The "science" of costuming

"More mad science, yo."

I got a lot of really good feedback on my last post, "Dyspelling the Myth of White Light".  So, to continue the science conversation, here is more of a thought discussion about costuming!!  (If you want to continue down this track, I can show you how a hoop skirt can be graphically represented by a porabola.  Because, math.)

I recently went with my parents to see the exhibit "The Science Behind Pixar Exhibition" at the California Science Center (click here to see more details!)  What a fun exhibit!  If you're in Southern California, and LOVE Pixar movies, I highly recommend it!

But my father (whom I deeply respect and adore, and who is himself an engineer) scoffed at the term "science".  I asked him, then, what is the difference between science and engineering.  His definition was this:

Science is the discovery of something new, through experimentation, and research.  It is about discovering what was previously unknown.

Engineering is the application of that knowledge.

Interesting.

Snicker, snicker, snort.

The closest dictionary definition I could find to this was the Oxford English Dictionary:

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Engineering: The branch of science and technology concerned with design, building, and use of engines, machines and structures.

Even more interesting.

In the real world, scientists are never called "scientists", rather they are defined by their area of focus.



To reference one of my favorite TV shows, "The Big Bang Theory" (because it's AWESOME and well deserving of all the awards it's gotten): Sheldon and Leonard are both physicists, Rajesh is an Astrophysicist, Amy is a Neurobiologist, and Bernadette is a Microbiologist.  However, engineers are usually called engineers, but they are further defined by their specialty, and thus Howard is a lowly Aerospace Engineer.

(Not sure why this matters, but I thought it was noteworthy.  :)  It's called letting my geek flag fly.)

Ha!  Engineer jokes are always funny.  :)

So, is costuming a science, or engineering?  An interesting dilemma, hmmmm??

To answer that question, we need to explore what costuming is.  As we are all aware, costuming (which is both the designing and construction of costumes) is an art form.  Some art forms, like painting, drawing, photography, etc. have fewer rules that they are required to follow.  (If you can put paint to canvas, you can call it art.)  Other art forms, such as architecture, have more rules to follow.  (In order for the structure you are designing to stay up, or to follow city/state/federal guidelines regarding fire codes, American for Disabilities Act regulations, etc. there are quite a few more rules and laws.)  Costuming, in this sense, has quite a few more rules that need to be followed.  Rules such as: the person needs to be able to breathe, the person needs to be able to get in and out of the costume, and hopefully the person can do a host of other activities while wearing the costume.  Historical costuming has even more rules, and it is up to the individual how strictly these rules are followed.

If science at its base relies on theory and experimentation, then this clearly applies.  Since I only sew for myself, each time I make a new piece, most of the time I am making it using a new pattern, with different material.  Although I often gravitate towards the same materials (premium muslin from JoAnns, Radiance cotton/silk, etc.), I often use fabrics purchased online, and you can't always be sure what you're going to get.  As such, each new piece is usually an experiment.  Will it work, based on my design decisions and chosen materials?  Hopefully!  And then making of a mockup, then is the experimental procedure.  How does it go together?

However, by it's very definition, engineering is the construction of something.  By that definition, the construction of a project can be considered engineering.

As a conclusion, then, costuming is both science and engineering.  (Gasp!)  Since with each project, you are running into problems heretofore undiscovered by previous problems, and experimenting with solutions, and then creating results!  Voila!

Maybe next time I'll do a post on the hoopskirt model, and the graphic representation of a parabola.  Why?  Because math is awesome, and using math in sewing makes my inner child giggle.  Especially when teaching sewing to tweens who think that doing math over the summer sucks.  Muahahahaha!

Dispelling the myth of "white" light

To start, there is no such thing as pure white light, or pure white fabric (especially fabric that reflects light, such as silks and satins), just as there is no such thing as pure black fabric.  These are just things that your eye sees as pure white or pure black.

"There is no Dana, there is only Zuul!" (Ghostbusters, 1984)

Ahem.

Let's get technical!

You can see below a presentation of the visible light spectrum.  Like a rainbow, this goes from ultraviolet (UV) to infared.

What's missing?

Notice that you don't see white, black, or brown.   But you can see white light, right?  So, where does white light come from?  Oooh, let's discuss!

Background
For those who don't know, I got my Bachelors of Arts in Cinema at San Francisco State University (go Gators!).  And while I do use my degree in my current position, mostly it just taught me some nifty terms (such as "neutral density filter"), random bits of trivia (such as what a "grip" does), and overall technical knowledge, the main one being: how does the mechanical eye of the camera differ from your human eye?

The myth of "white" light
One of the main things your eye does that a camera has to be told to do is to see all lights as white.  In film terms, light comes with a "color temperature".  The color temperature of light depends on the type of light:

Fluorescent- green
Incandescent/tungsten (interior)- orange
Daylight (sunlight)- blue, though the exact color blue changes throughout the day

The sunlight that your eyes see as "white" is actually really light blue.

Ott Light Note: this is essentially the science behind the "Ott Light" (see here).  The Ott Light (as well as the light in modern sewing machines) looks "blue" because it's matching the daylight (sunlight) color temperature.  However, there are two problems with this: 1) the rest of the lights (incandescent or LED) in the room will be orange in color, and not match the light, and 2) the color temperature of daylight changes throughout the day anyway.  Some people love their Ott Lights, but I just use a regular incandescent light for my hand sewing and beading, and it works great.

(On medium to high end cameras/camcorders, there is a "white balance" setting, to allow you to switch from light source to light source, and still maintain the "white" light.)

This is also why, if you're trying to match two different fabrics, or fabric and trim, it is recommended to take your fabric outside or close to a window, to see it in daylight, rather than under the store fluorescent lights.  The more reflective (i.e. shiny) fabric, such as silk or satin, will change tones more depending on which light source you're under.  Less reflective fabrics, such as cotton, won't change tones as much, and your eye tends to correct for these small changes anyway.  Stores in the LA Garment District will cut you a swatch of a fabric, so even if they won't let you take the bolt of fabric outside, you can take the swatch outside, or take it home.  Some online vendors will also sell swatches, which is REALLY helpful since dupioni and other silk solids come in a wide variety of colors.

Why does this matter?

The myth of white fabric
Imagine you're shopping online, and you look at fabric.  It's described as "white", the picture shows it as white, so it must be white, right?  You get it home, and it's slightly blue (or a cool white), or slightly yellow (or a warm white), only one of which looks good against your skin.  Ack!

See below for pictures of two different white silks (taken from www.fabric.com).  Both fabrics are described as "white", so why are there two?

Radiance silk- White

Radiance silk- PFD White

See below for pictures of three different white cottons.  The first picture is taken under just incandescent light, the second using the flash on my phone.  Notice the HUGE amount of color variation between the two.

Three "white" cotton fabrics under regular indoor light.  Notice it looks almost tan, or almond.

The same three "white" cottons- with a flash.  Notice it looks slightly more blue.

My "Night Circus" 1885 bodice.  The center panels are made with white silk.  Or is it white?

Bodice "white" silk, against three cottons, using indoor light

Same as above, with flash.  See how the "white" silk is actually closer to the off-white cotton?  Aha!  Tricked you!

When I was looking at the silk to use for the center panel (and the matching underskirt), there were two "white" silks: white, and PFD (prepared for dyeing) white silk.  I got swatches for both (thank you, fabric.com!), and the regular white was a blue white, and looked HORRIBLE against my skin.  The PFD white, while just the slightest bit off-white, was slightly more yellow, and looked much better.  Since it was going to be contrasted against black, from a distance, it would look pure white.

Also, since you can see through it slightly, it looks even slightly more white because it's interlined with white cotton twill.

Really close up of the buttons, which are also white, and serve to show how the fabric is just slightly off-white.  The use of black thread to attach the buttons was a deliberate design feature.  I wanted the buttons to stand out, and since the thread was the off-white ("winter" white), I thought it might contrast slightly, and so I used black.

With flash.  It's pure white, I swear!

At Costume College 2016.  Under studio lights, so the center panel looks even more "white".  And yes, that's a Professor Slughorn wand from Harry Potter.  :)

With the white side of the underskirt.  Do you see it against the white ribbon trim of the overkirt?

Skin tone trick:

I learned this at Costume College last year, in a class taught by Lauren of American Duchess.  If you look at your veins, and they look more blue, you have a cooler skin tone.  If you look at your veins and they look green, you have a warmer skin tone.  While it's up to you what colors you choose in the end, we all have colors that we avoid like the plague, because they just "don't work" against your skin.

Color temperature in real life

I love the new show "Timeless" on NBC.  The plot is a little thin (basically this guy takes a time machine, and travels back to multiple times in American history to try and destroy current America, don't know why, and our three heroes take another time machine to chase him down), but the costumes are gorgeous!  If not totally period correct.  Which, actually, makes perfect sense in the context of the show.  So there, haters!

In the second episode, our courageous heroes go back to 1865 to chase down our disreputable bad guy, who is messing with the plot to kill Abraham Lincoln.  The main character, Lucy, ends up going to the theater with Lincoln's Chief of Staff, and so buys an evening gown.

In the first scene you see her in, I thought the satin contrast was a seafoam green.

Isn't she lovely?  Sorry, it's a bit blurry, she was moving,

For film and television, lighting is often made to look as though it comes from an already existing light source for the room.  For 1865 inside a hotel room, the obvious choices are wick lamps, candlelight, or fire from the fireplace.  So, a light looking somewhat "yellow" makes sense.

Now the trim looks almost periwinkle!  What gives?

And yet, in the next scene, they are in a theater, also supposedly lit by candelight, and yet gone is the "yellow" overtones.  The dress trim that looked green now looks almost periwinkle.  Same camera, same television, same channel.  Yet the lighting color changed from "yellow" to a much more distinct "blue".

Nifty film terms: the Director of Photography (also known as the Cinematographer, or "DP" for short) is responsible for the "look" of the film.  This means that everything that is seen by the camera is under his/her purview.  This is who wins the "Best Cinematography" Oscar.  Under him/her is the "Lighting Designer".  This person is responsible for designing what lights are placed where, with what filters, etc.

While I doubt many people may have noticed the color change, I had to rewind to make sure I wasn't going color blind.  :)

This is a prime example of not just color temperature in film and television, but also how the color of lights can affect the color of your fabric/trim.  And yet, both lights are "white".

To wrap things up: there is no "white" light, it's just what our eye "sees" as white.

And here's your costume closet of Zen:

Can I have this as my costume closet?

It's also supposedly "organized by region".  Jaw droppingly awesome!!

Happy sewing, friends!!

Since I won't be posting anything next week (unless I discover I have tons of time, shockingly), have a wonderful Thanksgiving!!

Update: Purple Regency Dress Finished!! . . . or is it??

Dun, dun, dun!!

On Sunday, I headed off to the "Jane Austen themed tea", held at the LOVELY "French Estate" in Orange, CA.  Being me, of course I finished my outfit that morning!  :)

Lovely glamour shot by my friend, Trudy!

Dreaming of Mr. Darcy!!  Or Mr. Knight!!  Mmmmmmm.

My friend Nancy and I in one of the rooms at the house.  Doesn't she look lovely?

The tea was fun, with games, and LOTS of food.  I had thought when purchasing tickets that it was a "costumed" tea, meaning that we show up in costume, and get served tea.  Instead, it ended up being a "potluck" tea, with costumes encouraged, but not required, and food, plates, cups, etc. supplied by those attending.  The food was fantastic, but the tea arrangements left something to be desired.  :(

Once I tried my dress on for the first time, of course I immediately noticed what was wrong with it.  Even though I lengthened it two inches, it was still four inches off of the ground!  And something I hadn't noticed when making my mockups- I think my bust is lower than the standard, since the edge of the bodice hits me about 1.5" above where my short stays end.

Well, and the points of the sleeves are off, but that's usual, and can be easily fixed.  :)

I was pondering for the past few days: do I keep the whole think, and try to sell it?  Or do I rip it apart, save the skirt lining (which can be a few inches shorter) and sleeves, and cut out new everything else?  I think I'm going to end up taking it all apart, since I have more fabric, and MAYBE making a new skirt with the fashion fabric.  Since I need to lengthen the bodice, maybe that will give it enough length.  We shall see!!

Update: Edwardian Tea Dress, Purple Regency Dress, Petticoats and more!

This is going to be a long post, because I haven't posted in awhile, but bear with me.  :)

Of course, because no costumer ever works on just one thing at a time, since my last post I've been working on things like mad!  Yes, I should have posted another update sooner, but have been busy.

(I feel like I should retitle my blog "A Costumer's Journey", so that with each update I can call it "My Journey So Far."  What fun!)

Aqua Edwardian Teens Dress
A continuation from this post.

Sadly, I didn't finish this dress in time for the tea that I was going to attend.  While I would have LOVED to have gone, it really didn't work out anyway, so I didn't end up going.  :(

The weekend after the tea, I got so excited about having a "free" weekend, I ended up picking up and working on three other things that I didn't need to.  But, that's the way it goes.  :)

(I'm participating in a fashion show this weekend, and apparently the person wearing Edwardian fell through, and so the organizer asked me if I had an Edwardian dress.  I told her about this one, and she told me I didn't need to worry about finishing it, she'll do something else.  I would have LOVED to be able to finish this, but I am so glad I don't HAVE to!)

But here's the status:

The orange makes all the colors very off.  Note to self: get new tablecloth!  Perhaps a cream.  Hmmm.

Cute little piping!

These are the closest to the true colors.  Oh, the shiny!

The unfinished inside.

Above you can see the status of the bodice, which is almost done, it just needs a little bit of hand sewing along the edges of the front.  But you can see I added some piping along the edges in the seafoam green, just to add a little bit of color, and to keep the edges neat.  :)

Inspired by one of my favorite Downton Abbey dresses, worn by Lady Mary, I added a bit of lace to the front, and let the edge stick up in the middle.  

Yummy, right?

Just for reference, here are the layers of skirt:

Next steps: finish the bodice, sew it to the skirt, and then add the band around the middle, and then add the hook and eye tape to the back.  DONE!  Easy, right?  Sigh.

Purple Regency Dress:

This weekend (ack! so soon!), I am attending the Jane Austen tea!  Yes!  A friend of mine is staying with me, and joining me in attending, and she was so excited about the tea that I needed to make a dress too!  Because of course I have the underthings, the hat (which I forgot to take a picture of), the shoes, the fabric and the pattern, but haven't had a chance to start it.  Of course.

The dress pattern I am using.

Starting with the pattern, I am using the "Regency Gown Pattern" from Sense and Sensibility.  I had always intended to use this pattern for this dress, just because it seems relatively simple.

Of course, I started with making the skirts.  I don't know why I do this, I think so that I can get them neatly done and folded away before my fluffy one has a chance to decide to crush the fabric.  :)

Pretty purple fabric!  As you can see, it's also a sheer fabric.

Closeup of skirt placket and fabric.  So pretty!

The fabric I have had for years in planning this dress.  It's a purple (and brown) stripe pattern on a white background that I got at the LA Fabric District, in downtown Los Angeles.  I'm pretty sure it's 100% cotton, but it's lightweight, and sheer, and soft.

The only change I made to the skirt was to lengthen it 2", based on where the pattern pieces hit.

Note on skirt lengths:

Historical sewing skirt lengths are very interesting, and you can spend a lot of time arguing with people about where a "full length skirt" should hit.  I generally have two considerations: front poofiness of skirt, and heel height.  A good rule of thumb is to make your skirts 2" above the ground at all times.

For Civil War skirts, the general idea is between 2-4" off of the ground.  Anything less, and you're essentially just getting a dirty hem, and a hem you are likely to step on.  Of course, when you sit, those hems will hit the ground, but when you're standing or walking, they shouldn't.  My Civil War shoes have about 1/2" heel, so the heel doesn't really factor in.

For Bustle, I keep to the 2" above the ground rule.  My Bustle boots are about 2.5" tall, so I make my skirts about .5" longer when I am standing in bare feet.

For Regency and Edwardian, since there is no skirt structure (other than a petticoat or two), it is essential that skirts be on the longer side, so that they don't show ankle.  (Oh, no!)  2" is still a good length, but you can make them longer.

Note also that this just applies to the exterior skirt lengths.  Petticoats can be a bit shorter (and should be- we don't want to see those things on the exterior!)  Structured garments such as hoop skirts and bustles should go down to about 6" off the ground, petticoats should go down to about 4" off the ground (or, as a rule of thumb, 2" shorter than your skirt).  Underhoop petticoats can be 6" off the ground.

But I digress.

Bodice:

Unlike my Edwardian dress bodice (made up of less pieces, but with a middle piece, and darts, and that whole mess), this is actually going fairly fast.  

Bodice lining.

Piping at the neckhole edge.

Closeup of piping from inside.  Hand sewing- wheeeee!

In looking at the 1996 A & E Miniseries "Pride and Prejudice", they gave Elizabeth Bennet a fair number of sheer dresses.  This is one of the things I love about Regency- short sleeves, and low necklines, and frothy fabrics in the daytime!  Swooon!  So different from the stiff boned bodices of the Victorian era!

See how her skirt is separate from the underskirt, and her sleeves are not lined at all!  LOVE THIS!

In keeping with these sheer dresses, I decided to treat the sheer layer as the exterior, and treat the lining as a sort of separate piece.  I made the sheer bodice a little higher in the front and back around the neckline, and kept the lining shorter.

Bodice with the two layers attached at backs and armholes.

Front from the inside.  You can see where the sheer layer ends.

More piping!

Pretty buttons for the back!  Yay!

Next steps: Finish the sheer layer piping, add the sleeves, add the buttons, adjust the bodice to match the skirt width, and sew on the skirt layers,  And DONE!

But wait, there's more . . .

Did I mention petticoats?

In my weekend of "I'm free!" madness, I started working on a few "quick" projects that I had hanging over my head.

I had made a "quick and easy" Edwardian petticoat, and I decided, "I can't possibly leave this untrimmed!  Heaven forbid!"  Hence, a little bit of lace at the bottom.  The scalloped lace I HATE to try to machine sew on because of the curves, so lots of hand sewing.  But at least it's done!

Quick and easy!

And the fluffy one asks: "Why aren't you petting me?"

Backstitch hand sewing.  Because I'm that level of anal.

Since I had a Civil War reenactment coming up, I decided to work on a petticoat that needed a new waistband (unpictured), start a new underpetticoat that I had been meaning to work on since I retired my old one (also unpictured), and get my Edwardian corset cover to a place where I could work on the hand sewing at the reenactment.  Hence, I was sewing like mad that week to get everything to a "hand sewing" stage.

FLUFFY!!!

Closeup of fluffy!!  With buttonholes!

Next step: add buttons.  And then I'll be done!

What comes next after this weekend?  No real plans yet.  Next year I have a Colonial dress I need to make, and need to finish my lavender and black Natural Form dress, and maybe start my peacock and black Natural Form beaded dress.

What would you like to see get made next???  Take a look at my Project List and let me know!

I'm thinking I'll do another post with all the various projects where I have a hat and fabric, and decide based on a consensus.  :)  Vote early, vote often!!

Update: Edwardian Aqua Tea Dress

A continuation of this post.

Ah, I'm back to working on the Edwardian Tea Dress!  Which is good, because I'm supposed to be wearing it on Friday!  :)  Sewing to a deadline- not something I'd recommend, but it's how I stop procrastinating!

As a reminder, here's my pattern.  It's really modeled after the Rose "swim dress" from the movie "Titanic".  (Or as I call it, "Something to wear while I run around the entire ship and then almost drown.  Because I'm in First Class."  Was anyone else amazed that this dress didn't get caught on something in the engine room, or at least dirty?  Or was that just me?)

So pretty!

Other than being pretty in pastels, I love the light, gossamer fabric, and I think of this dress as being filmy, floaty and flyaway.  So dreamy!

Color Design:
The colors I chose I am calling peach, seafoam green, and marine blue.  Since the pattern calls for three dress layers, I went with the peach as the bottom later, then the green in the middle, and blue on top (with the green also forming the sash in the middle).  While it's not an exact color match, here's an idea of the final product.

I LOVED working with the peach fabric.  Normally, I don't crush over peach.  All costumers have some colors they veer away from, usually because it's too "modern".  Peach was HUGE during my childhood (late 80s, early 90s), and so when I see it, I steer clear.  But when I looked at it against my skin, it was so dreamy!  I may have to go and make something else peach!  Yummy!

Chemise panic!

My Edwardian underthings have been slow going.  I have a completed Edwardian 1910s corset, which will go perfectly under here (as opposed to the Edwardian 1900s S-shaped corset), and a Edwardian chemise and drawers.  But I had a brief moment of panic, because I realized I am facing something I've never done before- the V-shaped Edwardian back!  Yikes!  Would my chemise be visible??  I tried on my mockup with the corset and chemise, and you could see maybe 1/2" of chemise in the front.  So, once the dress is finished, I'll try it on again.  If I can't pin it down, I may just have to wear it with my Regency chemise, which has an adjustable neckline.  Note for the future: need another Edwardian chemise, with a lower front and back.  Sigh.

Mockups & Body issues
To make people feel better, I will let you know that I went through four (yikes!) mockups for the bodice: first was too small, second needed some adjustment, and third needed even more adjustment, before I was happy.

One of my ongoing sewing challenges is that I have both sloping shoulders, and narrow shoulders.  So, fitting around the shoulders (and even the upper rib cage) tends to have issues, and causes all of my fitting concerns.  (Interestingly, despite my height, I fit patterns perfectly from the neckline to waist, and never have to lengthen my bodices.  Yay!)

To see the effects of narrow shoulders in action:

Queen Elizabeth from Reign.  Yes, the costumes are not authentic, it's on the CW, blah, blah, blah.  I think it's fun and dramatic, and has hot guys with swords.  So, nyah.

I love this actress because she perfectly demonstrates what narrow shoulders look like.  See how it's almost a straight line from her waist to her armpit?  That's me.  It's annoying.

Edwardian challenges:

Each new era has it's own "look" in term of silhouette.  Edwardian (1900-1918), especially the 1910s, closely follows the looks of Regency (1800-1820), almost a century before.  They both have the empire waistline (or in the case of Edwardian, the directoire waistline), the light fabrics, the fitted bodice (but not overly so, and not boned), and the skirts without support (no hoops, no bustle, crazy talk!).  Working in this era, when mostly I've done late Victorian, makes me twitch a little.

For example, the pattern calls for a lining for the skirt.  But when I look at Rose's dress, the fabric is so light and flyaway, and does not look like it should have a lining, so I nixed that step.  However, I will add a petticoat, to give it a little support, but mostly for modesty, as the underskirt is peach and just a little see-through.

Have I mentioned I LOVE the Edwardian long corset?  It curves over the hips to give a smooth line, and just makes me feel so elegant!

Project updates:

Once I got finished with the design and the mockups, I started sewing!

Since by this time it was Sunday, I decided to start on what would take the most time- the skirts.  Since these go from just under the bust to the floor, they are LONG.  I made a mockup of the skirt along with the last bodice, and without a hem, it went to 6" above the ground in my bare feet. Since I was thinking that I should make this slightly earlier (and thus a longer hem), I lengthened the skirt 4", and cut out and sewed the underskirt and two overskirts.

Here is the result!

The colors here look somewhat close to what they actually are.  Next step: cut out and sew the bodice and lining, cut out the waist sash and rosette, add some hook and eye tape, and presto!

Ack, I still need to make jewelry!

Stay tuned!