There's been so much controversy over these requests for help that I thought I might as well participate in that too.

When the topic "Smooth as Silk" was proposed, my FIRST thought was that silk isn't in reality, very smooth. I have a dress that my mother made for herself in the 1920s that is made of real silk. It isn't smooth. This is an inside seam which has frayed a little.


The best picture I could get of this was this one that shows some of the sheen.



That it is beige doesn't really help.

So then I thought that maybe I could get some fabric that was really shiny and seemed smooth and put something rough with it to show the contrast. I found a formal dress that my mother and I made for me in the 1960s, and I put a couple of necklaces on it that are too rough for me to wear because they irritate my skin



That wasn't quite right either so I tried pearls


That was better I thought. But I was still hung up on the idea of something rough textured, so I tried it with this earring



At that point I realized that almost any fabric photographed close up like that is going to show the weave and won't be that smooth. But this particular fabric has two types of weave - the red is done like a ribbon between the stripes of white. I think that is as smooth as I will get. Maybe just a photo of the fabric without anything



I still kind of like the texture of my mother's dress though. What do you think?

I think the red stripes are more visually compelling than the first two.

I think the pearls works the best. I like the way the strand of pearls pulls the eye through the frame. The crystal that precedes it is a bit too chaotic in its placement. The starfish is nice, but the lighting doesn't quite work for me.

The last one is such a narrow DOF. It might work better with a bit broader range or with the prime focal point in the lower left 3rd.

On a side note, it is easier to comment if you include numbers for each photo.

OK thanks - did not think of doing numbers.

When I first saw the topic, I thought of the red and white fabric - the dress was made in the 50s - we bought the material and the pattern and made it as a Christmas season formal gown. It was unusual to use that type of pattern in a formal dress but it worked quite well. I might try to put the dress on a mannequin and do it that way. I do like the pearls better. I still think a contrast with a rough fabric would be good, but haven't been able to figure out what fabric other than a wool bathrobe.

Just for kicks, I'd love to see the red and white dress on a mannequin! I'm curious to see it (as compared to the fabric detail) now that you've showed the fabric.........I love fashion......

I like the pearls on the striped fabric as well. The linear pattern of the stripes and the curved display of the pearls draw the viewer's eye through the photo. I really want to like the starfish pin on the striped fabric, but I think the shadow in the middle that includes the edge of the pin is a little distracting. While the close-up is very nice, and it really shows the texture of this lovely fabric, I don't think it works for the soft part of this theme. I would also really like to see the complete dress on a mannequin. Glam is great!

Well I tried it this morning. I thought that the dress had been deconstructed enough that I could pull it on and just not zip it up. WRONG. I am 58 years older and 100 lbs heavier than when this dress was made for me. I almost got stuck in it :( So I put it on the maneiquin - unfortunately the neck and shoulders of the manikin are not very pretty

Anyway -
This is the back
#1


The dress is strapless and the bodice has crossed fabric over the bosoms, and a scarf that goes from the front of one side of the bodice around the neck. It has a very full skirt under which I usually wore a hoop.

This shows the scarf draped around - I had it partly on and was taking my photo in the mirror so you can see the camera strap
#2


This shows the front of the bodice with the scarf on one side
#3



#4 - full length from the side


My father had a thing about cleavage which all of us females in the family had. No shadow of cleavage was allowed to show. So any clothing which might have showed some cleavage had to be covered. That meant in a lot of cases something like this ruffle on the top of the bodice which wasn't in the original design

#5


#6 folds of fabric closer up


#7 sitting down


It was a struggle and I don't think I gave you a really good idea of what the fabric did for the dress. I actually had another dress from this pattern for the summer (this was for Christmas) and that one had parallelograms of black, white and hot pink.

This is a photo my dad took of me in 1954 (at the time that dress was made) sitting on a live steer in Ormond Beach - I was 16, and I am wearing what is probably the same pearls as are shown previously - they are Pop-its

Love the photo with the steer! The heart on the bridle makes it......and pearls sure go with 1954....
have you thought about just doing a study of the pearls? They are smooth and shiny.......

I hadn't thought about that although I wondered about fur.

Nice work through... I like how your ideas are gelling, and how you are seeing the ideas come together.... keep working on the dress on the mannequin I think....

Here are some more tries









I'm tending toward the close-up but I like the full length from the back too

How about twirling the pearls a bit, and photographing them while they are moving, that blur might represent the "smooth as silk" theme?

I'm not sure I am coordinated enough to do that, but I will see what I can do - thanks for the suggestion

If your camera has a timer, your could use that. If you don't have a tripod, you could put your camera on a table, set the timer. That would leave your hands free to spin the pearls.