How do you shoot a sweater like this? where to get a transparent

>>2957049
editing.

>>2957049
I know the way, but I'll not tell you.

Product "photography" is all just cgi 3D renderings these days.

They might be using photographed textures though.

>>2957055
mm, dont wanna edit too much.. in my case atm, theres only like 20 sweaters and 36 shirts, i might as well just use a model, done nicely clean and neat. perhaps thats the way afterall

>>2957057
i find 3D renderings fascinating but at the same time scary as it is battling with photography business.. isnt it? in some ways it seem at least.. i once stumbled upon interior and exterior images of a tropical resort i was asking around what genius photographer made this to finally come to learn that it was renderings.. ha

>>2957049

You shoot a photo of it on a regular mannequin to give it shape. Then you edit out the mannequin from the photo. This leaves a gap in the photo where you should be able to see the back of the shirt or whatever.

Turn the clothes inside out and lay it out on a table. Take a picture of the missing area. Insert it as a lower layer into the first layer and use the transform tool to shape the lower photo so it fits properly then delete the unnecessary parts of the subject. Use the burn tool to darken the lower layer to simulate the shadow.

Alternatively they also sell mannequins with removable sections with different cutouts so you can create the "ghost mannequin" effect without editing.

>>2957065
I wouldn't worry too much, unless the 3D artists are getting severely underpaid then it'll be cheaper by price per hour to just have a guy photograph it.

Except for things like iPhones and TVs which are just flat basic shapes without much in the way of texture.