We know you love IH, but where do you think we can improve?

[tmg]

That's great @Sam and actually makes me realise that the 1955 cut would work really well for me

[spitfiredealer]

@Sam
I think it works better without legs in them as you have proved.

as you can see from one I have done there is too much variation in the shots to really see clearly the difference in the cuts

now if you could stand exactly the same for each cut it might work better 

[A Former User]

Fabulous work y'all.

@Sam, that is exactly what I was imagining!

@spitfiredealer, thank you for putting that all together! It is definitely helpful to see them all together on the same person. Useful visual aide!

[organisys]

@spitfiredealer:

But what if you aren't interested in a 634 compared with another cut. What if you want to compare 666 & 777?

I see your point. I was thinking look at 634 vs 555 and then 634 vs 777 or whatever and try and figure it from there, but i was only thinking which were slimmer or more tapered. Now I see the image above I can see how much the top block is also a factor!

[JDelage]

@tmg:

That's great @Sam and actually makes me realise that the 1955 cut would work really well for me

Everybody needs a 1955. 

[dylantbmayes]

Can't the below be 'modified' to better represent the actual cuts?

@Giles:

Thank you @Sarina & @Tom

Click for bigger.

[Giles]

I prefer what Sam has done.

[Sam]

i think i've covered all bases with what i have so far… not sure on my colour schemes though.

[Sam]

[Sam]

[Sam]

[Sam]

[Jett129]

Wow! That's really great. Useful/helpful. Thanks for doing that.

[louisbosco]

one word: WOW!

[Sam]

No worries guys! if you see a way of making it better let me know. We're going to try and collate all this info into an easily accessible format too.

Sam

[dylantbmayes]

@Sam:

… not sure on my colour schemes though.

Colours are fine maybe adjust the opacity to soften the boldness.

[JDelage]

@Sam:

No worries guys! if you see a way of making it better let me know. We're going to try and collate all this info into an easily accessible format too.

Sam

On the 634 vs 1955, you have the waists at the same level. It's really the crotches that should be at the same level, with the 1955's rise higher than the 634's.

[Sam]

@JDelage I've got the waistband level on all them… or at least i should have. I choose to do it that way because it looked more uniform and you can still see the rise is higher or lower by the way the crotches don't line up.

I'll have a play and line up the crotches @Lindsey  and see how it looks.

Cheers for the feedback!
Sam

[JDelage]

@Sam:

@JDelage I've got the waistband level on all them… or at least i should have. I choose to do it that way because it looked more uniform and you can still see the rise is higher or lower by the way the crotches don't line up.

Understood but for a given person, wearing two different cuts, the crotch will remain at the same spot (along with thighs, knees, etc) whereas the pant's waist will sit more or less high.

[Sam]

That's a good point…. I'll get some made up that way.