/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

>>7974770
second one was >>7974734

Would it be possible to have three pictures for each style? Like a "default", a toned-down/casual, and an OTT?

>>7974770
It's so creepy watching live updates.

>>7974770
Popping in to look at it and it looks good so far. I like seeing it in progress and thanks for putting it together!

kek. I love that Bodyline is its own category

>>7974855
I like that. I feel like >>7974734 is a bit more casual than these >>7974579, I could add more accessories and stuff as well. We'd still need some OTT coords in that case.

Someone in the previous thread suggested that each style would have multiple drawings by different artists as well, which I think is a great idea and goes with your suggestion.

For the smaller substyles/themes, I'd suggest we do two instead of three, since the big three should cover the OTT part of things fairly well.

Can japanese and chinese shopping services be under different subsection since they're not interchangeable.

>>7974912
Just added the section, thanks for suggesting!

>>7974923
I'll also suggest some of the shops from Lolita Tips where to buy page. For all her advice faults it's good footwork mostly, and the indie brand White Forest looks good as well. They were at PMX this year and if I had the money I'd get that tartan JSK.

>>7974923
You should just link to the SS sheet in the taobao threads since they're all there.

>>7974770
Wow. I'm really impressed /cgl/.
Forgive me, I'm new to this thread, but is there an idea for "introducing lolita to family/strangers"? that's a common question and can get cringy fast.

>>7974944
Don't call it lolita and emphasize the modesty aspect. In general try to bring out the aspects you think they would like about it. An example is that my grandma's mother was a great seamstress so I showed my grandma how well constructed brand pieces are and she fell in love. She always complains about bad sewing on normalfag clothes so I figured pointed out how well made the dresses are would make her like it more.

>>7974944
Do we have a "lolita survival tips"/"etiquette" type section? It could go there, and maybe along with stuff like dealing with strangers being rude, people taking pictures, etc. Maybe "lolita and work" also.

>>7974954
I agree. It's the noobs that act like they are joining a cult that ruin everything. "Hey mom, I want to start dressing in this fashion, it's called lolita BUT NOT LIKE THE BOOK OK IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PEDOPHILIA GOSH MOM"

>>7974944
Emphasize the modest, elegant, and Victorian aspects, maybe show them some stuff like Fanny Rosie that's work appropriate but coorded excellently. If you're into the sweeter side of things it could get ugly, though. Like the other anon said, don't use the word lolita.

I want to chime in that I don't think we should include ouji/kodona or aristocrat or anything, except as a line saying they are related styles with a similar aesthetic. otherwise this thing could get huge.

>>7974987
I still think ouji belongs with lolita as a substyle. We can probably leave out EGA though, or just mention that it exists.

>>7974987
But ouji is boy style Lolita... Lolita brands release ouji styles semi-regularly and are usually a matching set for a dress.
Especially aatp and meta.

Aristo I understand since it's much more goth and the fits are different. It's classy goth.

maybe talk about lucky packs?

>>7974997
I'd forgotten that aspect of it. I rescind my statement.

BTW is it okay if I start adding a paragraphs if I find time today? Like under the "anatomy of a coordinate" tables can I add some brief explanation of what everything is and it's purpose?

>>7975022
yes, please do! that entire section is going to be a nightmare to fill out.

Also does anyone have suggestions in terms of how we should organize the styles/substyles/subsets/themes?

Also is ouji a substyle or should it be mentioned as a related but separate J-fashion?

>come home from working all day to afford burando
>people are actually putting in effort to make this a thing

I love you all

I emailed saying I was cool to help illustrate additional picture for the book and said that it would probably best to have the style guide done by one person so because don't mistake stylistic traits of the artist for qualities of the actual fashion style but if multiple people are already working on it I can volunteer to do a few styles if people want.

>>7975040
holy SHIT that is cute

>>7975040
This is the level of art I was expecting to see at the minimum after all that shittalking. Good work.

>>7975035
Awesome I'll start on that later if all goes well.

>>7975040
It looks a bit awkward in areas like the shoulders/bust and legs, but I like your hair/posing/line work much better. Looks less like messy tumblr art.

>>7975075
I was actually halfway through colouring when I got it pointed out that the legs looked queer and I am partway through fixing them but I just decided to post the line art because it's the most recent example I have.
>>7975043
Cheers cousin.
>>7975065
I actually didn't shit talk the original art because People are asking for volunteers and there is no reason for professional artists to waste their time on free work for a niche group. So really we shouldn't be expecting any more than beginner work. I had a bigger problem with the outfits that got drawn than the way in which they were drawn.

>>7975040
If you have multiple artists adding art to it, I say have some notes added below each illustration pointing out the difference in features of the style illustrated. Or, do it anyway even if there's only one artist for the sake of addressing key points of the section.

A few things...

>shapewear Inc. Into undergarments
>personal experience, underskirts look a bit weird with AP dresses because of the built in petticoat.
Not sure if its worth meantioning though.
>adding extra button holes/more fabric to the end of JSK straps make the length longer.
>OP>JSK when tall, it'll look proportionally off.
Once again I don't know if that one is worth meantioning.

A few Lolita games:
>cocoppa: android and ios
>style savvy: ds and 3DS. 2 different games in the series. first one has official Japanese DLC from Liz Lisa and angelic pretty if your ds local is from Japan. AP collaborated with both games, and designed in game Lolita fashions.

If I remember, I'll add. Google doc doesn't work nicely with phones

>>7975094
i'll try to remember to add tomorrow if no one else does. gotta go sleep since i have an exam in the morning.

I'm not sure there needs to be a seperate section for thigh-highs? They're not all that common and pretty much look the same as tights when worn.
>making suggestions live, as other anons look on, is goddamn scary

>>7975035
I'd say add it to the lolita section as a substyle!

>>7975075
Sorry it was so messy, it was just a sketch, after all.

>>7975040
Shiit, anon, that's cute. Which styles do you want to do? I can make a little spreadsheet, I'll post it up in a bit.

>>7975101
I'll just take what others don't want.

>>7974958
something like a scale with pictures (casual --> OTT) per style would be cool.

So..... I was wondering if, as examples for each style, it would be a good idea to take submissions from lolitas who don't mind being in the cgl guide, and for the ones where we don't have anyone allowing us to use their photos, we could use model photos from the GLBs or brand ads?

Seems like it would help to actually see what the clothes look like on a real person, and not have the guidebook come across as a bit weebish due to all the animu-like drawings?

>>7975100
For talk Lolitas, they're just OTK, lol.

Tights just look a bit different...silky? Plus they're hard to find in nice designs unless you know how to taobao.

>>7975107
Most ones are still open, so take your pick.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KW000KfwP381Vz8L6tBFQzfPOJqpNM1yLJTYhlI6lZE/edit?usp=sharing

It should work so you can leave a comment with your info, and I'll add you in.

>>7975110
I think having illustrations for the styles is pretty cute. Photo examples would be nice to have too, of course. What do other seagulls think?

>>7975118
Photos would be great; the J-fash one has them. They could come straight from brand release photos or GLB scans.

>>7975118
I don't know how to edit it but I'll take;
>sailor
>shiro&kuro
>OTT sweet
I'll do kodona too if no one ends up taking it.
You can contact me on my tumblr for lolita art, http://imgoingtokickyourfrillyass.tumblr.com/ if you need to contact me. I would leave an email but I only have a personal one.

>>7975142
Saved!
>>7975137
We could add some photos along with the illustration, or base each one on a brand release photo, how about that?

I gotta work on assignments now, but will be back later tonight.

>>7975118
Both is good, and I second the suggestion that photos come from brands/magazines only.

Idea: under the blog sections what about linking instead of to whole blogs just to specific articles that are helpful for things like joining a community, wardrobe building, planning meet-ups, coordinating etc.? Because even though FYeahLolita [who's the only vaguely personal blog listed] is great, she's only got a few articles that are helpful and up-to-date. The rest is interesting, but not for a beginners guide if you know what I mean?

I might want to contribute a few illustrations when I have the time, not sure because sometimes I get really lazy to finish things.

Still kinda sketchy, but this would be acceptable for OTT classic, yes?

>>7975256
This is great! I'll add you to the document. If you have time to contribute something else, let me know.

>>7975162
>>7975137

Alright, photos as well. I've set up a dedicated email for the guide, in case you don't want to post here, or send me some photos for it:

styleguide@frillville.net

I'll try to whip up a basic word document later tonight.

Are people more or less happy with this as the rough sketch for sailor? If anyone has cool suggestions for tights/socks I would love them because although they do seem to show up in sailor a lot I feel as though if newbies try it it will end up too tacky.

>>7975301
Loots cute to me! Maybe just run with plain ankle socks?

>>7975333
Might look weird with boots.

>>7975261
I'm tempted to do punk just because, but I'm not sure what a "good" punk coord looks like. There's not much inspiration out there since rarely anyone wears punk anymore, but everyone seems to have different opinions on already existing pictures.

Would you guys describe punk lolita as gothic-leaning lolita with punk elements or rather punk with a lolita silhouette?

>>7975301
TejaJamila has some cool sailor-appropriate ones. 4chan won't let me link, but look for her on etsy, pic related.

It's cute! The skirt reminds me of melty ribbon chocolate for some reason.

>>7975347
I didn't even think about Melty ribbon chocolate but it was probably in my subconscious because I love the skirt. When I work on it more ill try those tights.
Also what kind of ott sweet are people looking for?

I'm really resentful because I wanted to submit some art for this, but my tablet is stuck at my parents until Christmas ends. FML.
>7975409 looks cute though, as much as my jealousy to take part burns

>>7975424
>>7975409 >>7975256
What even did my phone yet to quote?

>>7975424
I doubt it will be finished so quickly once the initial hype burns down. If we want to make it look semi professional editing it will take ages unless we are just going with the we made a spreadsheet and put inline pictures look which would be cool enough too. I am sure traditional art would be welcomed too. I can't tell if you are saying my drawing is cute but if you are thanks.

>>7974944
>>7974956


We could have a FAQ section, even if it is redirected to other blogs that touch on subjects like these rather than typing up original content.

casual lolita?

I can contribute art for kodona. the only issues would be crediting as I don't have a specifically j-fashion or art sideblog.

>>7975489
patchwork lolita

>>7975489
That's not casual, just simple. A cutsew and skirt would be more appropriate. Maybe cute cardigan+patterned skirt+beanie outfit with a satchel bag in a kind of school girl style ?

>>7975346
I would go for Nana kitada for inspo, she was really the go to for punk. Plus 'punk' in this sense isnt really punk, more avril pop punk. I would lean towards a bit more gothic.

>>7975498
Oh my gosh, this is so adorable. I would argue it's more otome than lolita though.

>>7975409
I feel like right would be more "standard" ott sweet. Left is kinda the sweet-classic trend nowadays.

>>7975573
Right just looks like standard AP sweet to me. What distinguishes it as OTT?

>>7975584
maybe she was going for the btssb frill monster look

>>7975489
Still looks a little dressy to me - maybe try something with AP's miniskirts/cutsews?

>>7975346
try looking at h.naoto FRILL and putumayo
you could call punk lolita punk with cute stuff added

>>7975409
Right looks pretty standard sweet to me, but I think the direction is less classic than left. Maybe add a bunch of accessories to it to make it more OTT?

>>7975498
this is fucking adorable. Might be great for country with some different patterns. (I also realized that I forgot country in the spreadsheet).

Should we include a section on print types (border, allover), lace types (cotton, chemical), or fabric types (chiffon, cotton, velvet)?

How about construction details like bustles, paniers, pintucks, ruffles, shirring, etc?

>>7975584
Ah yeah, should have looked at the design more carefully, but I would say what >>7975776 said, with more accessories it's be more OTT.

Pic related is what I think of when I hear OTT sweet. BABY frill monsters are pretty OTT, but like I said, they're kinda sweet-classic so it might get noobs confused?

>>7976239
idk but i wouldn't use "pastel vomit" sweet for the regular one, maybe something more btssb-ish

>>7976239
speaking of sweet-classic maybe we could do something with combining styles?

>>7976318
Would this include combining of other jfash? Since some of the substyles came from other styles i.e hime from himegyaru

I think we could probably do with a section on balancing colours/patterns. It seems like it should be an intuitive thing, but so many people manage to fuck it up it seems worth including at least a few pointers.

can we also put ita in as a substyle so noobs have a visual aid to show them how wrong they are

>>7976373
Like this?

>>7976407

Oh fuck this is too good. 10/10.

>>7976407
the blouse on the far right is too acceptable. It needs to have a v neck or something, the is too nice.

>>7976407
left matches wayy too much, give her black calf-height socks or something.
Make right look more ill-fitting maybe. And the headbow hot pink with random neon-colored bows everywhere on the wig.

>>7976437
I actually think the far left is perfect, it shows that even if your co-ord matches okay, if you put no effort into your appearance otherwise, you won't look good.

>>7976407
These are gold. If you want to finish those up and email them to me, we can add them to the "What to avoid" section.

>>7976407
yes perfect

>>7976484
Will do :)

>>7975301
can I get more suggestions please.

>>7976676
If you having trouble deciding legwear, maybe switch out boots for regular shoes and pair it with ankle socks? Sailor is a pretty summery style, it would make sense to lessen the layers.

>>7976676
yeah either ankle socks, or just block colour tights like white or navy for legwear.

bags seem to just be like small brown numbers from what I've seen

>>7975409
Are people happier with this?
>>7976686
Maybe brown oxfords with the ankles socks to go with >>7976710 bag idea?

>>7976676
Maybe a whale bag?
Or like a 3-way school bag?
Agreed about the oxfords/anklesocks

I don't think we should be encouraging people with large busts to be binding. It gives off an awful, loaf-y effect. Minimizer and unpadded bras should be fine.

>>7976777
>batman trips
On that note we should also touch on how some cuts of corsets can give the wrong silhouette for lolita.
>>7976743
Also this draw anon just going to say I have work tonight until 11pm and then a meet tomorrow and on monday I am going away with no internet so I don't know when I will be able to do any more work for the guide. Unless people want me to do a few traditional illustrations for the book.

So here's a super rough sketch for OTT Gothic, what do you guys think? Is it too not OTT enough? Too classic? Also what should I do for the bag and tights? Any suggestions would be appreciated (the bonnet stays though).

>>7976817
Too classic
change it to blackXgrey with the dress and underskirt

>>7976821
I disagree with you, it doesn't look to classic, I think black and grey would make it too hard to make out details.

>>7976817
+1 for too classic. If it wasn't for the eyepatch it would be straight up classic.

Change underskirt to black, bonnet trim to black, and add cross charms to stuff. Also maybe a coffin bag or cross or bat purse. I know it's sorta splitting hairs here but we want it to be very obvious for the noobs.

>>7976817
Maybe make the underskirt part the darker brown color you have there?
Could do with some crosses and stuff.
Coffin bag?
I don't really do Gothic but, it def looks too Classic to me.

>>7976817
Blue over black could maybe work for this? For a bag, maybe that old bat purse or a cross purse. Possibly a cross or rose print on the legs.

>>7976817
anon is going for atelier pierrot? If the frills were black and add more bustles, anons might think differently. I think our main image of OTT gothic is the black x blue coordinate with Mana in mind.

>>7976743
I wouldn't make it too detailed - people might just want to look at the picture without actually understanding it or reading the text.

>>7976821
>>7976829
>>7976830
>>7976833
Any better? Tweaked the colours a bit, and the brown portions will be closer to a "black" in the final, going any darker on the sketch washes out the details (sorry I didn't like blackXgrey). I'll play around with trying to add crosses to the overskirt, but that might be overkill with the bag.

>>7976898
Yeah this is is a lot clearer that it's gothic. I'm more partial to red and i think the coffin bag is better but either would be good i think

>>7975489
>>7975498
I love your drawing style, it looks like something you'd find in a children's book.

>>7976817
Feels more classic than gothic to me. Try doing more flowy elegant bits instead of bows/lace? Since our audience is people new to lolita the substyle illustrations should be distinct and iconic(?)

>>7976898
Still feels too classic-y to me - a lot of people forget that gothic is simpler than other substyles... I would try drawing more distinct guides instead of a nice coord since our main audience is people new to lolita fashion. Maybe do flowy chiffon instead of bows and frills?

>>7976971
(also, if you're going to ask why her left hand looks weird, it's because I drew it too small first and I had to blow it up because I was too lazy to draw a new one.)

>>7976975
Her left hand looks weird because her wrist is broken. Just rotate that shit.

>>7976898
Loving the blue/black version.

>>7976898
Black/blue is spot-on, I think. I also really like your drawing style.

>>7976971
You gotta keep in mind that this is supposed tp be OTT gothic, plus the level of detail is actually still fairly moderate in terms of accessories etc.

>>7976791
I understand. I could put your sketches in as a placeholder, if that's okay, and then we can switch them out whenever you have time to finish them? Just get in touch with me once you're back, if the thread is not around anymore by then.

>>7977218
>>7976791
And about the handbook, as long as you have a white background, I think traditional works too? Might actually look really nice and fitting.

Since the initial ones got so much negative feedback, I decided to redraw some of them. What do you guys think? Is this enough for classic, or should I add more accessories?

>>7976898
I really want to wear the bluexblack coordinate now. It's so perfect.

someone on the google doc requested the translated versions of the clothing washing guide. here's part 1 of 2 (warning for big image size)

>>7977307
2/2

>>7977276
Maybe add like a flower on the hat and a necklace?

>>7977338
Added some stuff the the hat, and a brooch pin. I also threw on some colors to get a better idea of the finished product.

For sweet, I thought of doing something that's not pink. What about this color scheme? It's mostly based on sweet cream house.

>>7977468
This art is so shitty, holy shit your'e so shitty. Please stop. I hope you don't think you're any good at all. These are just as bad as the loli-tips ones. I would kill myself if my drawings were this bad.

>>7976898
I think this should be modeled after a velvet dress instead. It will help make it more gothic. I would change the bonnet too as I think it makes it look too much like the OTT classic pic.

>>7977479
Anon's art is fine, jesus christ who sat on your petticoats?

>>7977486
Don't even know why I called it art really. Tumblr style sketchy garbage isn't art.

Also the fucking pigeon toes on that sweet lolita make me want to gouge my eyes out. What a fucking joke.

>>7977479
>>7977493
Gee, thanks. Feel free to contribute something if you hate it so much.

>>7977495
Not that anon, but the pigeon toes are a bit weird. I know people do it, but it's not something we actively want people to do. I'm also pigeon toed so people constantly think I'm doing it to look cute, but it's physically painful not to.

>>7977500
No, that's definitely a valid criticism. I'll fix them. I just didn't want to reply more than was necessary.

>>7977500
Too fucking bad loser

>>7977493
Show us how good you draw if that's so bad.
>ERMARGERD TUMBLR SHIT NOT EVEN ART GARBAGE FUCKING HORRIBLE
You should clean the sand and salt out of your bloomies dearie.

>>7976898
The shoes need more platform.

>>7975301
The vest pushes it into tacky territory. Keep it simple. I think as a general goal, the illustrations should show the bare minimum for what looks good for each style.

>>7977468
The dress on the right looks super awkward with the waist sitting so high. It's hard to tell if that's a blouse under a JSK or just really badly modelled after MM's Mary Lou OP. As a side note, it looks more like a better example casual classic.

>>7977468
>What about this color scheme? It's mostly based on sweet cream house.
stop doing thissssss people have been telling you it's supposed to be instantly recognizable to noobs as sweet -__-

wow ok i did not visit cgl for like one month wtf did i miss out?

uh are we allowed to edit/modify the document?

>>7977550
I don't see what the problem with the colour scheme is. Sweet cream house's colours are literally sweet and the print is easily recognizeable as sweet too. It's not like sweet has to be 100% pastel all the time. I think it would be nice to show a bit of variety in terms of how a style could look so new kids know off the bat that there's more than one way to wear a style.

>>7977550
>-__-
>-__-
>-__-
>-__-
>-__-

Yes, please do! One of the basic ideas of the handbook is that it would be written by seagulls collectively, so any contribution would be greatly appreciated.

Is it all right if I change the picture for round neckline?
It doesn't seem very obvious in that dress imo

where should salopettes fall into?

>>7977595
noobs might think it's too close to classic

the art looks cute so far, but i think it's a bad idea to use any artwork as reference at all. the moment you turn lolita into 2D, the weeaboos forget to check their privilege and decide to exercise their creativity and invent all sorts of crap whatnot.

>>7977621
How is that classic at all are you blind.
It's mint and the print is literally a ginger bread house.

>>7977625
jesus fucking christ I KNOW IT'S SWEET NOOBS MIGHT THINK IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF THE COLOR SCHEME fuck

>>7977629
Are you retarded?

>>7977468
Sweet needs to lose the glasses and you should pick a dress that is *clearly* a sweet lolita one, not a drab brown thing (I do like sweet cream house but not like this). Something like milky planet or sugary carnival.

>>7977633
shut the fuck up just shut the fuck up THE FIRST THING MOST PEOPLE SEE OF SWEET LOLITA IS OTT PASTEL CRAP since sweet cream house has more brown/ivory and they associate those colors more with classic than sweet that's what they will think it is

>>7977641
lol don't you think that's reason enough to show more variety of sweet styles? To help noobs identify it correctly?

>>7977644
No, you want something that is blatantly sweet.

>>7977641
You do realize that the point of the style guide is to point people in the right direction and clear up misconceptions instead of pandering to their idea of what lolita is, right?

>>7977629
>>7977641
Hey anon. I appreciate how seriously you're taking this project! You seem passionate and really considerate of the noob perspective.

I understand what you mean I think. You're suggesting that the sweet lolita example should just be more representative of the general sweet aesthetic, right? That makes sense.

I think it's important to show that sweet is a versatile substyle, but it's also important to show the more typical examples (light colors) too like what you're describing. Highlighting color schemes and themes would bring the examples together to show a full picture of the sweet lolita aesthetic.

>>7977650
As an anon said previously, it would be good to have multiple drawn examples of each style. that way you can have some obvious ones, and some less obvious ones.

I agree with the above anon about not having everything be drawn. I think we should use some real photos of coords as well. It makes it easier to illustrate what looks good in real life, what the silhouette should be, and how to color coordinate and accessorize (harder to show in a drawing).

>>7977641
Somebody get this hothead outta here.

>>7977641
lolita-tips is that you

this is giving me such nostalgia from when I first read the 06 lolita handbook

Okay to defend >>7977641, when I was new to lolita I definitely had the mindset that all ivory/brown dresses were classic and mints/pinks could never work in classic.

If anything, I vote we should have a section how different colors can work in different styles. Just because a pastel vomit print comes in a black colorway, it doesn't mean it's gothic, etc. (which I'm sure we've all heard at least once from a noob)

>>7977641
>>7977697
Also in defence of rageanon, it's better to make it with complete idiots in mind. Not only would it be helpful to all noobs - it would be friendly for those who have just have a passing interest as well as serve as a useful reference for those more experienced.

Well, that sparked some discussion.

>>7977540
It's not supposed to be Mary Lou, just a generic OP. Right about the waist though, I'll fix that. What do you think I could add to make it less casual? Switch the hat for a different headpiece?

about the color scheme:
Since we have 3 sweet lolita images, I thought it might be good to show that sweet lolita doesn't have to be pink, which is a common misconception. I see how it could be confusing, but we have text space to clarify. There doesn't seem to be a consensus, so how do we proceed? I could make it a pastel print as well, but basically what >>7977673 said.
I also agree on adding a more in - depth section about color.

>>7977791
I'm with you, I think the bows, glasses, pigtails, and general sweets-theme makes it pretty identifiable as a sweet coord, and it would be a good opportunity to discuss color options. If there's enough text space, why not?
Yeah, the guide should be accessible and easily understood by noobs and casuals, but why not try and teach them early?

Sorry to not contribute with info but in the hair section can we attempt to find things using the bow combs? I have so many and i see others whos ell them because theyre not quite sure how to place them.
The only thing i could find was in misakos gothic tutorial video

>>7977823
>glasses
Not really.

>>7977826
if they're pastel shades then yeah. I've seen loads of girls who don't actually need them whack on a fake baby pink pair from claires

>recommending GLW

lol are you guys serious

>>7977826
I dunno, glasses that are done well can be cute. Personally, I wouldn't suggest them eithe any other style, but I think they fit in with sweet. I don't mean thick black frames with an pastel purple coord, but in the drawing, I think they fit nicely.

>>7977835
That's not really a thing for 'sweet' though, fake glasses maybe but wearing glasses is something people with glasses do. The round as fuck brown ones don't say sweet to me, they say hipster.

>>7977840
eww...this is why that shit won't ever die.

>>7977843
yeah if they're brown they're hipster, I just assumed the ones in the draw were going to be some pastel shade

How is the handbook being compiled together? Is it going to be like a .pdf document or a website or what?

>>7977673
Yes agreed, there should definitely be lots of photos of different styles and how it's evolved over time to get to where it is today because old school sweet is so different to sweet today... gosh, sweet style today is vastly different from what it was in 2008 even.

>>7977857
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pZ6OOdQCTLkLoiFsak590IM8Jnm1lqfi4Zcu57zWMj4/edit#

>>7977861
timeline of each style? in picture form probably?

>>7977866
Sounds like a good idea

>>7977623
Some that have been illustrated are using real or based on real items. Or at least, I know I tried too.

Given that chocolate themed dresses are a pretty sought-after and reoccuring trend in AP (and echoed with Baby), people need to stop whining about the brown sweet coord. Brown doesn't automatically = classic and that point needs to be illustrated, especially since it's a common print theme in sweet. Stop with the "waaah think of the noobs" if they're using this resource to LEARN then it's important to explain that brown can be sweet and pink can be classic and the styles aren't defined by a color alone.

>>7977843
The glasses in the final version would be gold or transparent frames, I just wanted to clean up the lines a little.

>>7977866
Sounds like a great idea. I think a balance of photos and illustrations will be best anyway.

Maybe we could have something on sandals in lolita? like when they're acceptable and when they're not

>>7978066
Aren't they never acceptable?

>>7978072
Considering most of the major sweet brands have released open toe sandals they are pretty acceptable. They need to be coord-ed right, only used in summer themed outfits, i.e. not with heavy velvets, long sleeved blouses and such.

>>7978092
Major sweet brands have also released salopettes and miniskirts and neither are considered lolita-kosher, so that's not really much of an argument. Having said that though, I've personally never seen sandals in coords outside of nasty ones in ita threads, so I could be wrong.

>>7978092
And for our sake, please make sure you have well groomed nails / nice looking toes. No one likes to peep on hams

>>7977468
I think these are fine. Since there are going to be other illustrations as well as photos it's good to show some variety, both in content and style.

>>7977620
Into the "not lolita" category.

>>7974770
maybe a wardrobe building category like how to complete your drobe what pieces and stuff to add etc.,

>read it
>salopettes are not suited for lolita
some salopettes are, but the majority is not.

I think if a salopette is made to have a petticoat fit under it, then it is suitable for lolita.

>>7978300
Agreed.

another important note about salopettes is that busty girls should avoid them.

>>7978308
and girls who are wide, like girls with large ribs.

>>7977468
Both feet are too small and right one's calves look weirdly low and stumpy. Either make the dress fall at a flattering length or make calves thinner.

The waistline of the blue dress is uneven (left side pinches in higher than right side).

>>7978308
>>7978322
Tall girls as well.

>>7977468
I agree with these anons.
>>7978965
>>7977640

Losing the glasses and fixing the legs and feet will help greatly.

>>7978969
>Tall girls as well
I don't think so, since sallopetes usually have adjustable straps and are made to be short.

But a sallopette with no adjustable straps on a tall girl would be a shirt.

>>7978981
No, they look bad on most tall girls unless they have short torsos. Even adjustable straps are only 1in or so of difference, and that won't change the weird way it sits a torso that needs 2-3in of difference. Also, even though they are meant to be short, short things look even shorter on tall girls because they have much longer legs so the proportions look weird.

>>7978983
>1 inch or so difference
Do you even salopette

the salopette usually works strapwise like overalls, which is pretty adjustable, the point of a salopette is to show off leg so I don't understand your bitching.

I love seeing tall thin girls wear salopettes, I wish I could look like that but I have stumpy legs

>>7978990
I'm 5'8". Most salopettes hit mid-thigh or higher on me, even with the straps all the way down. It looks cute, just not lolita.

>>7978990
I'm not bitching, calm down.

>>7978997
>It looks cute, just not lolita.
Salopettes aren't lolita anyway. On nobody.

>>7979000
Depends on the type of salopette.

>>7979036
Please show an example of a salopette that is lolita.

>>7979048
see >>7978300 blind-chan

>>7979048
anything that can fit a good sized petti under it.
If It can't, it isn't lolita

>>7979049
Ok, thanks cuntrag.

>>7979056
So sandy

>>7978990
I think salopettes look retarded with the straps lengthened to the maximum they can go. They look like shit on anyone that isn't slender, petite and has no boobs.

>>7979048

>>7979550
That's not a salopette though, that's an apron skirt.
http://lolibrary.org/apparel/sweet-cream-house-apron-style-skirt

Ignoring the coord, best pic I could find. I always thought the Dream Sky salopette was cute and more lolita looking than some salopettes I've seen.

Never seen them for sale unfortunately.

>>7979563
Dropped pic.

>>7979550
that's an apron skirt you fucking retard

add closet childs super gorgeous pannier to the petticoat list, theyre AMAZING and only cost 40 bucks

>>7979568
chill out buddy
>>7979563
>>7979565
Agreed, I really want it tbh.

>>7979565
So much want for the lav colorway of this. The two other Dream Sky cuts were awful.

>>7979581
added

Hey guys, sorry I'm going to be closing the handbook for a bit. Google docs is acting up and won't let me add the edits for some reason.

Also I won't have internet access all of Sunday and a good portion of Monday EST, so I apologize in advance for the halt in progress.

>>7979642
we might have to split it into two docs for now since google docs may just be overloading?

>>7979643
Yeah, probably. It kept crashing on me. Give me a few minutes to sort this out.

>>7979642
>>7979651
It's been crashing on me, too, I thought it was just my browser or something

>>7979642
i have a confession
im the one who added "ad fun" to the start of the doc because i was IMing someone and for some reason half the message ended up there and didnt let me erase it
im sorry handbook anon-chan

The handbook has now been divided into five sections, each with about ten pages. Some of the content may have been lost or garbled in the process of moving things around, and I apologize for that. Also, if you guys don't like they way that I've divided it, please tell me so I can reorganize in a way that makes more sense.

Section 1: Intro, Silhouette, Aesthetics
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pZ6OOdQCTLkLoiFsak590IM8Jnm1lqfi4Zcu57zWMj4/edit?usp=sharing

Section 2: Anatomy of a Coordinate:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pDKBtjkcO3hXhUWJkZq90cQuYldMRLYahldEMGR79L0/edit?usp=sharing

Section 3: Getting Dressed
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14JpneeZuc8je2eZeR3FXi1seiggScobFEaqhKtvju8o/edit?usp=sharing

Section 4: Cleaning, Buying, Selling
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EIbQNBFxs07a5s43RMictQuVTG-BHx_mlAmZxwosFK0/edit?usp=sharing

Section 5: Culture and Community
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12OnsVV8AnFHaINJU06zxAQcGZ63Ibhc3uYocFPqhfXs/edit?usp=sharing

All titles are pending. Also, if the page count gets near 15 (especially with image-heavy docs), please stop adding content and contact me either here or via email so we can discuss reorganizing content so it doesn't start crashing again.
>>7979663
It's cool, I figured someone was typing in the wrong page.

>>7979734
The part about the substyles is missing. I guess it technically belongs in Section 1, but we might hit 15 pages on that pretty quickly. Section 1.b?

>>7979772
I lied, it's six parts. Holy crap

Section 1: Intro, Silhouette, Aesthetics
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pZ6OOdQCTLkLoiFsak590IM8Jnm1lqfi4Zcu57zWMj4/edit?usp=sharing

Section 2: Anatomy of a Coordinate:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pDKBtjkcO3hXhUWJkZq90cQuYldMRLYahldEMGR79L0/edit?usp=sharing

Section 3: Styles, Substyles, Themes
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LI-q76NhLl9v4SV6MxdoHZSGmAc8sdQkS86uiSqk0rg/edit?usp=sharing

Section 4: Getting Dressed
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14JpneeZuc8je2eZeR3FXi1seiggScobFEaqhKtvju8o/edit?usp=sharing

Section 5: Cleaning, Buying, Selling
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EIbQNBFxs07a5s43RMictQuVTG-BHx_mlAmZxwosFK0/edit?usp=sharing

Section 6: Culture and Community
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12OnsVV8AnFHaINJU06zxAQcGZ63Ibhc3uYocFPqhfXs/edit?usp=sharing

>>7979804
colour pallet-wise, do you want actual visual colours or like just names of colours

>>7979815
Names of colours and colour groups are fine.

made some coords for the artists to draw (sorry for the crappy collage lol)
if /cgl/ likes them i can do ones for classic and gothic?

>>7979877
I don't think the black one is sweet-looking enough. maybe with a dress with a different neck line? Or holy lantern OP or something.
Other than that, I like them.

>>7979892
what about this dress instead?

i would remove any swear words, it's kind of... unpolished

>>7979958
That's stupid, if you're on 4chan and you are offended by cussing you're int he wrong fuckin place

>>7979965
the spreadsheet is not 4chan though.
its the lolita handbook, and "cunt" is kind of excessive.nothing against it usually but cussing in a guide for newbies looks really edgy and tryhard.

>>7979734
>The rose corolla

topkek

>>7980014
what about it?

>>7979877
Here's one I did, with some changes. Anyone else want to try their hand at it or can I go ahead and draw the other 2?

>>7979976
Fuck, it's edgy the new word on the board now?

God I hate this new lingo, I feel like an old woman.

>>7979958
Other linked guides made by seagulls can be just as snarky. It is fine.

For example, redoing the taobao FAQ, there is little bits of things here and there I added in.

>>7980365
it's okay to joke around, just stop cussing. it's not kawaii

>>7980374
my underage b& senses are tingling.

>>7980302
I'm still working on the sweet cream house one, and OTT sweet was started by >>7976743. Not sure when they'll be back though.

>>7980022
Anon is remembering the HLC drama when a girl was super pissed no one bought the Rose Corolla for her.

>>7980418
Great :) I did the toy parade too

>>7980393
i'm not underage b& but some of the people reading the handbook might be. its not just for seagulls its for everyone interested in lolita fashion and they probably dont want to hear about sandy cunts (they probably don't even know that that means)

>>7980743
I'm pretty sure the information in the Google doc is still in the crude brainstorming stage and that it will be polished at another time, chill out anon.

>>7980736
I love it.

>>7981197
Thanks! I did an "unusual color scheme" goth as well - ran out of ideas for poses so I stole one from an old GLB. Hope you don't mind lol

>>7981197
Thanks! I did an "unusual color scheme" goth as well - ran out of ideas for poses so I stole one from an old GLB. Hope you don't mind lol

>>7980743
I always thought the handbook would just be something that seagulls redirected newbies to when they come to the board or at most something tacked onto the sticky or Lolita General. Are we making this for the general public?

>>7981523
this looks like part of a coloring book

>>7981525
Nah we're not. Iuno why the other anon thinks we are.

>>7981525
Well, the post that started it all was about lolita-tip's bad advice. Personally I would like it better if people treated this as an improvement/replacement for that tumblr instead of something for 4chan users new to lolita fashion (and lolita-tips did cuss a lot, so...)

>>7981527
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

>>7981525
I thought it was going to be general public.

When this is done, if anyone is interested in putting this together as a Blurb book, I'd be interested in actually owning it as an actual handbook.

Can we just stop with the art

It's like an ita magnent for fucks sake use actual photos of 3d humans for co-ord examples

/fit/ here
idk why but lolita stuff is adorable to me
>where to find lolita qts to buy wigs and contacts for :3

Can we just stop with the art

If you use realistic proportions it just looks creepy, if you make it chibi it just looks weebish. I know cgl has turned into a place where you have ti be Nice and Hugbox and not tell artists when their stuff doesnt look good because "they're doing it for free!" But the handbook is gonna be a general public lolita reference for years, please none of this weeaboo art

for fucks sake use actual photos of 3d humans for co-ord examples. If you want you can make a separate section dedicated to lolita art or something. But dont tell the newbies 'you gotta look like this'

>>7981743
>>7981754
yea I dont understand why people are using art instead of pictures of real people, that's what they did for the jfashion guide

>>7981757
because you need permission to use real people.

>>7981754
I agree, especially when what looks good on paper doesn't necessarily translate to the same prettiness. Especially substyles like wa.

I would like the ita pictures to be still used, though. We should really have a person's photo as an example of what is ita.

>>7981754
>>7981743
>>7981757
You would have to ask those people permission to use their coord photos and using real-life pictures for examples of what not to do can be insulting - and plus, drawing is fun :) Realistically-proportioned humans might be less attractive to weebs/itas, though I totally understand what you're getting at - in my opinion if we do real pictures we should use lolitas like Fanny Rosie so people who discovered lolita through anime don't look at the picture and go UMG JAPANESE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! instead of actually reading the guide.

>>7981770
>>7981757
>>7981764
>>7981754

You don't need permissions for product photos, why not just use those? Photos that companies put out are fine as long as it's non-commercial, not for profit, and not trying to pass it off as your own stock photo for an item.

>>7981764
>>7981770
We have a lot of well dressed seagulls, could it really be that hard to ask them if they want to submit a picture or two? I understand your point of "what not to do" and I think, in that case, you could use drawings or maybe pictures of milanoo dresses or something. Also this >>7981788

>>7981788
Dresses can be coorded for different aesthetics/substyles, and it's easier for people to visualize what an outfit looks like if it's on a human.

>>7981792
It would be pretty weird to have real pictures for everything but the ita stuff.

>>7981770
We could get a few seagulls to submit pictures and have one do good and bad sweet, another good and bad classic, etc. and obscure their face some how so the attention's on the coord rather than the person.

>>7981818
I don't know, I just feel like drawings are neater/more visible. Let Style guide anon decide, though

>>7981823
>drawings are neater/more visible.
I disagree entirely. Other than the fact that I absolutely hate projects/sites/things with a ton of different random art, I think that even in drawing real lolita items it does not reflect real life enough to work out.

>>7981828
You could maybe use professional photographs like the OP pic but outside of a drawing there's no such thing as a 100% perfect lolita.

>>7981831
>pic but outside of a drawing
The drawings look like shit though, and they're far from perfect. Plus, why perfect? We should have real people so people know what to expect.

>>7981754
I'm >>7976743 I think it would be better to have either all real pictures for pretty much the same reason I said earlier, it'll look mismatchy with multiple artists styles and it can be hard to take from it what is stylistic and what is supposed to actually be translated into real life.

>>7974992
Um what? You can't just pick and choose what is and what isn't a lolita substyle. EGA is not lolita, dandy is not lolita, aristocrat is not lolita, Ouji is not lolita, normal fag is not lolita... You can't just choose that Ouji is because of your personal feels. Does it conform to the rules of lolita? No. So its not a substyle of lolita.

This said I do believe that these styles should be mentioned somewhere because they are normally accepted styles for people to wear to lolita meetups (this might be interesting for men who are interested in the culture but don't have the love for dresses that brolitas have). But they are not substyles, if anything they are like lolitas cousins.

>>7974997
Rules of lolita exist for a reason, it defines it as a fashion style. Next thing you will be saying is that as long as you wear a blouse, its lolita.

>>7981856
>Ouji is not lolita
But it is, it's recognized by Japan as a tomboy style, which is why the pants. The only difference between ouji and lolita as far as rules are the pants.

>>7981835
but then we'll have the same argument again and again
"this person I don't like her outfit"

I think we should stick with the drawings, because no matter what the choice, seagulls can't agree on anything worth shit.

>>7981818
Forgot to mention, we could use the same dress for different styles (if applicable) as well as for the ita pictures to show that you can make a really awesome dress look bad too.

/2 cents

>>7981861
But it is lolita.

>>7981874
We're all agreeing that drawings are shit but you.

>>7981861
I don't think you get it. The same exact rules of lolita apply to ouji just replace skirt with pants. Obviously you don't use a petti with pants, but the pants still follow the below the knee rule and coording rules are still the same. It's always been considered lolita.

>>7976407
ooohhh make sure to add a "whats wrong with these co-ords" list. Because new people might accidentally miss some elements of whats wrong with these.

I made a poll because I am curious to see how many people prefer drawings or IRL pictures

http://strawpoll.me/3147575

>>7981880
>Implying I'm the same anon
Cries of samefag are fucking pathetic.
Who would you get to volunteer their photos for the ita section?

>>7981908
have you ever seen the ita dressup threads we have? plenty of people would be willing to play dressup for the handbook, I'm sure

>>7981913
I'm sure nobody would want to have their picture on the internet permanently to show people what not to do.

>>7981923
That's why we either use the same people for the good and bad and/or obscure their faces.

>>7981923
This. I've been an avid participator of Ita dressup and I'd be highly uncomfortable with that.

>>7981923
I would be fine with it, why not? It's for education, plus you can say that it was someone modeling specifically as an example.

Sorry your drawings are so shit and no one wants them.

>>7981923
You sound like one of the drawfags, contain your butthurt and go back to the drawthread.

>>7981930
>>7981932
>>7981880
If you want to use pictures of real coords so badly, why don't you post some of your own for us to use instead of talking about how so many other people will want pictures of them dressed up strangely, on the internet, for anybody to look at, forever?

>>7977276
I think is missing a bit elegance that is classic style. I think the dress cut is a very good example of classic and same blouse. Also hair.

Perhaps add a floral to dress?

I make small suggestions for co-ordinates ^_^ for very normal classic style. I very like your drawing style, so cute!

Sorry my English not so good.

>>7981938

>>7981923
it's called covering your face.

>>7981938
why would people post pictures now before it's even been decided what we should do lol

>>7981942
>>7981941
>why would people post pictures now before it's even been decided what we should do lol
Because people have been posting drawings before it's even been decided what we should do.

>>7981953
Basically what I'm saying if you want something done a certain way, make some examples and show us what it will look like in practice first.

>>7979877
if the black one is supposed to be sweet, I don't think its sweet enough. If you want to use black some of AP's black and white jsk/ops are very very sweet, so you could use one of those? but if your trying to avoid black and white for the sake of noobs, why not try Nakoyoshi rabbit, black and pink colourway.

>>7981953
I'm >>7981941 and no, that's not why I was confused, I'm confused at how retarded you are if you think that this is some horrible great shame that no one will want to force on themselves or some shit.

>who would want to have themselves in weird clothes online forever
>people respond
>NO, NO ONE WANTS THAT
okaaaay

Use Bodyline, Milannoo or costumes site's sales photos for examples of ita.

Not like we have a shortage of them.

Plus, it actually tells newbies we don't take kindly to idiots trying to pass off shiny satin monsters as "lolita"

Oh, you can search cosplay sites too. This one does a good two-fer of explaining how you need a petticoat and how it's a generally bad idea to take lolita pointers from anime/manga.

>>7981994
probably cause of frill chasers

For replicas, we could probably link to reviews and tell newbies they generally turn out subpar and are a magnet for dramu. I don't know if we want to take it further than that.

Like I'm not against replicas per se, but I feel that if we're writing a guide for newbies we ought to warn them about certain things. After that, if they chose to buy a $100 replica rather than an original taobao dress or secondhand burando, then that's their own problem.

>>7982045
It already says not to buy them. If someone wants to buy a replica, theyre gonna do it, handbook or no

Also that is a bad example of something that is subpar 100% of the time. Oo Jia is actually okay as far as construction goes,. I've got a really nice original painting skirt from her. Better off using DoL as an example.

>>7982060

I'm the anon who suggested posting costumes stock photos as ita examples. The suggestions in >>7982045 are for adding photos showing how replicas can result in ita, and adding links to show how real girls have gotten these items and found the quality subpar. This way you don't need to angst over the ethics of posting an actual person wearing a replica and calling her an ita, while still being able to show how replicas tend to look bad.

>example of something that is subpar 100% of the time

That is the whole point precisely.

>>7977468
change mint to pink?

>>7976407
Is this supposed to be don't have bad skin, be chubby or black? I mean if you want to point out no goes make sure to draw what's specifically wrong not some crass caricature that looks bad simply because of the way the people are drawn.

>>7981770
>drawing is fun :)
I find baseball and bdsm too, shall we include it into the handbook because /i/ find it fun? In fact if you're actually into drawing/painting/art, the more you SHOULD know that lolita art is the worst example of lolita irl.

>>7981764
Just pick some photos from kera or glb
>inb4 copyright!!!
Yea all the stock photos of collars and dress types already violate whatever copyrights.

Come on the moment you publicly post your photo on the internet you /should/ know that anyone can save it and use it in any context anyway. They should feel complimented they're used as examples for newbie lolitas to reference. At least we're not misapproprating them onto porn or fetish sites.

>>7981908
>>7981913
Isn't it ridiculous that cgl has no qualms posting random itas from tumblr onto 4chan but suddenly it's ~WRONG~ to use them anywhere else?

>>7981842
>it can be hard to take from it what is stylistic and what is supposed to actually be translated into real life.
This, thank you

>>7982045
you mean the one that's sold on taobao that she keeps claiming is hers so she can get in good standing again? yeah okay.

>>7982245
This post proves why we can't use drawings.

>>7982045
I agree that we shouldn't just outright say 'all replicas are bad'

Unfortunately the proliferation of replicunts are too deep rooted in the lolita world, and newbies must be aware of this issue. We should educate them from the start that replicas are bad and how to tell them apart in case of scams.

>>7982253
>>7982257
I agree it's bad to use drawings as anything but a cute bonus. Softly drawn, unrealistically proportioned animu faced drawings help illustrate the fashion inspiration but it doesn't do a very good job reflecting what you as a three dimensional human actually look like. And it does become apparent when the ita version is just draw in a non idealized way.

>>7975256 is the only drawfag whose work is remotely decent enough to go into the guide, free art or not.

>>7982245
>ita spotted

if you can't tell what's ita about those pictures then you have no business being in this fashion

>>7981525
It probably should be for the general public, though.
The LJ handbook is outdated, lolita-tips sucks, and beginners are in need of a new guide. I was hoping to share it to my comm when it's finished.

>>7981525

>something that seagulls redirected newbies to when they come to the board

If they come here and we redirect them there, then wouldn't that mean the document is pretty much public? It might not be linked elsewhere, but it's not like we're password-protecting it and checking their IDs before letting them read it.


>>7982344

That's the point, anon, the handbook is for newbies who aren't in the fashion yet.

>>7981823
You called?

Up to this point, I thought we would use photos anyway, together with the drawings to further illustrate the styles. However, >>7981842 has a very valid point that it will look disjointed with four or more artists.

Since the majority seems to want photos anyway, I'll roll with it. I do think we should keep the Ita drawings though, and choose brand photos/glb scans instead of submissions by seagulls. How does that sound?

>>7982460
Also, I agree that the guide should be for newbies in general, not just 4chan. I think it's looking really comprehensive so far, it would be a waste to keep it on this board.

>>7975256

I like it anon

>>7982260
I think the distinction should also be made between print replicas and non-print replicas, and shoe/bag replicas, because noobs might be confused seeing those things for sale on lacemarket. Something like "non-print replicas and design replicas are legal, so there is no legal issue with buying them, though some people do have ethical issues with them, so it's a personal choice you'll have to make" and maybe show them how to tell good construction from bad construction

>>7982344
See >>7982371
Also the issue is that they are just drawn with all sorts of bad shit on them and just drawn to be ugly compared to the perfect little dolls for the positive example. Like the one girl is picking her nose, everyone has super bad posture. Narrow it down a little unless your point is to not pick your nose but even then a picture showing that and only that is better.

>>7982460
you're right, but all photos and then a drawing would look weird too
>>7982910
>ill-fitting replica
>crappy offbrand blouse
>all that polyester lace
>nothing wrong except theyre ugly!!! guys!!!!

>>7982253
>At least we're not misapproprating them onto porn or fetish sites.
but other people could save their pictures and post them on fetish/sissy/adbl/whatever sites

>all these people wanting real pictures
>nobody posting them

HEY I have an idea! Why don't we make a fully illustrated copy of the guide for people who already know lolita fashion well and just want to see pretty pictures, and a copy with real-life pictures for new people?

>>7982460
I think this is a fair compromise, for now. If people want to volunteer photos for a fake ita example (at least one person in this thread has said they would) then we can use those instead of ita drawings.

I don't know why this was such an issue when the jfashion guide is full of pictures of real girls

>>7982945
>>7983013
We could get some stock photos from marble, Milanoo, and questionable brand pieces then?
I just feel like getting people to submit would just cause unnecessary debate, even if it's supposed to look ita.

>>7983004
I don't know, anon, I obviously like the idea of having an illustrated guide still, but it would be a separate thing from the handbook already, and could be really cofusing.

>>7983023
Good idea!
>questionable brand pieces then?
Visible and h.naoto have been putting out some real stinkers lately - look into them.

>>7983023
I mean, there is already debate in this thread about the drawn ita pictures so I'm not sure what exactly the difference would be

It's also important to show people what makes an entire coord ita, not just single pieces

>>7983013
A majority of the jfash guide was put together by 3-4 people who all were generally agreeable before the plus size argument, after which the established format was still followed to completion.

In this case, good luck finding even two agreeable loligulls.

>>7982945
I said the exact opposite of your shitty green text. There is so many things wrong including their body which detracts from what you really want to illustrate and just makes it a pointless mockery. A simple picture comparing: with a pettycoat / without a pettycoat, no wig / wig, lacey / not lacey, fitting / illfitting would be much more informative.

>>7983063
I was more talking about people who are suddenly now so concerned with the legality of using pictures (by the way, wouldn't using pictures of real lolitas fall under fair use, because we're using them for education and commentary purposes?)

But I see your point

>>7983042
If someone wants to post themselves, go ahead, but so far it hasn't happened. We can always replace them later once we get volunteers.

>>7983166
>lace on the dress/a wig being as necessary as a petticoat (not "pettycoat")
The comparison thing is a good idea, but...

Maybe we can have something on how to tell bad lace from good lace too, like this? http://egl.livejournal.com/17544078.html

>>7983042

Bodyline photos work well for showing ita coords, too. And you can post them side by side with another bodyline coord to show how it's not the brand, it's things like mismatched pinks, nothing matching, costumey wig, choosing colours that don't flatter you, etc, that makes the coord ita.

(I can't find the original for this skirt, though. They replaced it with another model. LOL even bodyline has noticed this pic is terribly ita, I guess)

>>7983599

>dropped pic

i'm going into the styles section right now and adding in stock photos for examples. everything i'm getting is public domain stuff (promo images from magazines and stuff) so that'll suffice i hope.

>>7984155
aaaand done. sorry if i didn't pick the best examples but it's hard to find magazine/stock coords sometimes, especially when i'm not very familiar with the brand (i don't really pay attention to atelier nor victorian maiden and mary magdalene)

new thread: >>7984679

>>7983601
That's a good idea!

>>7984155
I think we should have a bit more variety, and add that the colour palettes can go beyond just the standard, but they look good so far. I'll see if I can add something too, but if someone else wants to, go ahead.