The brief
Every view per SKU, on one locked model identity. Front, back, three-quarter, profile, detail and a styled frame, generated from the garment's own flat lay or mannequin shot, with the same face and body across the whole collection. The studio's spec, not ours.
Colour that matches the studio's references, not a mood. The hero garment and any second garment had to read as the same colour in every view, against the client's own photographs. Lighting had to match their studio deck: even across the face, with the eye-socket and chin shadows their art director expects.
Their folder structure, their naming, their Drive. Inputs arrived in 111 different folder shapes and four naming schemes for the character sheets. Delivery had to land in the client's own tree, under the client's file names, with an uncorrected copy beside every frame for their editors.
One SKU, every view, same model
One SKU from the batch at web size. Originals are 4K. Garments are real products shown with the client's agreement, without brand names; the model is a synthetic identity.
How the batch ran
Six looks from the batch
Six of the batch, same identity throughout. Eighteen looks, every view, in the gallery →
The numbers
the line is built for
one question each
delivered, 4K
studio shoot at this volume
The preflight verdicts
The report every batch gets before a frame is generated.
The key insight: the 57 held SKUs were the good part. A supplier that generates on a guess ships a wrong face in 4K and finds out from the client's QC. A supplier whose engine is allowed to say no ships a question instead, costs the studio one afternoon of answers, and delivers a set the art director can mark up rather than reject. Every rule in our pipeline today is a rule a client's QC once wrote in red.