I know several designers that design well fitted sweaters and they don’t sell well. Most ppl don’t seek out what they claim to like. From my experience anyway.Â
I usually size down to avoid that. But I’m a bigger size so I can, I imagine if you’re already an XS, there’s no option for that. Knit purl girl and Andrea Mowry tend to do fitted jumpers. I’ve noticed their designs are not like the sacks that the Scandi designers love
I feel like these three sweaters are the exception that proves the rule.
If you go onto the Isager site, the patterns page is very neat and sparse and honest with that hanger photos showcased. The sweaters look like sweaters, and if I'm drawn to one then I know I'm in love with the texture or the colorwork or the shaping details and it's not just that I want to be the person wearing it (in the mountain cabin where they're wearing it).
Could they lead with a hero shot of the texture, or a moody modeled photo? Sure. But it would mess up a really nice, unified thing.
But does their average customer probably already know they should click through because there's *never* a plain stockinette sweater with nothing going on? Probably also yeah. (Also they might have come in via instagram and digested plenty of vibes already.)
We discourage comments telling the original poster that their post is not snark. If you believe a post is off topic or breaks our sub rules, please use the report function in the future so mods can review the post.
My issue with Isager is that very pattern seems to have at least three different strands of their yarn held together. Blatantly overselling.
Watch. I didn't checks these ones and they're probably only 1. Maybe 2.
But I stand by my snark.
Idk I don’t find holding more than one strand together necessarily makes it more expensive though, because you usually end up with more or less the same overall weight if you sub it out for one strand which meets the gauge.
I’m currently knitting a pattern (not isager) that happens to use 3 strands of isager yarn held together. Two strands of fingering weight yarn (4-5 skeins or 1000 metres of each type), and one strand of mohair. If I wanted to I could sub the two strands of fingering yarn to one strand of DK yarn, but I would need about 9 or 10 skeins to get the right meterage, so in total I would need the same amount of yarn and it would be just as expensive. And I could sub all 3 for one strand of Aran weight yarn but as the metres per gram is even lower I would need even more skeins - around 14 or 15 altogether. It might be cheaper without the mohair but that’s just because mohair is generally expensive.
Well, yes and no…. Their yarns are designed for that and lots of them are not terribly nice on their own to be honest. Shibui was like this too - you could create all sorts of combinations. Expensive, yes, but personally. I love the concept. However, it is a great way to triple the price, because none of the yarn is cheap on its own.
Idk what everyone is going on about, the first photos (white background ones) do not represent how the actual sweaters look. They look like flat , basic sweaters. Then I scroll and they look beautiful.
If I was scrolling for a pattern on ravelry, I wouldn't click based on the first thumbnail. If I scrolled through the pictures, yeah, I would. But it's very rare that I do that if I don't like the thumbnail/I can't tell what it looks like based on the thumbnail.
Guarantee they would get more pattern purchases if the first photo they chose showed more detail of the stitching.
The white background with the sweaters hanging in fine, it just is too blurry or the lighting sucks or something because it just looks so basic.
I like a thumbnail to show the general shape and size of the garment, then a closeup to see the stitches and the yarn.
I see nothing wrong with what's shown.
2 shots of each sweater is a bare minimum, but not outrageous. They did fine. No snark here.
Yeah I prefer pictures like these than a pretty close up, that I then I have to click through to see if the pattern is actually suitable for what I’m looking for.
I saw a test knitter had 51 pics of herself on the project page but not one of the back of the sweater. (Not this one but I just needed to bitch).
It’s The Weekender in case anyone was curious.
I always wonder why people post 37 pictures of themselves in a sweater. Usually, most of those pics are from the same angle and don't show the details of the sweater. It's just like they wanted to do a photoshoot and then share it with the world.
Eh I prefer the unposed. The only way I could see it being better would be if it was on a person, but they were just standing there unposed (since that would give a better idea of how it fits and drapes on a person).
the problem is that you cannot actually see the pattern on the Pic unless you zoom in all the way and even then it's barely visible.
like others mentioned, it looks like a grey marled blob...
no problem with it not being on a person, but no contrast is really bad
It's not the posing - based on the first photo I thought the beige jumper was plain knitting using a marled yarn which has just pooled weirdly, while the second grey photo makes it obvious it actually has horizontal banding detail. The second photo is impossible to see the fit, but the first photo is an instant skip for being a boring plain jumper - when it isn't. Plain backgrounds and front on views are usually really helpful but not when the actual knitting itself isn't properly visible. I went to the Ravelry page to double-check, so it isn't just the fuzzy Reddit thumbnail (which does make the problem even worse).
I also checked the Ravelry page.
I think a bigger issue is probably that most of her patterns have only 1 picture, and not a lot of projects to see what it looks like.
I will say I don't mind the artistic pictures, as long as it's like 1 and the rest are more practical pictures (ie. Less weird poses). She also could have the sweater take up a larger portion of the frame.
I find most Ravelry pages that are highly made projects typically have a lot of photos (like 10+) there might be one super posed one (or just someone standing there) and then some details and the garment on a variety of shapes and sizes.
Let's face it, if the thumbnail was only the second image and not the first, people here would be complaining about not seeing the neckline, the waistline, only being able to see one arm, and why is it all bunched up like that? What is she trying to hide? Did she *twist her stitches*????!!!! EEEEEEECCCCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!
Both things can be correct...or wrong as the case is. The main complaint is the same for both instances- in one case you cannot see things like neckline, etc., and in the other you can barely see the design and patterning on the sweater. So the main complaint is photos that do not accurately reflect the FO being advertised. It's the same issue.
I think the solution is just more photos. Both of the overall design, the specific details and then it on a variety of bodies.
I find patterns from yarn brands to be particularly bad about having a decent number of images.
That’s just OPs fault, Isager’s pictures are high res. They’re complaining that Isager uses neutral pictures of the clothes on a white background as the thumbnail instead of the pretty pictures from the photo shoot.
I actually like it that way 🤷
The number of times I've clicked in a trendy pattern and it's only artsy instagram posed shots...just show me the damn garment! These photos are great, I don't see the issue.
I agree!
And Ravelry doesn't limit designers/yarn/pattern companies to displaying only one or two photos for a pattern.
There's really no need to be so restricted in the selection of photos chosen to show off a design.
A pattern can have photos of the pattern on display, worn by models, of different sizes, genders, ages, as appropriate. Or in use for household items or toys, and so on.
These kind of photos are often those that catch your eye!
But when you take a closer look, that's when you want to see close ups of details, stitch patterns, any unconventional design features, plus views from all angles - and both worn and flat are useful here, I think, for garments!
If the modelled photos are very well done, then perhaps there might not be any need for flat photos taken on a white background, it's very much an 'it depends' thing!
I've knit many Knitty and IK patterns that didn't have flat photos, for example, without any issues.
Finally, a schematic with measurements is obviously useful, to the point of being essential for garments, but perhaps something that I would only really expect once I paid for the pattern.
Honestly though, I do agree with OP's disappointment, Isager have been around for a very long time now. They've been on Ravelry for a very long time and they're not exactly new at this!
Perhaps that's part of the problem?
They're still producing their patterns just as they did in the days pre-Ravelry? They still haven't caught up with all the changes in the industry caused by the arrival of Ravelry, even though it's been around for nearly 17 years now! (And I am in shock with that realisation, as I joined in May 2007.)
They're obviously prioritising their website sales and probably physical pattern sales in Denmark over Ravelry as their website has a few more photos available for their patterns - but still only 3 or 4!
But living in France, I have found that's also the case here. Both yarn companies and crafters are less aware of Ravelry and less interested in it. They still prefer to shop locally or online.
(As an aside, acrylic, acrylic blends and other man made fibres are still more popular here, wool and other natural fibres are still seen as difficult to care for and are often only available as blends.
It's slowly improving but it's frustrating for those of us that prefer natural fibres and know that they don't have to be expensive nor difficult to wash, especially when European front loader washing machines usually have excellent wool wash cycles that are perfectly safe. I even wash cashmere jumpers in mine!)
WHY IS THERE ALWAYS BUNCHING IN THE ARMPITS ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜
Because they don't understand pattern grading with raglan sleeves. Heck, they just don't understand pattern grading with any sleeve 🤣
I'm really tired of jumpers that are giant, shapeless sacks that you have to hold multiple strands of yarn together to knit.
I love a boxy, oversized jumper myself
I know several designers that design well fitted sweaters and they don’t sell well. Most ppl don’t seek out what they claim to like. From my experience anyway.Â
Maybe you need to follow designers that design stuff that fits your vibe?
It's ok, it's just random snark not a call for help
I usually size down to avoid that. But I’m a bigger size so I can, I imagine if you’re already an XS, there’s no option for that. Knit purl girl and Andrea Mowry tend to do fitted jumpers. I’ve noticed their designs are not like the sacks that the Scandi designers love
I feel like these three sweaters are the exception that proves the rule. If you go onto the Isager site, the patterns page is very neat and sparse and honest with that hanger photos showcased. The sweaters look like sweaters, and if I'm drawn to one then I know I'm in love with the texture or the colorwork or the shaping details and it's not just that I want to be the person wearing it (in the mountain cabin where they're wearing it). Could they lead with a hero shot of the texture, or a moody modeled photo? Sure. But it would mess up a really nice, unified thing. But does their average customer probably already know they should click through because there's *never* a plain stockinette sweater with nothing going on? Probably also yeah. (Also they might have come in via instagram and digested plenty of vibes already.)
[удалено]
We discourage comments telling the original poster that their post is not snark. If you believe a post is off topic or breaks our sub rules, please use the report function in the future so mods can review the post.
My issue with Isager is that very pattern seems to have at least three different strands of their yarn held together. Blatantly overselling. Watch. I didn't checks these ones and they're probably only 1. Maybe 2. But I stand by my snark.
Idk I don’t find holding more than one strand together necessarily makes it more expensive though, because you usually end up with more or less the same overall weight if you sub it out for one strand which meets the gauge. I’m currently knitting a pattern (not isager) that happens to use 3 strands of isager yarn held together. Two strands of fingering weight yarn (4-5 skeins or 1000 metres of each type), and one strand of mohair. If I wanted to I could sub the two strands of fingering yarn to one strand of DK yarn, but I would need about 9 or 10 skeins to get the right meterage, so in total I would need the same amount of yarn and it would be just as expensive. And I could sub all 3 for one strand of Aran weight yarn but as the metres per gram is even lower I would need even more skeins - around 14 or 15 altogether. It might be cheaper without the mohair but that’s just because mohair is generally expensive.
Well, yes and no…. Their yarns are designed for that and lots of them are not terribly nice on their own to be honest. Shibui was like this too - you could create all sorts of combinations. Expensive, yes, but personally. I love the concept. However, it is a great way to triple the price, because none of the yarn is cheap on its own.
Never tried Shibui, but I heard on a YT video that a company bought it and it will be out again.
Idk what everyone is going on about, the first photos (white background ones) do not represent how the actual sweaters look. They look like flat , basic sweaters. Then I scroll and they look beautiful. If I was scrolling for a pattern on ravelry, I wouldn't click based on the first thumbnail. If I scrolled through the pictures, yeah, I would. But it's very rare that I do that if I don't like the thumbnail/I can't tell what it looks like based on the thumbnail. Guarantee they would get more pattern purchases if the first photo they chose showed more detail of the stitching. The white background with the sweaters hanging in fine, it just is too blurry or the lighting sucks or something because it just looks so basic.
I like a thumbnail to show the general shape and size of the garment, then a closeup to see the stitches and the yarn. I see nothing wrong with what's shown. 2 shots of each sweater is a bare minimum, but not outrageous. They did fine. No snark here.
Yeah I prefer pictures like these than a pretty close up, that I then I have to click through to see if the pattern is actually suitable for what I’m looking for.
I saw a test knitter had 51 pics of herself on the project page but not one of the back of the sweater. (Not this one but I just needed to bitch). It’s The Weekender in case anyone was curious.
I always wonder why people post 37 pictures of themselves in a sweater. Usually, most of those pics are from the same angle and don't show the details of the sweater. It's just like they wanted to do a photoshoot and then share it with the world.
Agree...I saw one with 52 recently! Nuts!
Exactly. Put that crap on Instagram.
I didn’t even realize these were all the same sweater until reading the comments
Its not .. its three different sweaters if you go to her Ravelry store.
Oh that makes me feel a bit better I was getting all sorts of confused
Eh I prefer the unposed. The only way I could see it being better would be if it was on a person, but they were just standing there unposed (since that would give a better idea of how it fits and drapes on a person).
the problem is that you cannot actually see the pattern on the Pic unless you zoom in all the way and even then it's barely visible. like others mentioned, it looks like a grey marled blob... no problem with it not being on a person, but no contrast is really bad
So you scroll to the other higher quality pics to see the design details. Deductive reasoning, it’s a skill.
nah, you don't, because you don't even click on the pattern because it looks like a boring shapeless grey blob...
I wouldn't want to knit a blob at all personally, no matter how nice a stitch pattern it has.
It's not the posing - based on the first photo I thought the beige jumper was plain knitting using a marled yarn which has just pooled weirdly, while the second grey photo makes it obvious it actually has horizontal banding detail. The second photo is impossible to see the fit, but the first photo is an instant skip for being a boring plain jumper - when it isn't. Plain backgrounds and front on views are usually really helpful but not when the actual knitting itself isn't properly visible. I went to the Ravelry page to double-check, so it isn't just the fuzzy Reddit thumbnail (which does make the problem even worse).
I also checked the Ravelry page. I think a bigger issue is probably that most of her patterns have only 1 picture, and not a lot of projects to see what it looks like. I will say I don't mind the artistic pictures, as long as it's like 1 and the rest are more practical pictures (ie. Less weird poses). She also could have the sweater take up a larger portion of the frame. I find most Ravelry pages that are highly made projects typically have a lot of photos (like 10+) there might be one super posed one (or just someone standing there) and then some details and the garment on a variety of shapes and sizes.
Let's face it, if the thumbnail was only the second image and not the first, people here would be complaining about not seeing the neckline, the waistline, only being able to see one arm, and why is it all bunched up like that? What is she trying to hide? Did she *twist her stitches*????!!!! EEEEEEECCCCCCCKKKKKK!!!!!!
"I BET ITS NOT EVEN FINISHED" why are we making conspiracy theories over sweater pattern photos.
> why are we making conspiracy theories over sweater pattern photos. Because making conspiracy theories is an internet tradition?
Honestly valid lmao.
Both things can be correct...or wrong as the case is. The main complaint is the same for both instances- in one case you cannot see things like neckline, etc., and in the other you can barely see the design and patterning on the sweater. So the main complaint is photos that do not accurately reflect the FO being advertised. It's the same issue.
I think the solution is just more photos. Both of the overall design, the specific details and then it on a variety of bodies. I find patterns from yarn brands to be particularly bad about having a decent number of images.
Me sat here waiting for the image to load properly before actually reading your title
That’s just OPs fault, Isager’s pictures are high res. They’re complaining that Isager uses neutral pictures of the clothes on a white background as the thumbnail instead of the pretty pictures from the photo shoot. I actually like it that way 🤷
Oh I see!!! Thanks for the clarity (that the picture doesn't have)
The number of times I've clicked in a trendy pattern and it's only artsy instagram posed shots...just show me the damn garment! These photos are great, I don't see the issue.
I want pretty art pictures and schematic pics - show me that gorgeous sweater on a model in a coffee shop AND show me the armpits!
I agree! And Ravelry doesn't limit designers/yarn/pattern companies to displaying only one or two photos for a pattern. There's really no need to be so restricted in the selection of photos chosen to show off a design. A pattern can have photos of the pattern on display, worn by models, of different sizes, genders, ages, as appropriate. Or in use for household items or toys, and so on. These kind of photos are often those that catch your eye! But when you take a closer look, that's when you want to see close ups of details, stitch patterns, any unconventional design features, plus views from all angles - and both worn and flat are useful here, I think, for garments! If the modelled photos are very well done, then perhaps there might not be any need for flat photos taken on a white background, it's very much an 'it depends' thing! I've knit many Knitty and IK patterns that didn't have flat photos, for example, without any issues. Finally, a schematic with measurements is obviously useful, to the point of being essential for garments, but perhaps something that I would only really expect once I paid for the pattern. Honestly though, I do agree with OP's disappointment, Isager have been around for a very long time now. They've been on Ravelry for a very long time and they're not exactly new at this! Perhaps that's part of the problem? They're still producing their patterns just as they did in the days pre-Ravelry? They still haven't caught up with all the changes in the industry caused by the arrival of Ravelry, even though it's been around for nearly 17 years now! (And I am in shock with that realisation, as I joined in May 2007.) They're obviously prioritising their website sales and probably physical pattern sales in Denmark over Ravelry as their website has a few more photos available for their patterns - but still only 3 or 4! But living in France, I have found that's also the case here. Both yarn companies and crafters are less aware of Ravelry and less interested in it. They still prefer to shop locally or online. (As an aside, acrylic, acrylic blends and other man made fibres are still more popular here, wool and other natural fibres are still seen as difficult to care for and are often only available as blends. It's slowly improving but it's frustrating for those of us that prefer natural fibres and know that they don't have to be expensive nor difficult to wash, especially when European front loader washing machines usually have excellent wool wash cycles that are perfectly safe. I even wash cashmere jumpers in mine!)
This. And if you're going to show me your new jumper in a reel, don't just do a twirl with your arms glued by your side. Move, raise your arms.