NOTICE: Only NFLYC Clothing images will be featured on NFLYC.com. However, TFP can still involve non-NFLYC branded clothing.
Hi, just to answer a few questions some of you might have...
REQUIREMENTS MODELS: Female 5’7” & up | Male 5’10” & up (Must be Experienced)
FASHION BLOGGERS (In Exchange for NFLYC Instagram Post):
Must have atleast 300 likes per post
Are the TFP pictures print quality? - Yes, they are 18 megapixel photos, that can be printed up to 11x14 and even for billboard - I use 2 cameras for my photography - 1 for day-time printable portraits - 1 for night-time events that can still print at 11x14 but not for billboard
Will I get the print quality photos? - Yes, you will get all the original useable jpgs (in focus pictures) of the shoot. That's the purpose of TFP (Time-For-Print)
Is the NFLYC shirt photoshoot at the end mandatory? - No, although it is appreciated.
Why are you shooting photos if you have a clothing label? - Marketing + exposure, plain and simple.
Why do I have to sign a photo release? - A lot of work goes in to scheduling, shooting, editing and posting the images. They must be of professional quality to reflect the NFLYC brand.
Does that mean, you won't take down pictures if I ask you to? - You can always request to have your images taken down. If it is necessary, then yes, they will be taken down.
Why are you looking for experienced people only? - The fashion industry has a lot of pros and cons. Working with people who are already experienced with those issues is preferred.
NOTE: Outfits for shoot should all be "socially acceptable." NFLYC has both young adults and teenagers as an audience, so the content must be parent-approved.
Last year, I'm sure a lot of models stopped and looked at
the Louis Vutton ad with a 3D rendered model from the video game Final Fantasy
wearing some of the latest fashion pieces and sporting a Louis Vutton hand
bag. The question might have popped up in
their head, "Is this it? Is this the end of my modeling career?"
I started down the 3d Modeling path around a year before,
originally just to have a digital mannequin to design on. But when I saw Kadajj's Another Galaxy,
I knew this could be so much more. With the ever growing appetites of users of
Social media for digital content, I figured, heck why not look in to this a
I decided that 3D would be great for the purposes of making
digital lookbooks. Frankly, in the real
world, hiring the model wouldn't be the issue...but purchasing and storing
wardrobe would! Since I only work with basic cut shirts, I could just buy a 3D
model made by a good 3D modeler. If I
made my own unique cut and style of clothing, using 3D models would be a
different matter completely.
So, if you're a model reading this, you probably want to
know, how this affects you. Here's the skinny :)
1. REAL CLOTHES NEED REAL PEOPLE...Period!
If you're a clothing designer like I am, no amount of perfect
3D sculpting would ever match a picture of the Real Deal (unless you’re talking
about luggage, that’s a different story).
Secondarily, the consumers want to see what that clothing looks like on
a Real person in Real life. How the
fabric falls, the texture of the material and how it’s thin or thick are all
important factors for customers making clothing purchases. I doubt a customer would ever buy something
they would trust wearing if they only saw pictures of it on a 3D model.
2. 3D Modeling is
If a designer whips up a new blouse with a couple of cuts
and stitches and it is ready to wear (pun intended), that same blouse would
cost hundreds of dollars and countless hours to be replicated in 3D
perfectly. Not to mention the work
needed to get the lighting just right on the final rendered image and the
computer processor power needed if this was a complex photo (i.e. a woman
standing in a jungle...or even a simple grass field for that matter).
Will 3D modeling ever get cheaper? Maybe as more of the next generations studies
3d modeling, there will be more talent for less money. Also as 3d modeling software companies
advance the ease of use for the 3D industry, it’s possible.
But, no matter how you cut the cake, a good 3D object /
Model takes at least a good 10,000 vertices to make it look realistic. A vertex is a corner point of a
surface. A square has 4 vertices. A cube has 8 corners, so it has 8 vertices. The last major human looking 3D model from Daz
had around 20,000 vertices.
If an untalented 3D modeler is employed on a project and
moves those corners around too much, it would destroy the model. The corners of a 3D model can get extremely
bunched together making it impossible to work with. Ever tried untangling christmas tree lights?
So, having someone work on a realistic 3d model requires a very talented and very
expensive employee. Shoot, I'd rather
hire a model for the day.
HOWEVER, here's the "maybe a little" part.
If a designer uses Marvelous Designer to make their fashion
line, than, YES, they technically could use 3D models to model their
clothes. Marvelous Designer is a 3d
program that takes measurements and makes 3d objects for clothing. Similar to Photoshop, except on 3D
Will 3D models ever replace a good Catalog shoot? No!
Never! Nada! Caput! But it may affect the Look book side of the
industry. For those who are not familiar
with look books, they are mini fashion shoots used for catalogs that only go
from Company to Company and may never reach the view of the general
I've seen a couple of look books in my time, and many have
photographs that are Magazine Ad and catalog ready, so a designer might just
skip the 3D look book route for a real one. But for budding designers who use Marvelous Designer with a
lower budget, 3D might become a more affordable option when shopping out their
clothing style to other brands and retailers.
Also, if a new clothing design originally made with Marvelous Designer has to be passed from one office to another quickly, a 3d model could resemble
what the final product would look like fairly fast. I
suppose mannequins might have more to fear than models concerning this
issue. Poor mannequins :(
Ultimately, at the end of the Day, Vogue is not going to
turn in to some sort of fashionable version of Electronic Gaming Monthly, but a
small chunk of the industry might go to quick mock-ups and prototypes that need
to be made fast. HOWEVER, the designer ALSO has to know and use 3D design software to make their clothes. A shot-in-the dark, I'm guessing the percentage of designers' using Marvelous's Designer is way less than 50%, however I'm sure fashion students are being introduced to the software. Regardless, fashion has been around for centuries because of a simple pair of scissors, needles and thread, and that's still the fastest way to creativity. I personally still use my sketch book to get the ideas out fastest.
If you're a model and
want me to be honest about how long it takes me to make a good 3d rendered photo, it takes a couple of hours...and that's for just one image. It's not the rendering part that takes so
long, it's the setting up, texturing, posing, camera placement, lighting and fitting of the
3d clothes that makes a good rendered image great. 3d clothing is like working with melting cardboard. If you use it as is, it's stiff and hard to soften. If you apply computer gravity to it, it melts down easily and all the textures look like designs on a stretched out balloon skin (no joke). Not to mention the Photoshop post work. Lastly, if you don't get the lighting just
right, you're image will look like a plastic Barbie doll, so be prepared to
change lighting around for a while (hours).
Models! breathe a sigh of relief. You probably still have another 5-10 years
before 3D possibly starts intruding on the fashion industry, and even then, no
one is going to buy clothes off a 3D model, not even in business-to-business
look books. Unless some strange event happens where real objects can be simply scanned in to the 3D universe matching every physical aspect, appearance, and replication of gravity on the object perfectly...it ain't going to happen...soon?