THIS IS WHY I HAVE TRUST ISSUES IT’S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO ACCEPT THAT THE WISHING GOWN FABRIC CAN HAVE SUCH A VAST ARRAY OF SHADES DUE TO LIGHTING ALONE.
Well for one, there are three different wishing gowns in this photo set. The first one (Sandra Joseph) is from Broadway, the second and third (Anna O’Byrne and Ashleigh Flemming) are both from London, and the fourth one (Kiara Sasso) is from Brazil. The costumes aren’t exact from production to production. Details are inconsistent between productions, especially if you look back over the years. The colours might change partially from gowns aging or from different batches of fabric being printed.
Yes… that was the point?
I think you’re both right. There ARE differences in the fabrics, and there are different reasons for it. There is definitely fading involved in some, and I think the point about batches coming in slightly different shades is valid too.
But I really think the variations in photos in most cases comes down to the light. I’ve seen the exact same dress behave vastly different, for example when photographed with or without flash, or in a natural or artificial light. The silk is wicked, it has green undertones, though the shade is a clear blue. On top of that the black and white print can get different focus; sometimes it looks white, sometimes it looks black.
Here’s a closeup of the fabric in Renée Knapp’s dress, showing how the print is two coloured, and how much the blue colour change when faded:
Also, take Sara Sarres’ dress in Brazil. An unedited one leaked; it shows the dress in its natural shade (and Sara with a more natural skin colour), the the edited ones from the photoshoot shows colours pumped up both in skin tone and dress. I believe the same is the case with that Kiara Sasso photo above, because their dresses looked identical backstage.
Another example is when I photographed Viktoria Krantz’s dress backstage in Copenhagen in 2003. The first photo was without flash and turned out blurry. The dress looked darker blue, the print white/yellow, and the satin of the backdrape almost purple. The second photo, with flash, triggered the green undertones and the silk comes of a lot more turquoise, with a more black print. The satin of the backdrape looks royal blue.
I believe there ARE dresses of different colours, both due to fading and due to different batches. But as can be seen in the Sara Sarres photos, the differences is usually not as extreme as some photos might indicate. Photos DO lie.
There are two steps to making the fabric- the first is the ground silk. It is a shot aqua- warp is a different colour to the weft. Over 25 odd years the exact dye match is not going to happen. And then the printing. It’s not all done in one place according to the book.
This is why I am trying to find a place in NZ that will print with opaque colours so I can use some shot blue taffeta I have.
But the fabric will reflect light differently depending on which way it is draped. As per the waterfall drape above the green flashes more because the silk is turned all the way to the cross. So you see more of the weft. The taffeta lining is also shot- but is yet two more shades of blue (aqua and navy probably).
It’s also why lighting affects the gown so much. The term is shot or changable for a reason 😉
And yes, I say Danielle Everette’s costume (live) on stage and in the brochure and it was a striking difference. It looks pale but brilliant aqua on stage and a flat navy blue in the book. Ditto with a few others.
But also photoshop has a large part to play. Some of the photos are heavily filtered