I came very close to not posting this particular sewing project because
a) It involves my butt in tight pants b) I had my camera set up all wrong for what I was going for c) Visible panty lines d) I'm going to redo the waistband e) ALL THE THINGS
So yes, the answer is e) ALL THE THINGS. But here I am, posting it... Oh well. It is what it is.
There is nothing wrong with these pants or the pattern. Let me first make that clear. In fact, I LOVE the pants, and I LOVE the pattern. It's just a matter of, you know, STRETCH PANTS after having a baby four months ago.
A little about the pattern... This is Kwik Sew 3115, and it's great. These pants aren't going to win me any fashion awards, but they are perfect for those days when I really just want to be comfortable. Or, you know,
when I want to do yoga. Truth be told, I hate yoga. But I DID go to a Pilates class right after I shot these photos, and the pants performed brilliantly. My instructor even complimented me on them.
For the record, my current waist/hip measurements are 29"/38". (Also, why don't more people include their measurements in sewing pattern reviews? Everyone tells what size they made, but they don't give measurements. How is that helpful? Some people look really small in photos; others do not. Let's all start adding measurements! Okay, nevermind.) That put me pretty squarely in a size M, so I cut out a small thinking I will still be losing some weight in my waist (and since my hips are more at the large end of the size small). Plus, you know, STRETCH PANTS. I also added an inch of length just in case.
As it turns out, I should have gone with the extra-small. I tried the pants on before attaching the waistband, and they were just too baggy - especially in the thighs. So, I zipped them through the serger again to get them just right. I also lopped off a little from the waistband to basically end up with an extra-small. I also ended up not needing that extra inch of length. The length as the pattern was designed was perfect for me. (I am 5'6".)
BUTT (pun intended), I decided not to take any off in the rise since I didn't particularly want a super low-rise pair of pants. My current Prana yoga pants are always exposing my behind at the
gym playground, and I'm not a fan. However, I think about an inch less in rise would be more flattering and comfortable. The extra-small rise would have been 3/4" shorter than what you are seeing in these photos. I have enough of this fabric left to completely redo the waistband, but I am going to wear them a couple more times to make sure I really want what I think I want. My formidable postpartum muffin top is really clouding my judgment when it comes to fit at the moment, so I'm just going to sleep on that one.
As for the fabric, it's a GORGEOUS, high-quality French terry that I purchased at Tissu in Salt Lake City. It was regularly $19.95/yard, but I got it for 31% off (Halloween sale). These are around $30 pants, but the comfort and fit factor make them totally worth it - especially once I work out the waistband debacle.
Bottom line: Yoga pants are not that exciting. But when they are this comfortable, they make me happy. And that is what matters.
OH! I almost forgot. I had a total "Aha" photography moment today. Take a look at these two images:
They were taken in the same spot at the same time of day (adjusted for Daylight Savings Time). My untrained eye tells me the one on the left of Harper is one of the best photos I've taken since switching to full manual, while the one on the right is complete MEH. You'll notice that the background on the left is pleasantly blurred so the focus is on Harper. In the one of me, everything is in focus, and the background is more of a distraction.
Well, I never quite understood how the F-stop number related to the end result of a photo. Okay, I still don't. But what I DO know is that a smaller F-stop number results in a smaller area of focus. The larger number puts more of the frame in focus. The low F-stop number coupled with a higher shutter speed gives me exactly the look I want - a blurry background with the subject in focus.
I'm sure that's not the scientific explanation. But hey, it works for me.