Subscribe via RSS FeedProduct Photography: How To Achieve The Ghost Mannequin Effect
A conversation emerged out of the comments on last week’s post Can Product Images Improve Conversion? Showing Products in Context about how to achieve a “ghost” mannequin effect like these examples, where the body is filled out, you can see through the V-line but the mannequin is invisible.
As the post explained, showing products “in context” can be more persuasive than flat images - models and mannequins give customers an idea of how a garment fits a real person. I recently researched how to achieve the invisible mannequin look and found answers like:
Make a mannequin out of a very open wire mesh, and then edit the mesh out in post. You could even paint the mesh with green or something like that and chroma-key it out.
Make a mannequin out of a thin, cheap material (perhaps even wire mesh again) and put the garment on it, and position the camera. Then, start cutting away the mannequin in all the places where it’s visible to the camera, even with the shirt over it. You’d end up cutting off it’s left arm, part of it’s left ’shoulder blade’ and some stuff around the neck.
-djlemma, from Flickr discussion
and
Looking at a few of the examples I reckon the mannequin is being chopped out. Looking at some of the tops you can see no back to the item even if there is a lower front if you see what I mean.
An ideal solution could be to get a mannequin and a background with a strong colour. Take the photo then in Photoshop make a clear layer below the image layer so you have a transparent background. On the photo layer click the Select main menu item and choose “Color range” and click the mannequin colour on the photo. It should select just this colour, use the sensitivity slider to get the best selection and the just cut it out. Do the same with the background. It is not the quickest but compared to hand tracing each item and mannequin area it would potentially save a lot of time.
-MickeyFinn, from Freelance UK Forums
I noticed a couple photographers left comments on our post, so I tossed out the question, what’s the best way to achieve the ghost mannequin look? Anna Yeaman, professional photographer who specializes in product photography for apparel and accessories shared the following:
Two years ago I tried plastic and wireframe mannequins to achieve the “ghost” effect but I was not happy with the results. Also this limits the types of mannequin you can use.
I sometimes combine two images in Photoshop if its just a small part of the label I’m after.
I never found a simple way to do this in-camera, I decided that there must be custom made mannequins out there but could never find them. I considered taking a saw to one of my own and cutting out the chest area!
I’m going to renew my efforts and contact some websites using this effect. I will let you know how it goes. Most of my clients are after the Bluefly.com look and don’t mind the mannequin.
One thing I do a lot is take a photo on a mannequin, in Photoshop I edit out parts of the mannequin that are showing (around the hem, arms ect). You end up with an item with shape and form without a mannequin showing, but you cannot see through to the back…We take multiple angle shots and close ups of every item instead.
I have a hook that I hang bags off, then I edit it out later in Photoshop. For earrings I use clear fishing wire (craft shop), the earrings hang perfectly and the wire is invisible. I also use a clear plastic board for studs (I drilled a small hole) and clip ons (clip onto the bottom).
In a follow-up comment:
I contacted a bunch of product photographers to find out how they achieved the “ghost” effect.
John Gibbens of, G2 Catalog Design sent me this reply,
“We either shoot two images and piece together or we use an inexpensive plastic mannequin supported from below (for shirt/jacket images) whose neck is cut down below the open neckline. We then keep a couple different lengths of removable arms to fill sleeves - long arms with hands cut off for long-sleeve items and shorter arms for short sleeve garments.”
So we can conclude that the invisible mannequin look, though very slick, takes a bit of pre and post production effort. Another alternative would be to shoot a flat image and mannequin shot, so customers can still see the product on a form and see through the V-line. Works for Net-A-Porter…
Like This Article?
|
Get New Posts Delivered to You
|
Add to del.icio.us
Sphinn It!
Stumble It
Hi Linda,
Do you think net-a-porter need both flat and on a mannequin? Why not just use the mannequin (and detail shots) and save half your budget?
What I love about their mannequin shots is that they accessorize them. Adding in matching bags, shoes, scarves and belts…it’s more exciting to view a whole outfit and encourages you to buy more.
ps: thanks for the link love :)
Hmm, good question - I like to see flat images as category page thumbnail defaults (that’s a mouthful), they’re easier to view in smaller sizes.
I definitely like the front/back mannequin shots. I think for luxury brands the simple mannequin has a kind of cachet, too.
So if budget was not a concern, I would like to see:
flat
mannequin front
mannequin back
fabric detail zoom shot
also any additional colors, shot separately (not just photoshopped to match color)
Linda, why did you pick a piece of clothing that looks like it came from a bad 80’s movie? :) I think I saw Lois Lane wear that in Superman II.
Oh Jason, trust me, this was the best of the bunch.
If you don’t believe me:
http://www.net-a-porter.com/Shop/Clothing/Tops
My choices were: Bad 80’s Movie or Tablecloths and Curtains Sewn Together.
I believe this choice was “choice” :P
As a shopper, I can definitely attest to the fact that seeing the clothes on something - invisible or visible mannequin or real live model - makes me more likely to buy something. Shopping online for clothing is difficult, so being able to see the way something hangs is a big help.
I have a question though - what’s the rationale for using a mannequin over a live model? I assume it’s cheaper, but are there marketing-type reasons as well?
I personally prefer mannequin shots, models bring too much baggage. What I mean is sometimes they are styled in a way that looks dated or the shopper does not identify with. They can be a distraction.
I have seen a dress on an eveningwear website and it looks awful, I’m put off by the bad hair and prom queen makeup. Then I see the same dress re-photographed on a mannequin on bluefly.com and it looks like something I might wear.
Hi gang,
I’m a photographer in Los Angeles specializing in shooting for the apparel industry.
Making a mannequin OR model shot look invisible is generally a bunch of work and after 20 years doing it I’m not convinced it is worth the time.
My vote is to shoot with models.
Why?
* Just styling clothing onto a mannequin can take a long time. The samples must be cut well and fit the mannequin well in order for things to move at any good pace. When it’s been most successful for me, there are at least two mannequins and two stylists - one mannequin on set and one being dressed in the wings. Mannequins and stylists and time are expensive!
* Retouching to invisible afterwards is time consuming & expensive post production expense.
Models can dress quickly and you can grab a front, back and side shot on 10 styles before you shoot one on a mannequin.
If you pose the model right - you can make them invisible later if you like.
I also run a couple of eCom stores and my vote is that apparel on models sells better - is more descriptive for the customer.
Just my opinions!
;-)
Chuck
http://www.chuckgoodenough.com
Great feedback! I’m really glad the pros stepped in here and explained the pros and cons. Unfortunately, there is give and take - mannequins look slick and keep a consistency through your site - they don’t distract from the clothing itself but require styling and a lot of work.
Models can take shots quickly and will appeal to “humanistic” people who will appreciate seeing a human to relate to(even if it’s one of the 2% uber-perfect specimens of the population). There may be subliminal influence of a smiling, healthy and attractive person demonstrating how great the clothes make a person look. But, model shoots carry their own costs, and if you get new stock in mid-season, you risk losing continuity.
I’ve seen sites use a mix - about 1/2 of their product images are flat, the other half are a model or mannequin. I suppose it’s okay to experiment too. But what everyone agrees on is that the “ghost effect” is a real pain to accomplish.
I assume that for some goods a more interactive approach is preferrable - for example, using Flash-based product presentations where a model can be rotated, zoomed etc.
Hi all.
how do you think, from a photographer perspective, that net-a-porter shoots those ‘flat’ shots? it doesn’t really look like the item is just laying flat. it looks almost like it is pressed or hung in a certain way. any ideas?
Hi graham,
You’re right, they could be hung. Especially the image in the blog post - looks EXACTLY like the mannequin shot, minus the arms and neck.
Other ways you can get a not-so-flat shot is to stuff the shirt slightly, or use a plastic, half bust (no back) insert like you sometimes see in retail stores. Here’s an example:
http://www.equipashop.ie/productdetail.aspx?id=19-170-030&subid=27&catid=3
Or the “1/2 Body Form Hanger” from:
http://www.edenshop.co.uk/Manaquins-and-Bustforms.asp?Category=12
(scroll down almost to the bottom)
There is a lot of interest in these elusive techniques lately. Have you photographers looked into hiring a photo stylist who specializes in these techniques for your shoots and letting them worry about how to do it? If not, you might check out the upcoming video and off-figure styling online courses we’re bringing out soon. Sign up for e-newsletter to keep informed about the dates. Hope to hear from you! Susan
By the way, that’s at Photo Styling Workshops, http://www.photostylingworkshops.com
@Susan,
Our team ended up finding a solution - I believe it’s the buy a mannequin, saw off body parts solution :)