dreams did this version and it looks a bit cleaner. Trying to find a pic.

>>7498256
Ugh that Belle is a train wreck. Nothing elegant about her entire costume.

>>7498155
The real hair is much more detailed and looks more fun to build

>>7498163

that doesn't look so bad.

Kinda looks like one of many dresses Serenity might own rather than her trademark dress.

Too heavy on the eye make up though. Chick is a blonde and wouldn't have a deep dark look like that. You can accentuate your eyes without going overboard.

Always keep in mind:
Your own coloring
The character's coloring
The art

You should be able to come up with something that walks the line of being in line with the art, looking good on you, and being true to the character too.

>>7497786
>>7498117

I know both of these. What I mean is that the result just outright looks bad anyway.

You can see from both photos that she has some foundation undergarments going on, and that the yellow fabric on top has a lovely sheen, definitely not cheap cotton. Plus all that pleating on the lower part of the skirt is impressive. That's why I say it's made by someone skilled in making historical costumes, I'm not bashing the historical part of this costume.

But
- does yellow even flatter your skintone?
- why combine orange and yellow, why??? And white lace? With a peach rose?
- dat half-hearted sad little bunting going around her skirt. wtf is that even a historical design
- Dat cheap-looking ribbon rose on her chest
- The underskirt fabric almost looks like lining fabric. It's because you put a smooth and slightly shiny fabric next to the textured fabric.
- second photo, wtf is that pose? wtf is that face?
- she looks so fat and shapeless in the second photo! I'm sure she's not, but the corset shape/fit, the design, or the angle, or maybe all of them at once, gives her torso this terrible boxy look.
- dress really needed a fancier choker rather than a simple strand of pearls.
- hair looks really messy.
- arms look really bare

Oh, and more about the hair:
Belle's characteristic is her widow's peak with two *thick* swathes of hair to either side. But instead you give us:
- two wimpy limp things in front of the wig, almost added as an afterthought
- pic related, better wig than yours.

It's my pet peeve to watch talented, awesome, skilled people put so much time and effort into making downright ugly things. Some of them just seriously need to have colour theory and fashion sense beaten into their heads before they make anything else.

At the end of it all, it's really a pity, you take so much liberty with the character that I can't recognise it, but you still don't look good doing it.

>>7499414
Calm down, friend. You've got some nitpicks. We get it.

>>7499495

Originally all I said was that I could see the workmanship showed the maker was skilled but the end result was ugly. If someone wanted to try and tell me I didn't know it was fanart or that it was historical then I can jolly well tell them exactly what is ugly about their costume.

tl,dr; Let me rant. They asked for it.

>>7498256
She looks like she could float and sail away. You know you've missed the mark when you look like a fucking boat.

>>7499414
>maximum rustle.gif

>>7499527
No one asked for your long autistic rant.

>>7499771

Well there it is.

I'm hiding this thread after this reply, feel free to be as rude as you can in your next reply. I just wanted you to know that if someone argues back with you it's most likely a troll, 'kay? I'm the one that posted all the historical fanart up above to stop the other stupid argument.

>>7499785
>defending their anon
all this autism.

>>7499414
>Getting this mad about a fanart cosplay
>Getting this mad about a fanart cosplay when things like >>7498256 exist.

>>7499785
The problem is that your original comment was more or less "This looks good, but -I- don't recognize it as Belle, so it's bad." It doesn't matter if you don't recognize it as Belle. It's a cosplay interpretation based on fanart.

So basically

Autism.

I am generally all for accurracy, but I guess if there are several items or clothes that are iconic for a character, but never appear at the same time, it should be okay to wear them together.

>>7499551
while i agree that this version is just terribad in all ways.....looking like a boat was kiiiiind of the thing to do in the 18th century. have you seen some of the ridiculous court dresses?? doors were widened just so ladies could go through without turning sideways.

pic of extant gown very fucking related, and polite sage for more of my historical nerdery.

>>7500142
To be fair, that's a wedding dress and would not have been used for typical court functions. Even the wider of the court gowns weren't popular for very long, they kind of peaked in the 1760s and grew smaller from there.

>>7500142
It really depends on the decade. The 1740s can't fit in the doorway style wasn't popular for most of the century.

>>7500142
It really depends on the decade. The 1740s can't fit in the doorway style wasn't popular for most of the century. And even if you're going for a 1740s silhouette the least you could do is make it look like your hoops aren't made out of cardboard.

>>7500150
>>7500196
well yes, i understand that the silhouette and pannier shape changed drastically over the course of the century.....but there are a lot of those "boat gowns" from the earlier decades.

not to give any credit to whatever that girl did with the skirt, because good god it's just horrendous. it's bad, but it's not like the size was unheard of in the 18c.

again, polite sage for my nerdery

>>7500142
Yes I am aware of that style. But, those had nice fabric and details that made them look like actual dresses.

i'm not sure how to feel about this one. it seems like a good attempt but also it reminds me of halloween witch costumes.

>>7501688

bump

>>7501688
Good lord, that's beautiful.
What about it felt costume-y to you? Was it the sparkly parts of the skirt? I feel like that's appropriate and maybe intended to mirror the cosmic parts of Godoka's outfit.

>>7501688
Whats wrong with it?

>>7501688

>>7496308
didn't know you needed permission to dress like a fucking cartoon character.

>>7503852
How can you justify twisting it like that.

I didn't know you needed permission to have an opinion about something you see posted publicly on the internet. Oh wait, sore feels mean you do need permission. Wouldn't want to devastate someone by ~bullying them~ with an anonymous post on an image board they probably don't go on. How very unthoughtful of me!

>>7496831
just coming in to say I came up with a totally bullshit number to see if anyone would correct me

I will give you guys an example from today at Fan expo vancouver:

>Be wearing german flak vest, shamagh, ilbe assault pack, satchel and gasmask.

>Hey are you artyom from metro 2033?
>Are you strylok?
>Are you a Wastelander?
>Are you a machinegunner from BF3?
>ALO CHEEKI BREEKI!

http://www.cosplay.com/showthread.php?t=120905&highlight=firefly+path

$700 Firefly Path costume. This was from 2007.

>>7506738
Wish I had the balls to price my commissions that high. :'c

>>7506758
You're probably not charging enough unless you just want to make things for fun and not lose money. Assuming you're competent you should make back from every costume the cost of materials and AT LEAST the equivalent of working a minimum wage job for the same number of hours it took you to make.

>>7501688
full homucifer

>>7506738
she looks so unhappy. $700? for this?
I wonder how much her ballgowns are. I've been thinking about commissioning her for a cosplay for my wedding dress

>>7501688
the socks and wings really bother me. I feel the dress needed more feathers. nice attempt.

>>7501688
The thigh highs ruin the entire costume, and the wings look incomplete and lazy.

>>7494945
>next on toddlers and tiaras

>>7511164
Given that the $700 costume was in 2007 and Firefly Path has made a name for themselves (somewhat) in the 'indie' community, I'd say the ball gowns are probably several grand. Oddly enough I can't find anyone who is willing to admit what they paid outside of the $700 costume girl.

>>7506738
>$700 shitty inaccurate, questionably made Sakura cosplay on some ugly ass girl with an inaccurate wig and no fucking makeup.

Could have gotten or made 5 cosplays that looked way better for the same fucking price.