or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III - Page 4422  

post #66316 of 78717
Interesting catch on the sleeves. Not sure why in this photo but I think my shirt sleeves are actually too long for the jacket but you make a good observation with them not showing. Maybe they got caught on the inside of the sleeve because I always feel like I'm pulling my jacket sleeves down with this shirt.
post #66317 of 78717
Fred's Friday PopUp
post #66318 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post


You don't have to be a hater to hate.

 

;)

post #66319 of 78717

Hello! First time posting here and a long time lurker... Thought I'd share what I wore to church last week and maybe get some pointers.

 

 

Sorry about the bathroom shot but it's the best I got :)

post #66320 of 78717

A summer looking rig in the winter.  

 

 

 

 

post #66321 of 78717
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post

No real irony (under any definition of the word) in most cases, I think; simply a matter of most of us being more interested in clothes than in photography of clothes. Talking myself as a case in point, I'm not interested in photography, so I just post snaps for the fun of sharing what I'm wearing, and for giving some vague context to my comments on others' outfits, even if my photos aren't particularly colour-accurate or clear. There's no incentive to get higher quality equipment or professional lighting or whatever, because taking better photos (at more time/effort/cost) isn't something I'm interested in. I'm sure a similarly aware/conscious thought process for many posters who, like me, post poor quality photos. You can still get a fair idea of the outfit and whether you like it or not, which is all that really matters.

 

 

Merriam Webster defines Irony as "a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected", which is pretty much exactly what I mean. Whether or not it's $4K per outfit there's an incongruity to spending the amount of time and attention, the care, that goes into these outfits and then broadcasting them literally to the world in such a blasé way. As an aspiring commercial artist I do happen to own thousands of dollars worth of image creation hardware and software but I don't need any of it to post a respectable pic (respectable in terms of detail, clarity and color reproduction anyway). The attached photo was not only shot indoors it was shot in an especially dark room and yet the colours of the shoe and the drink are vibrant and accurate. When I enlarge the original I can see clearly the individual strands of fabric that make up the twill of the textured jacket. That didn't come from Photoshop or an expensive DSLR, that was my girlfriend with a Canon Point and Shoot that cost about the same as a pair of Allen Edmonds Park Avenues.

 

I'm really not looking to slight anyone in this forum which has been wonderfully warm and inclusive. Actually HF, you gave me a thumb on my first legitimate attempt in this thread which I appreciate. All I'm saying is that, fairly often here, there's a disparity to the level of attention that goes in to the outfit vs. the presentation of the outfit. Sometimes the gap is wide enough that the visual has a bit of humour to it.

 

Long story short, you don't need an expensive DSLR, professional lighting and image manipulation software to get a decent fit pic. The fairly decent point and shoots these days have good enough flashes and sensors that a relatively modest investment would Greatly improve the ability of some here to do their outfits justice. 

 

*

post #66322 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by faribeana88 View Post

then what would you base it off of? if it covers your derriere? because unless you have organgutan arms, i'm assuming that proportional arms would be a clear indicator as the picture explains.

if you are right, then my business dress class at Wharton Business School severely ripped me off....

You actually took a college course on business dress? I can most assuredly tell you that you did indeed get ripped-off, lol...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatlegeuse View Post

^ I think choc is like 6'8". And the best explanations I've heard so far for jacket length is long enough in the back to cover your ass and long enough in the front to reach the bottom of your balls. Unless you have really saggy balls, then I guess in that case the bottom would land right above your saggy balls.

Lol, I've never heard of the "balls" rule for determining front jacket length. I think having two separate rules for front length and back length is a bit silly and redundant, though, since it negates the concept of proper balance. In other words, if the balance is correct (which is just as important as proper length, in my opinion), the front and back hems should be roughly even when viewed from the side. So if the jacket is the correct length in the back, it should be the correct length in the front, and vice versa, provided the balance is good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Dlwgosh View Post

Merriam Webster defines Irony as "a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected", which is pretty much exactly what I mean. Whether or not it's $4K per outfit there's an incongruity to spending the amount of time and attention, the care, that goes into these outfits and then broadcasting them literally to the world in such a blasé way. As an aspiring commercial artist I do happen to own thousands of dollars worth of image creation hardware and software but I don't need any of it to post a respectable pic (respectable in terms of detail, clarity and color reproduction anyway). The attached photo was not only shot indoors it was shot in an especially dark room and yet the colours of the shoe and the drink are vibrant and accurate. When I enlarge the original I can see clearly the individual strands of fabric that make up the twill of the textured jacket. That didn't come from Photoshop or an expensive DSLR, that was my girlfriend with a Canon Point and Shoot that cost about the same as a pair of Allen Edmonds Park Avenues.

I'm really not looking to slight anyone in this forum which has been wonderfully warm and inclusive. Actually HF, you gave me a thumb on my first legitimate attempt in this thread which I appreciate. All I'm saying is that, fairly often here, there's a disparity to the level of attention that goes in to the outfit vs. the presentation of the outfit. Sometimes the gap is wide enough that the visual has a bit of humour to it.

Long story short, you don't need an expensive DSLR, professional lighting and image manipulation software to get a decent fit pic. The fairly decent point and shoots these days have good enough flashes and sensors that a relatively modest investment would Greatly improve the ability of some here to do their outfits justice. 

* Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Yeesh. Where is the "thumbs down" button when you need it?
post #66323 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyswatter View Post


Yeesh. Where is the "thumbs down" button when you need it?

Pffftt...
post #66324 of 78717

Good natural lighting today, shirt is light blue and white stripes:

 

 

More Pictures (Click to show)

 

Thoughts (Click to show)
I chose the pants first. I really like the fit of these pants, its a shame that there was not enough material to get a decent cuff on them. I chose the shirt next. The pants have some brown and olive to them so I wanted a shirt that was mostly blue. I also didn't want to go with a button down collar as the pants felt a little sleeker than that. I settled on the blue and white striped one. I chose the jacket next. I felt that there was a good contrast between it and the pants. I also wanted something more solid given that I had a striped shirt. I wanted to wear a more interesting tie, but had a lot of trouble deciding. I didn't want a knit given the other items. I tried on a couple of floral patterned ones but the base color was too light or the tie didn't balance well with the shirt. I settled on this plain brown faux grenadine which is actually one of my most versatile ties. I wanted to wear my dark brown wingtips, so I did. I felt they were interesting but didn't clash with the pants. Finally a chose a square that matched many of the colors in the pants.
post #66325 of 78717



Huntsman bespoke
Borrelli
Yellow Hook
Talbott
Panta
GG
post #66326 of 78717

Thanks for all the thumbs over the last week guys - much appreciated. 

post #66327 of 78717
So either I didn't suck today or you lot ignored me Lol.

I just updated my phone and the new camera app is much better. Looking forward to posting some better pics!
post #66328 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianiceman View Post



(p.s. hope you get the BB gun this Christmas!)

POST OF THE DAY
post #66329 of 78717




Home from the first Christmas party of the year.
post #66330 of 78717

Those shoes Spoo! :slayer:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III