Jump to content

Categories

Show all
Show all categories

Articles

Our website articles
Original text by: Marina Belova 
I've decided to further discuss the subject of saving the number stitches in the design, about which I wrote earlier, and try a very interesting method: changing the ordinary #40 thread for the thicker #30 one. 
It is believed that a change like that allows to save up to 20% of stitches and yet maintain the proper look. These 20% weren't spun out of thin air, but carefully calculated: the #30 thread is exactly 20% thicker than #40. I want to see it with my own eyes. 
I've seen on various exhibitions that many of the manufacturers use thicker threads quite often, mostly for interior decoration. And the reasons they are doing it is to save the number of stitches and the time needed for the embroidery. And the threads, of course. In my country all threads except the standard #40 ones should be preordered and received only after a month or so. What a pity. For this is a real honeypot. 
My test will somewhat lack validity, because the threads have different composition. It's all because #30 rayon or polyester thread is not easy to find. Or maybe I don't know where to look. But in this case I'm particularly interested in saving stitches because of the thread change. 
So. I have 3 types of thread of different brands for the purpose: 

I'll list them from left to right: WonderFil 120/3 (cotton), Gunold 30 (cotton), Fufu's 120/2 (polyester). You can easily see on the photo that the two threads on the left are of the same thickness, and the one on the right is really thin compared to them. 
I created a simple monogram, made two copies of it and changed the parameters, such as stitch density and the density of the underlay. I embroidered them all together on one piece of fabric: 

Of course, the threads are different and so is their look. 
The monogram on the right was embroidered with polyester thread in an ordinary way with the density of 0.4 mm. In contains 4365 stitches. 
The monogram in the center was embroidered with Gunold cotton thread. It contains 3613 stitches. I lowered the fill density and the density of the underlay by 20%. Incidentally, I liked a lot how these threads lie on fabric. 
The monogram on the left was embroidered with WonderFil cotton. It contains 3444 stitches. Here I lowered the density by 25%. 
Summary: The monogram in the center looks rather good because of the use of cotton thread. The stitch coverage is acceptable. And yet it allows to save about 17.2% of stitches. As for the monogram on the left, the low density is visible. Though it saves 21% of stitches. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
There are rules for everything in the world. There is also a set of rules that makes embroiderer's life easier whenever he or she needs to position the design on the item. For it is at times easier to follow an internationally established guideline and not to rack one's brains to find the place where the embroidery will look best. It works good in case there is no need to create a highly unusual design that may demand departing from the rules. 
Pictures below demonstrate the general rules of embroidery design placement: 
Towels
 
Duvet covers and top bed sheets 

Left chest 

Socks 

Center chest on garments 

Turtleneck collar 

Handkerchiefs, blankets, napkins 

Shorts 

Left chest under pocket 

Left chest on polo shirt 

Back on a polo shirt or an ordinary shirt 

Cuff 

Pockets 

Pillow-cases 

 
An item

Where to place the embroidery

Polo shirts

Left chest, centered 17.5-22.5 cm below the shoulder seam or 10-12.5 cm from shirt center. You can also embroider the name on the front, and the surname — on the back of the shirt. In this case the surname on the left should be mirrored to the name

T-shirt

Left chest, 17.5-22.5 cm below the shoulder seam, centered between T-shirt center and the side seam or 10-15 cm from T-shirt center.

Pocket

Centered 2.5 cm above pocket or 10-12 mm below edge of pocket, centered between left and right seams, or centered on pocket

Shirt front (a very small monogram on the placket)

Design is positioned on placket between 2nd and 3rd buttons, centered between left and right seams.

Shirt back

12.5 cm below the collar bottom, centered between left and right seams

Shirt front

Left chest, 17.5-22.5 cm below shoulder seam, centered between placket and side seam or 7.5-12.5 cm from shirt center.

Cuff (a very small monogram)

Only the left cuff is embroidered — 3.5 cm to the left from buttonhole (or 2.5-3.0 cm from the cuff center). The lower edge of a design should be 0.6-0.7 cm higher than the edge of the cuff. A monogram should be visible in wear.

Jacket front

Left chest side 16-20 cm below left shoulder seam and 10 cm from center

Jacket back

17.5-22.5 cm below shoulder seam, centered between side seams

Women jacket

2.5 cm to the side from buttonhole and 0.6-0.7 cm above its top

Turtleneck

On the collar between left shoulder seam and collar center so that the embroidery is on the outside 10-12 cm from the fold

Sweater

Left chest, 17.5-22.5 cm below shoulder seam and 7.5-12.5 cm from the center or in the middle between the center of the sweater and side seam. On women sweaters the design may be moved 5 cm higher Or placed in the center

Sweat-shirt

Left chest, 17.5-22.5 cm below shoulder seam and 7.5-12.5 cm from the center.

Shorts

On the leg 10-12 cm from turn-up seam and 2.5 cm from side seam

Necktie

5 cm above the necktie's end

Scarf

Centered 10 cm above edge

Socks

10-12 mm from upper edge

Apron

Centered 10 cm below upper edge

Bib

In the center

Bathrobe

10-15 below left shoulder seam, centered between flap and side seam

Pajamas

Left chest, 17.5-22.5 cm below left shoulder seam and 7.5-12.5 cm from center

Handkerchief

3-3.5 cm from point of corner, sewn diagonally

Hand towel

5 cm above hem or 3.5-4 cm above border

Bath towel

10 cm above hem or 3.5-5 cm above border

Bath sheet

12.5 cm above hem or 6-7.5 cm above border

Beach towel

12.5 cm above hem or 6-7.5 cm above border

Napkin

7.5 cm from point of corner, sewn at the angle of 45°

Placemat

7.5 cm from upper right corner, sewn diagonally

Table cloth

12.5 cm from point of corner, sewn diagonally

Top bed sheet

Lower right corner or on wide hem 5 cm below the fold. If a bed sheet has shams, you can place the design on them

Pillow case

In the center If the opening is on the side, the design is centered on it. If a pillow has shams, it is possible to place the design in the center of every one of them.

Blanket

20-25 cm from point of lower corner, sewn diagonally

Decorative pillow case

Centered on pillow case

Bag

10 cm from the bottom centered left to right or centered on the bag

Of course, the numbers mentioned may vary. This happens because the size of the items differ. 
And keep in mind the most basic rule: measure thrice and embroider once. 
It is always very good to hold someone or something responsible for your own troubles. For example, an embroiderer may say that he or she achieved a low quality result because of incorrect digitizing, and a digitizer, in his turn, may blame the embroiderer. In my opinion, in cases like it is only reasonable to share responsibility and figure out what happened and why. At times, however, it is not so easy. 

I will start with the problem I've already referred to — thread breakage. In addition to what has been written before, I want to say that if thread breakage occurs all the time, and in all parts of the design, the machine is most likely responsible. But if thread breaks at one particular point, this is a sure sign of a digitizing mistake. 
If you suspect the design to be the cause, but it is not possible to edit it quickly, you may verify your suspicions in the following way: load the design into the machine once again, increase its size by 3-5% right there on the screen, and try to embroider again. If thread breakage decreases, you'll have to change the design. I got this advice from Stephen Batts. And I think that his opinion is worth considering. 
In order to find who's responsible for the unintentional gaps between the objects and in case you don't know whether the file is correct, rotate it at 90° and embroider again under the same conditions (positioning, stabilizers, needles, threads etc.). If the gap is still present, it is a digitizing mistake. One should not forget the importance of a rightly chosen stabilizer and correct hooping, which also may be the reasons for presence or absence of this defect. 
If the outline does not land where it should, and its look varies on different samples, the insufficient stabilization may be the probable cause. In order to check if this is true, you can use a rather well-know technique — put a piece of stabilizer right under the hoop and see if that helps. 
For example, in these days I often see how a straight stitch border unalterably encroaches on the design from the right and above, and unalterably makes a gap on the left and the bottom sides. Stabilizer are can't help this problem. This only means that it's time for me to check the tension of the driver belts on my embroidery machine. 
I've also seen the following machine defect: I digitized and embroidered a simple rectangular satin stitch border 5 or 6 mm wide. The resulting square inevitably looked awful: horizontal sides were of normal width, whereas the vertical ones turned out to be 1-1.5 mm wider than planned. If I'm not mistaken, Pantograf was the reason. In order to correct this visual defect I had to artificially distort satin columns in the editor, make them wider so that the border looked the way it should. 
As a matter of fact, if you have doubts both in the hardware and software, you should always have a test design at hand of which you are sure. Thus whenever you have any doubts, you may embroider it and everything will become clear. A so-to-speak express-method for finding the cause of the trouble. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Today I've suddenly got an interesting idea — that everything in machine embroidery, as well as in our whole life, can be done according to Dan Roam's technique, suggested in his book The Back of The Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures. It has four simple steps: Look, See, Imagine, Show. 

First, we observe ("Look"), then we assess the situation ("See"): who/what, how many, where, when, how and why. After that we, using our ability of abstract thinking, try to envisage something that does not yet exist ("Imagine"). That is, we make the embroidery settings according to our knowledge and experience. And only then, having imagined the whole thing, we go to the machine to make sure to ourselves and to the others that our ideas were right ("Show"). From this moment, we start all over again: look, evaluate and so on down the line. We've now come the full circle. 
The steps of the embroidery process are exactly the same (at least in my case). For example, today I found a piece of faux leather and decided to figure out at last how the embroidery process will differ from the one for woven textiles. So I conceived an idea of embroidering a BMW logo. 
First, I decided to see what qualities this particular piece of faux leather possessed. Despite the fact that faux leather has a soft textile underlay, it turned out to be extremely stretchy. And besides, it is a very delicate material. One the other hand, it does not crease. 
From this moment, I begin to size up the situation and make first decisions according to what I have seen and if there are materials available for embroidery on it. I understood right away that the faux leather has to be stuck onto stabilizer or the embroidery will pucker and look bad. As I don't have any filmoplast, I instantly thought of using a temporary spray adhesive. And because this material is crease resistant, it can be hooped, which is generally good for the embroidery. What is also good is that faux leather is thin, and, therefore, I won't need to use thicker needles. Moreover, I won't change them at all — I use #70 with a SES needlepoint. 
Now "Imagine" step — I created the first version of the design relying on my limited knowledge of embroidery on faux leather and similar materials, about which I've written some time ago. Here is the preview: 

I set the following parameters: lowered the density of satin columns by 20-25% (depending on their stitch length), and also lowered the fill density by 30%. I also increased fill stitch and underlay stitch lengths to 4.5 mm. And put double zigzag with the density of 1.2-2 mm as a foundation for wide satin columns (the outer ring with inscription), and lattice at 90° angle under the fills. I also moved the underlay 1 mm away from the finishing satin stitch layer. Thin satin columns went without the underlay. 
Then I got to the "Show" part — embroidered what I have visualized. 
I hooped the piece of faux layer with 2 layers of tearaway stabilizer. Prior to this I glued them together with a temporary spray adhesive:
 
Embroidered the design: 

Now back to the "Look" step to see the result. We've once again come the full circle. 
While the faux leather was in the hoop, everything looked rather good. At least, the embroidery didn't perforate the fabric along the perimeter. This is an achievement — it means that these density settings are suitable for this type of fabric, as are the needles. But when I unhooped the embroidery, I immediately realized that it was pulled and wavy: 

Hoop burn was also present, but it was not too apparent and disappeared in about 15 minutes. 

From what I have seen during the embroidery I came to the conclusion that the waviness was present only on the outer ring, therefore, according to the theory, the density value was too high. There is nothing wrong with the density of satins columns, but it is obviously too high for the underlay. The reason is not insufficient stabilizing, but the stitch count itself. It would be better to make the underlay less substantial. And change the look of the fill, because it turned out to be no good. Besides this, making some corrections to the letters and the logo outline would do no harm. 
So I made all necessary changes: 

I increased the density of underlay under white parts of the design so that they were less transparent. Then I increased the thickness of the white outline and put the edge run under it — so that it did not sag down. I changed the filling under the letters in the satin stitch ring, and also made the completely another underlay for it — of the same round shape: 

After that I rehooped the logo and embroidered it once again: 

Here it is, already out of the hoop: 

Of course, this sample, too, has its disadvantages. But it is much better than the first one. 
Two logos beside each other: 

This is how you may connect machine embroidery to Dan Roam's technique, with looking, seeing, imagining and showing are closely linked.
How can it therefore be split between different people? 
And how do you act when creating machine embroidery designs? 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
I've already mentioned that sooner or later you come across ready embroidery design files that need correction. For example, splitting it into pieces (which will be hooped separately) if the design is too large for the hoop. Today I want to tell how one can do it. I will split the design in the machine embroidery editor called Stitch Era Universal — read my blog to learn of its capabilities. 
I have a file in *.dst format, where everything marked red is to be embroidered without trims, and everything marked green — with 2 trims only: 

Let's pretend I don't have a hoop big enough to embroider this design all in one go. Indeed, I have a hoop slightly smaller than this particular design. In order to understand, which part goes where, I need to draw the rectangles in the editor — they will indicate my hoop. 

You can see two rectangles on the photo below. The green rectangle is for the main part of the design, and the blue one — for the remaining one, in which I plan to put two branches, the upper one and the one on the right: 
Now I need to take out those branches that are crossed by the green line (encircled in red on the photo). And instead of 1 file I need to create 2: for the item will be rehooped twice: 

You can easily do that in the stitch editor. In order to do this, I need to find the starting point of the embroidery and single it out: I picked the first stitch of the right branch (marked with black arrow): 

Here I will insert an automatic trim. 
To do this I select Insert / Insert Trim in the Commands bar: 

Then I go to the other end of the same branch and mark the end point of the embroidery. Here I also insert an automatic trim. Now my branch is a separate segment of the embroidery and I can change its color as I wish: 

After that I repeat my actions with the second branch and insert an automatic trim in the beginning: 

Then I go the last stitch of the branch and insert an automatic trim there, too. Now I can change color of the second branch: 

This is how it looks after my manipulations: 

All that is now left is to put bar tacks at the ends of separated segments (I'll need to draw them by hand) and also create the alignment stitches in order to match the two parts of the design. 
So I draw a brace on the upper branch with an ordinary running stitch (marked black): 

And on the right branch I draw the curve (also marked black): 

All that I have left is to make a copy of this file and remove everything that does not concern hooping from both of them. Therefore, the first and the larger file of two will look like this: 

And the second — like this: 

Be sure to change the embroidery sequence in the second file: the alignment stitches should be embroidered first, and the rest should follow 
Files are now ready. You can do the stitching. How to align parts of the big design, read here and here. 
Of course, not all the designs can be split that easily. The design I had chosen was not the most complex one. In any case, the action sequence will be just about the same. 


Original text by: Marina Belova 
Trapunto embroidery technique, which produces an embossed effect, caught my attention long ago. Of course, I don't mean the traditional trapunto, but its machine embroidery counterpart. There are numerous materials on the subject; I've studied them, as I usually do, and came to the conclusion that doing something like that was within my powers. Therefore, several days ago I decided to bring a small project to life. 
The most encouraging thing for me were the numerous affirmations that for imitating the trapunto technique any simple redwork design will do. 
So I chose an image, which seemed interesting for my purpose. I created a design (7421 stitches), expecting for the batting to produce a raised surface in places with no filling. 

Then I proceeded with my project according to the instruction I've found on the internet. 
I chose ordinary calico for the right side, a piece of polyester batting 0,5 cm thick (not the one used for quilting, I don't have any, as don't yet have the compelling reason to buy it) and a tearaway stabilizer. 
I hooped the following 'sandwich': a stabilizer, 2 layers of polyester batting, and calico: 

I started the embroidery and the first thing I stitched was the outline, according to which I will then cut the batting on the wrong side. I chose the threads that contrasted the background, in order to see everything well. 

Then I took the hoop off the machine and, having overturned it, began to cut the batting as close to the stitching as possible: 

Having trimmed all the extra pieces I sprayed another layer of batting with a temporary spray adhesive and secured it on the wrong side of the hoop. 

Then I inserted this hoop together with the batting into the machine and put a piece of stabilizer under it. 

Then I embroidered the rest of the design: 

The result turned out to be disappointing: 
The upper thread was all in loops and the tension was difficult to adjust with such a thick basis (fabric+polyester batting+stabilizer).  The design had shifted because of the insufficient stabilization.  There was no puffiness.  I had a sneaking suspicion that the chosen batting was a bit unsuitable for a design of this kind, which involved using the ordinary fabric, too. To be more precise it was entirely unsuitable. Plus, the design should be digitized in the other way. 
After that, I decided to read some more on the subject. Therefore, my second attempt to seize the trapunto fortress began with: 
Making the design simpler  Checking if the type of the fabric was suitable for my purpose in case I didn't have a proper quilting batting.  This time, I decided to make a simple design with a number of motif fills around the assumed puffy areas (the stitch count here is higher than in the previous design, i.e. 13365). 

First, I decided to test this design on the same fabric, i.e. calico. 
I hooped my 'sandwich': stabilizer, 1 layer of batting polyester (the same as the last time), and calico. 

Embroidered the design: 

Trimmed the stabilizer on the wrong side. 

The petals became a bit raised, but not sufficiently so: 

At that point, I decided to check if my suspicions about my batting being unsuitable for this type of fabric were true and to embroider the same design on knitwear with other components — namely, the stabilizer, 1 layer of polyester batting (the same as the last time), knitwear — remaining the same. 

During the embroidery I begin to see the long-desired puffiness — the surface of the petals became raised: 

This is how the ready embroidery looks when still in the hoop: 

And this is the look from the side — the puffiness in petals has been achieved: 

Hence the conclusion: all ordinary fabrics require special batting, as for the knitwear and other stretchy textiles any one would do. 
You should choose the design with care. Judging by the machine embroidery design collections in the Western shops, they prefer simple designs for this particular technique. I think, there is a grain of truth in it. 
But it is not always possible, and you have to experiment. But it is even intriguing. 
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Once more I was convinced how important is to choose your machine embroidery consumables properly. What's even more important is understanding what to use, how, where and when. Not so long ago I published an article on embroidery on EVA Foam. I embroidered on a soft foam material and was a bit disappointed, for I did not get the desired 3D effect. Though there are numerous photos on the Web with the embroidery that looks quite puffy. 
I had a sneaking suspicion that the foam I used was not solid enough. Therefore, I, on my own account, bought a sheet of solid 3D Puff of the same thickness — about 3 mm. 
I must say that I was satisfied with the result. Though I digitized in exactly the same way as the last time. So, this is all about solidity, upon which the creasing property of the material depends. What a pity that none of our consumable materials suppliers tells or writes about it. I'm falling under the impression that this is their way of increasing their sales: if one material turns out to be unsuitable, the buyer will return to purchase something else. Or maybe they are wrong, and their sales will drop, because a customer, having received an unsatisfactory result, won't buy anything from them the next time. Because 3D Foam is not the cheapest thing on the market. 
This is what my logo looked before I used a lighter on it: 

And this is the logo at its finest: 

Only now I've decided to read the information on 3D Foam. You don't have to go far: go to the manufacturers' websites and read all that is written there, going deeply into details. Nobody can give you a better advice anyway. 
Gunold, for example, states that soft 3D Puff is used for embroidery on garments, and solid one — for caps and logos. With this you can decide for yourself what and where to use. 


Original text by: Marina Belova 
A few day ago I decided to practice cord embroidery, hence I have the required equipment. Without further ado, I chose the simplest possible design from the old Briggs’ Patent collection, which was originally intended for embroidery with cord or ribbon. Here it is: 

I digitized the design with a simple running stitch using the same methods as described in my previous article on cord embroidery. Below is the preview of my design: 

So I started the embroidery. Before pressing the start button I inserted the newly bought silk cord 3 mm wide and set the piping foot in a required way. The cord was of an appropriate size and could fit into the biggest groove under the piping foot on my machine. 

But something went wrong. I stopped the whole process, soon after having started.

The cord turned out to be too tightly woven, and the thread kept breaking. As I didn't have any monofilament yarn, I tried to sew it with ordinary polyester thread. 
And I didn't like the result in the least. I chose one of my knitting threads — soft cotton one, made of several twisted fibers, and wound it instead of the cord on the same plastic spool. 

This time, the embroidery went without any problems. There were no complaints about the quality of the sewing, except at one place. I even inserted bar tack stitches at the beginning and the end of the cord, and understood that the next time I'll better not do it. The quality was utterly disappointing. 

Whether it was due to my knitting threads being unsuitable for the purpose or the design imperfections, I cannot say. And I want so much to know, where to use this fabled cord! 
I instantly remembered, even without doing the web search, the embroidery samples of the old past, which can now be found in the museums around the globe. In those days cord was used in applique: it concealed the edge cut. Though it was, of course, done by hand, you can try doing something akin to this on your machine. 
I've been searching for a suitable design for a considerate time. I perused lots of clipart and settled upon this picture: 

Inside this intricately shaped thing, I decided to put an applique, the edges of which I would then decorate with a cord. The rest I intended to embroider with satin stitches, partly in the Thread Velvet technique. I had to modify the original design, adding several elements. The resulting design contained almost 32 thousand stitches thanks to the Thread Velvet: 

Now that the design is ready, all I need to do is to embroider it. I hoop the fabric with the stabilizer: 

And embroider the outline for the future applique: 

Then I put the applique material on top: 

Stitch it to the main fabric with the running stitch, outlining the design at the same time. Then, after the machine makes a stop, however more carefully trim the extra fabric around the edges: 

Get the piping foot ready, placing it under the needle: 


Hit the start button and begin sewing cord to the fabric. It'll look like this: 

This is the cord already sewn along the perimeter of the applique: 

On one of the photos above you may see that there are missing stitches inside. For that reason, I stopped the embroidery even before sewing the cord, added the missing elements and embroidered all the rest: 

Some time after that everything is ready: 

Now little is left — to cut the threads in the satin columns, in order to fray them a bit so that they look like having been done in the Thread Velvet technique. I did this with an ordinary razor blade: 

The general look of the ready embroidery: 

The closer look: 


This experiment suggested to me that the cord looks splendid in combination with any embroidery technique. The design was not difficult to create. The second time I succeeded. The most important thing is to choose the right type of thick twisted thread or cord and correctly adjust the piping foot. 
Although there were some mistakes. One of them is as follows. In my first version of the design, the applique was to be embroidered last. And only after that, I proceeded to cording. All other elements were embroidered at the very beginning, including the bulky Thread Velvet satin columns. This is how it looked before sewing the cord: 

When I was cording the edges of my applique, the piping foot shifted a bit every time satin column appeared to in the way. And of course, the groove, into which the cord was inserted, shifted too, so the needle began to hit not the hole in the foot, but the foot instead, and therefore broke. On the photo below I've already changed the needle. 

I didn't even finish embroidering the first sample. 

See how thick were my Thread Velvet columns? 
The summary: you can achieve anything by trial and error. 
P.S. Cording, part 2
Original text by: Marina Belova 
Recently I became fond of creating FSL, and it raised the question of saving the water soluble stabilizer, for it is quite expensive. A well-timed advice that I've often seen on the Web instantly sprang to my memory: you may try to mend what remains of the water soluble film with an iron.
So, thought I, if I find the correct temperature, I will be able to join the leftover pieces of soluble film together and use them again. 
This advice came from Deborah Jones. This means that our American colleagues are prone to saving the consumables as well. She presents this method of working with water soluble film as a possibility of changing its thickness by gluing the layers together, and as a possibility of using the leftovers by joining the pieces until the resulting piece will be big enough to be hooped again. 
According to this internationally acclaimed machine embroidery expert, the process should look like this: 
Take 2 sheets of kraft paper (brown packing paper).  Place pieces of film so that they overlap (if you need to join them) or several layers on top of each other (in case you need to make it thicker) onto the sheet of kraft paper.  Cover it with the other sheet of the kraft paper.  Take an ordinary iron, set the temperature very low, and switch off the steam. Press the film down for some time (it is not specified for how long, so you'll have to calculate time yourself).  Here is what you should get: the layers of the film stuck together.  You may use waxed tracing paper instead of the kraft one. I've also seen recommendations to use the ordinary printing paper. 
So I decided to give it a try. It seems so easy. 
So I found kraft paper, took out the pieces of the dense water soluble film and tried to repeat the steps described above: 

What can I say? I've tried it every known way. I set the iron to a minimum. The heat softened the film, but didn't glue the layers together. No matter how hard I tried to find the right mode, the pieces didn't want to join. Then I decided to use steam. When steaming them from a distance, the layers of film begin to stick together. But they stuck to the paper as well, sure as death, so I couldn't tear it away afterward: 

No matter what kind of paper did I use: the kraft one, the printing one or even thin tracing paper. The result was the same — the paper stuck to the film, but the pieces of film stuck together, too, if you used the steam. Without the steam it was no good. 
Then I thought that it must be the paper that didn't allow for the steam to spread evenly, and tried ironing without it, through the cotton cloth. I set the iron for wool setting, and steaming at «1» (numbers on my scale range from 0 to 7). And — a miracle! — the layers of the film began to glue together, and the result came off the paper without effort: 

It turned out, that it was important not to steam the film for too long, just a few seconds would be enough. It requires practice, in order to sense the right moment for removing the iron. The only disadvantage (and quite a big one) of all these manipulations with water soluble film is that it seems to have become thinner and less durable after them. You can hoop the result at all accounts: 

We'll see how the embroidery will look like on such an uneven surface (all these lumps and dents). 
Anyway, the pieces of film may be of good service in future. 
Today I decided to check whether the high-quality lace embroidery designs on netting without using a stabilizer is possible. What kind of stabilizer do you need for the netting? Either water soluble film or other water soluble stabilizer. This means an extra cost, and not a small one; besides, you'll need to wash the embroidery afterward, which also complicates the matters. I also checked whether it was possible to embroider on such a delicate material as netting using any type of needle. I do not have SUK ball point needles, which do not cut through the yarn, only the standard
R and SES ones. 
I created a machine embroidery design: 

Set the most ordinary density, 0.4mm. Put 2 edge runs of understitching under the satin columns. In my opinion, an underlay like this one allows for the satin columns to maintain their shape and work as a backbone, because the stitch has nothing to rely on within the particle, and it therefore creates the ugly ragged edges. 
The reason for ragged edges is the large particle mesh size, so that some of the stitches fall first into one particle, then the other, and so on.
And because the mesh particles are on different levels, the edges become ragged. I saw this method in the Italian embroidery design when I was just beginning to embroider on netting. 
I hooped the netting without the stabilizer. It was the ordinary netting — knit and quite stretchy. There are no difficulties in hooping the netting. I just place it on the inner ring of the hoop and cover it with the outer one, without tugging it in the hoop and other intricacies. The pressure caused by the outer ring is enough to pull it tight. The crucial thing is not to overstretch the netting, in order not to damage the mesh even before starting the embroidery. Otherwise, it will break during the embroidery under the pressure of the stitches pulling it, and very ugly-looking holes will appear along the perimeter. 

I chose a standard rayon #40 thread right away. Polyester, in my opinion, is not good for netting. I may be wrong, though. 
Below is the result of my first attempt, still in the hoop: 

Numerous perforations along the perimeter and in the corners are visible right away, as well as  the underlay showing in several places: 


Below is the photo of the netting already unhooped but not yet pressed. The pull is not critical and can be corrected by pressing: 

After the pressing: 

In my opinion, there exists a number of reasons for perforations: 
High density  No stabilizer  Wrong type of needlepoint  As I cannot change the type of needlepoint, I decided to lower the density by 20% (it allowed me to save about 2000 stitches), and in order for the fill to look dense enough, I changed the embroidery thread from #40 to #30. Now I'll try to embroider again. 

The holes along the perimeter and in the corners are still present. Maybe not so many. 
The pull is not so bad: 

After pressing the item some of the holes become less visible, but don't disappear completely: 

But if you try, you try. Then I decided to embroider on the netting with large square mesh. I hooped it without a stabilizer as well: 

But my attempt to embroider on the netting with a large mesh particle size (on nothing, as one may say) didn't work out. Thread kept breaking, and the embroidery became distorted:

That's why I decided to put a piece of thick water soluble stabilizer (80 microns) on top. Using thin stabilizer for this purpose is like flogging a dead horse.

I instantly realized that I cannot spare the stabilizer this time. This is what I got — like it had been embroidered on the ordinary fabric: 

Almost no puckering: See the photo of this embroidery after washing and pressing below. An excellent sample. I thought it would look much worse:

Then I decided to try to embroider on the ordinary netting (like in the first 2 tests), but with the use of the thin water soluble film. But instead of placing it on top for cost reasons, I hooped it together with the netting, as required:

In this case, the advantages of using stabilizer are apparent — the result looks much better than the one without it: neat and tidy, without the underlay showing. I cannot say anything about perforations until I wash off the film: 

Below is the photo of the already washed embroidery:

The pull is visible, of course, but I'll try to iron it out. The ironing goes smooth and without effort. And the most remarkable thing is the absence of the perforations along the perimeter.

It means that the needlepoint and high stitch density are not so much the reasons for perforations as using only one layer of thin water soluble stabilizer. Stabilizer is a great invention. Though too high a density is not good for embroidery. To put in a nutshell, my experience convinced me of the futility of not following the standard procedure, even for cost reasons. 
Here you can read my article about embroidery
Original text by: Marina Belova 
I've already written about my attempt to find a replacement for the water soluble film, but today I decided to seek for a 3D Puff alternative in case there it will be unavailable. 
My starting point was the concept of "embroidery on cardboard", which exists in the hand embroidery. On this assumption, I began to replace 3D Puff with its paper equivalents, which happened to be at hand. 
I created a design according to the same principles that regulate the embroidery on 3D Puff. The only thing that differs here is that first, the underlay for the whole object is embroidered, then the machine makes a stop to allow me to remove the paper leftovers, and only after that comes the finishing layer of satin stitches. 

First, I took the dense (95 g) tearaway stabilizer leftovers, which I usually use for the chevrons. I folded it in 4 layers and put into the hoop: 

Having embroidered the first layer of underlay, I tried to tear off the stabilizer. It didn't tear easily, leaving fibers behind — they were not very long, but yet visible, and they stuck out in all directions. From all appearances, in case of using paper the density of the underlay is not sufficient for a neat tearaway line: 

The finishing satin stitch layer did not cover them completely: 

But the embroidery was puffy enough. These fibers may be easily singed with a lighter. 
After this attempt, I remembered that I had a tearaway paper stabilizer (60 g), which tears neatly along the perimeter of the embroidery, and I thought that it might be appropriate. I folded it in 5 layers: 

Embroidered the underlay: 

The stabilizer tore off easily. But instead of the fibers rather big pieces of paper were left: 

The finishing layer of satin stitches did not really cover those bits and the white paper showed in between the stitches. I did not manage to fix it, for on this kind of paper a lighter cannot be used: 

But how puffy the embroidery is! 

When embroidering on this perforated stabilizer, I got an idea to use paper napkins, for their textures are very similar to each other. And the napkins tear so easily! So I decided to embroider on them: 

It was a very unfortunate experiment — tearing them off required considerable effort, and there were very ugly pieces left: 

The finishing layer of satin stitches covered them rather badly, and the leftovers stuck out in all directions: 

After this failure I found a piece packaging board (left from a T-shirt) and decided to put it to a test: 

This is how it looks with understitching: 

The cardboard tears off rather neatly leaving very small pieces behind: 

These pieces are easily covered by the finishing layer of stitches; nothing sticks out and satin columns look wonderful: 

The summary is as follows: You can replace 3D Puff with other materials. But you will have to test them all and find the right stitch parameters for digitizing. For me, the ordinary cardboard turned out to be the best of all. It is quite possible to embroider on it, even if you hoop 2 layers of it for additional puffiness. But you'll have to use a thicker needle, no less than #80. Of course, not any cardboard is good, you'll have to find one that tears easily, but I was lucky: mine did. But if you don't have the cardboard, you can choose something else from the materials readily available. Using stabilizer for 3D embroidery is a bit harder, with all these pieces and yarns, but you can manage without 3D Puff anyway. 
P.S. Two of my first attempts to find an alternative for 3D Puff can be found here and here.
Original text by: Marina Belova 
I have once written the theory of imitating the long-and-short stitch technique, which is used in hand embroidery. Today I will show you what comes of it. 
Unfortunately, I do not have the fabric more suitable for such technique — organdy or batiste, for example. But I will use what is available — calico. It is transparent enough to suit my goals. 
I decided against creating of the complex design, because you don't need one for testing. So I created a very simple flower pattern in order to use two colors for shading — green for the leaves and red for the petals: 

In the original patterns created by the author of this technique, I didn't find any understitching, just the runs between different sections inside the intricate outlines. When I created my design, I suddenly got an idea to use the edge run as the underlay for the fills in order to outline the objects. It later turned out that I was right in using them: 

My design that will imitate long-and-short stitch technique looks like this: the stitches on the right side of the fabric are hidden at the distance of approximately 1.5 mm within the outline. they lie inside the underlay, created by edge runs. The fill density is 0.8 mm. 
In order to put my idea into action I hooped the water soluble stabilizer: 

Then I embroidered all the fills right on it (they will show through the fabric under the flowers and leaves): 

After that, the machine made a stop and I, having sprayed the fabric with temporary spray adhesive, stuck it directly onto the water soluble stabilizer: 

I started the machine again, embroidered all the remaining parts of the design — the outlines of the leaves, flowers, and the flower cups.
Took the hoop off and turned embroidery the wrong side up. The result was not so bad — the outline that stitched filling to the fabric, lay inside the filled areas: 

With one exception: perhaps, the stitch ran too near the edge:

But the filled area didn't fall to pieces, for it was secured by the understitching, which I was right to have inserted. Without it, the filling would fall into pieces. It means that the outlining stitch is necessary. You also need to pay more attention to the distance between the outlining stitch and the edge run. And everything will be just fine. 
All that is left is to give the item a trial by washing as I need to remove the water soluble film anyway: 

I creased the fabric with all my might, and the embroidery did not fall into pieces, which is good. Below is how it looks after the pressing: 

Summary: this technique works, but does not look as neat as hand embroidery of a high quality. But frankly speaking, I'm unable to see the dance of the shadows or nuances that speak of beauty in it. In concerns both the hand and the machine embroidery.
Original text by Marina Belova 
Pulled thread embroidery (also called Dresden work) is one of the most popular kinds of openwork. You create the openwork by pulling the fibers of the fabric in a certain order. You will get a netting with small holes as the result. The motif stitches form the basis for the netting. It is better to embroider on the fabrics with easily separated fibers (loosely spun linen, batiste, muslin, organdy etc. Even calico will be good). 
It is said that this method can be used for almost any elements: flowers, leaves, wings of the insects, various enclosed areas. I think that this technique can mainly be used for decorating napkins, blouses, creating lace edgings and so on. 
Of course, not all types of motif stitches are suitable for Dresden wrk. The main principle of creating the netting should be based on the following rules: in order for the fabric to gather, it is necessary that the stitches that form the design are repeated at least twice. These may be classic squares, diamonds, zigzags, stars etc. This repetition will allow for the fibers to gather even more, and a hole will appear where the needle pierced the fabric. I think that the suitable motif stitch can be found without effort in any embroidery editor. Or I will have to create the motif stitching myself. The only trouble is to find the motif of a suitable size that will gather the fabric. But this is what the test runs are for. 
In commercial machine embroidery, the needles used for pulled thread embroidery are often thicker than necessary for the particular type of thread (I've heard the recommendations to use #100-120 needles with the ordinary type threads). In is necessary for the visible holes to appear in the fabric. The only thing that is not clear is how the thick thread will work with the needle thicker than needed. As usual, you won't know until you try. 
As for the sewing and embroidery machines, it is better to use special winged needles that have flanges on both sides, which allow to substantially widen the holes. 
I've read many times that you don't need a stabilizer for that kind of embroidery because the fabrics are mostly transparent. But I still have my reservations about this. After all, there may be ordinary kind of embroidery besides the puled thread work, and this embroidery will add to the pull. It is then possible that the stabilizer should be placed under the hoop after the pulled thread embroidery is completed. 
I've more than once seen the recommendations to starch the fabric before embroidery. Perhaps, it is needed to make the holes more visible.
Obviously, the thread tension needs proper adjustment, too. In my opinion, if you make it tighter, the pull will be greater, and you will get slightly wider holes as the result. Which is our goal. 
Thread thickness and quality do not matter if I understand correctly. I'll just have to find the suitable ones by trial and error. 
In theory, everything seems very simple (as it usually does). 
Here is the result of my attempts to create something resembling the pulled thread embroidery in the flower cup: 

For the flower cup, I picked a #80 needle and #30 thread. I used the standard polyester thread for the rest. I didn't use the starch because my fabric is dry and coarse enough. Both and warp and weft threads are easily separated. Which you can easily see in the photo. 
Well... I have to practice again and again — not very satisfactory holes indeed. I am falling under the impression that the ordinary flat embroidery causes holes much bigger in size. Though I tried to create a motif stitching in which every stitch would be repeated twice, as suggested. Perhaps, 2 runs are not enough. I'll go and mull it over. I think that I should consider adding more color to the netting. 
P.S. You can read the next chapter here. 
Original text by Marina Belova 
At last, I put my hands on the pulled thread embroidery. Pulled thread technique intrigues me because you can help you achieve the effect of the hand embroidery. For example, these medallions used to decorate the edges of linen towels, tablecloths, pillows and other things in the household.
There were much more embroidered things in the past than there are nowadays: 

The photo was taken from a book by Marsha L. Manchester called Antique Linens from the kitchen to the boudoir. 
If you replace the Buratto technique, used for creating the background on the medallion, with the pulled thread work, it can make a wonderful present: "vintage" kitchen towels. You just need to learn to make Swiss lace in such a way that it would gather the fabric correctly. 
I chose this design with a little kitchen hand for my sample, but decided to discard the flowers for now:

I decided to create the background motif stitch by myself, and with that purpose I drew this star and saved it as a motif in the editor: 

I digitized the entire design after that: 

I had two colors in the file because the background (green) required a very thick needle, and there are no wing needles for commercial embroidery machines. I set #110. The rest of the design (red) was embroidered with the standard needle. 
Little was left — to choose the right motif stitch size in the pattern and to find the right thread, which would gather the fabric as needed. 
I embroidered the first sample with #30 cotton thread. The size of the motif stitch (the star) was 5 mm. I used no stabilizer. The fabric was not starched. I just hooped it, although I've seen the recommendations to use some kind of stabilizer (a tearaway or a water soluble one) for this kind of embroidery. This is what I got: 

Thick cotton thread looks rather crude against the background, though it gathers the fabric correctly, making visible holes: Besides, the motif stitch seemed too high. 
Therefore, I decided to change the background thread for the ordinary white polyester and leave the #30 cotton thread for the other elements. I used a very thin Guttermann #150 for the background. I often replace my bobbin thread with it. I changed the height of the gathering star to 4 mm so that the number of holes in the fabric increased. 
The stitch count is rather high (13900) for such a 12.5x12,5 cm design. But it was worth it: 

I increased the background thread tension greatly — screwed the nobs until tight, in order to gather the fabric more. But even with no stabilizer, the embroidery in this technique gives perfect results — nothing shifts, all the objects are where they should be. 
The wrong side of embroidery is very neat, which brings me joy: 

In my opinion, the motif stitch size should be lowered to 3-3.5 mm, so that the background of the medallion will look delicate. Especially if you create the interesting motif stitch and not a plain star. Everything was embroidered with very thin threads. If you use threads without luster on a good linen fabric of middle thickness, you may get a marvelous thing indeed, especially if you add some decorations apart from the motif stitching. 
And the most important thing is that the design is very simple, without any special techniques or effects, except for the openwork. This means any embroiderer can do it, even a beginner. 
Original text by Marina Belova 
There were times when lining up the parts of a big design was a sealed book to me. Many lances were broken over this seal. But I'll relate the facts as they actually happened. 
For example, even a beginner can align the design on the cem-135 machine. It's all due to its magic ability to rotate the designs by a required angle in accordance with the alignment marks. Which I successfully employed in my first embroidery design. It was no less than a pillow with initials and a wide border along the perimeter. 
But after our department got a commercial eight-head embroidery machine, life instantly became complicated. 
Everything was difficult, from hooping to the need to hit the right place with a needle. We learned bit by bit, and something the result was satisfactory, sometimes — not at all. 
But I really understood how to align machine embroidery designs only after I left to work for the rival company. Then I learned to align the designs on single-head embroidery machines that had small frames. Their biggest frame then allowed to embroider a design about 33х52 cm. 
After someone shows you how to do the alignment, all you need is skill and a bit of contemplation. Hats off to my previous employer for having demonstrated me how to create and embroider designs that require rehooping. 
You can do miracles on single-head embroidery machines. There image size does not matter — you just split it into however more large pieces and hoop. 
The only thing is that embroidering curtains or large tablecloths requires a lot of time and is rather tiresome. But the pull is less in such a small frame. I realized this when I moved to the bigger frame. 
The alignment process on single-head machines was described well over ten times: 
Mark the fabric with lines or dots, whichever ones you prefer, to understand, where the embroidery will be located.  Split the file, leaving alignment marks, which will help you to match the pieces after rehooping. You may encounter alignments crosses, Z-stitches and simple alignment stitches of various shapes. For example, the alignment stitch may look as the red one on the photo below. Embroider the first piece of the design  Rehoop according to the alignment chart so that the alignment stitch was located within the hoop.  Load the next file.  First, you stitch the alignment stitch, which, in the case of the correct hooping, should correspond with the alignment stitch in the previous piece. 
This is not difficult at all, but requires some skill and practice. 
Understanding that I can move mountains on my embroidery machine lifted my spirits, made me feel self-assured and proud of myself. At this very point, my conceit was deflated by the wonderful ZSK embroidery machine. 
After having worked for the rival company, I returned to the machine with a devil-may-care attitude. But it turned out that I had yet to cover a lot of ground, starting from the very basic things like using the long frame. The thing is that you should frame the fabric in such a way that it will not be distorted, otherwise, curtains and curtain laces, tablecloths, and the other things like that can go directly into the garbage can. 
I learned to hoop about 40 attempts after. Only then I began to "sense" the fabric. 
But framing was not the hardest thing of all on this machine. Instead — a strange thing to say — a large number of heads each one covering a very small embroidery area presented the biggest problem. 
The small size of the embroidery area demands the need for framing with extreme care in order to align the new part of the embroidery with the previous one so that they match. 
There is no 2 or 3 cm allowance for hoop shifting in order to match the alignment stitches here, like on single-head embroidery machines. For there are rapports (that I used to dream of in the past), which are almost of the same width as the embroidery area and therefore cannot be moved. 1-2 mm, maybe, but not more. 
In other words, even if the hooping went wrong, I could not move the frame a couple of cm left or right to hit the alignment mark, otherwise the rapports could not be embroidered, for they were 40 cm wide. That's because if I shifted the frame for 2 cm to either side, there would be only 38 left. I cannot even do the outline, for my design will not fit the embroidery area. 
And then it dawned upon me, how important it was to plan the future design from the technical standpoint so that it would be easier to align the parts of the complex designs. The technical moments include distributing the embroidery areas between the heads and planning the positioning of the alignment marks prior to the design being created, let alone digitized. 
But the more I embroider, the more I understand why all the well-known Western manufacturers do not create such a fuss of the embroidery machines as we do here in Russia. Moreover, they will never make much of those machines that are not fit for embroidering such designs.
Because there are other kinds of equipment for this purpose, and have been for a long time now. Making this kind of embroidery is unprofitable.
For the simple reason of their high cost. You cannot make much money on it. 
This is Russian "kitchen-table-effort". This is all just a bravado, an attempt to show that we are all Koulibins or Cross-eyed Leftys from Tula here. 
But, how it strength your brain to create such a design! 
Read here how to join the parts of a simple design together. 
Original text by Marina Belova 
Correct hooping and rightly chosen underlay — these are the two most important things that contribute to the quality of the embroidery. My own experience tells me that however good the embroidery design is, hooping will be a most crucial aspect. The main function of hooping is to hold both the fabric and the stabilizer pulled tight during the embroidery. What is the difficulty, one would think, in securing both the fabric and stabilizer between the two rings of the hoop, without displacing either one of them? 
There is a vast amount of materials covering various nuances of hooping on the Web. Even I have already written about embroidery without hooping and also about the testing of the quality of the hooping. But no matter how much information there is on the subject, the question remains open, because there is a set of hooping tricks for every type of the fabric. Not to mention lots of interesting hooping devices (hoop station, hooping aid device, magnetic holding system, hooping fixture and so on). that were invented to aid the embroiderer. The subject of framing calls for a separate article. 
Nevertheless, here are my two cents on how to hoop the fabric (or item). I will begin with the most basic rules. 
There are several rules of manual hooping known to everyone and, therefore, banal, that should nevertheless be obeyed: 
Always mark your item (draw dots or lines, along which your embroidery will be situated).  Find the right type of stabilizer that goes with that particular kind of fabric.  A sheet of stabilizer should slightly outsize the hoop.  Choosing the hoop size, pick the one that is suitable for this particular design, the smallest one possible. Round hoops are considered the best. And in case they are made of wood, and not plastic, even better.  Don't forget to trace the outline before starting the embroidery, making sure that there is enough space for the presser foot so that it will not touch the hoop.  Always hoop the fabric together with the stabilizer.  Use a stabilizer with an adhesive side or a temporary spray adhesive whenever possible. This will prevent the stabilizer from shifting in the hoop, and from pulling the fabric too tight in case it is very stretchy.  Adjust the tension according to the fabric thickness by turning the screw (or sometimes a wheel; it's not the same with different hoops) before hooping.  One should hoop the fabric on a flat surface. This sounds so obvious, but it is true.  The inner and outer rings should fit without effort, but not too easily. The fabric should be tight, but not stretched in the hoop, and the fibers should not be distorted. The alignment marks on the hoop and the fabric should match. As for the need to tug the fabric in the hoop, the question remains open for the debate. I've seen a huge variety of opinions on the subject, and they differ from each other greatly. I think it depends on the type of fabric used, and also on your experience.  Do not adjust the screw on the outer ring after hooping. It may damage the fibers. And it will result in pulling the fabric around the screw, which may have the impact on the quality of the embroidery.  Test the quality of the hooping. If you don't like the result, unhoop and start all over again, beginning with the fitting of the rings.  Digitize and stitch additional basting stitches. They will hold the fabric and the stabilizer together. If the fabric allows that, of course.  In order to avoid hoop marks (also known as hoop burn), you may wrap the hoop in the soft fabric or place an extra material under the outer hoop with the window the size of the design in it. Read more about wrapping of the hoops, adjusting the gap and other details in my article called "Hooping minutiae".  One should remember that the manual hooping does not tolerate any haste, requires sufficient skill, but can be trained to perfection with the right amount of practice. This article will tell you how to make the hooping easier with the help of hooping devices that can be made by everyone. 
Original text by Marina Belova 
I'm currently raking my brains about embroidery with a woolen thread, or, to be more precise, with an acrylic one — I want to embroider a very simple design on a pillow, black on the white-and-gold background. It will match the wallpaper and sofa in my room. Besides, if you embroider on wool with a woolen thread, the pillow will be agreeable to the touch, which is nice. Sadly, there is little information on embroidery with this type of thread, except the most basic one.
It's not that I do not understand how to use it, but I still want to see how it looks in reality. Suddenly I have come across the Husqvarna Handlook Needlework design collection, which is imitating hand embroidery with woolen threads. The photos from this collection are very inspiring — they prompt you to try and embroider all of this yourself. And besides, it is always good for the brain to scrutinize someone else's design from every angle. 
So I went through their files: took measures, counted stitched, chose a design and tried to create something like that myself. Judging from what I've seen, I've figured out that a design like this is based on a very simple principle — use of the motif stitches and satin stitches. The motif stitching, if I got it right, should resemble something like this: 

I would never imagine anything like it for the woolen thread. All the basic principles of digitizing, like making longer stitches for thicker threads, are swept away by the length of connector stitches, which Husqvarna digitizers successfully use in their work. To see these nuances you need to study the works of other people, for there is always someone who knows more than you. I think I've already expanded this topic. 
This is how my design looks: 

My first sample with 1.5 mm long connector stitches turned out to be rather dense: 

I reduced the density by increasing the connector stitch length to 2 mm, and got a much softer result: 

It doesn't look very good, of course, but now it's clear that this technique requires another, simpler design and repeating of satin stitches several times at the same place is definitely unnecessary. I created a design: 

Here it is already embroidered: 

The result in not that bad, the only thing that disturbs me is that the connector stitches are visible between the repeating stitches, creating a so-called beaded border: But with a right type of the design everything will be good. Or you can hide this border by changing the angle of the connector stitches in relation to the next row of repeating stitches. But in this case the stitches should be done by hand, and I don't like the idea of it. 
So I decided to return to the basics of the technique I set out to imitate. Having opened a book, I was surprised to see that the embroidery with woolen threads looks exactly the same as an ordinary one — satin stitches, running stitches, other decorative elements that are not available in machine embroidery. Although there is a similar stitch. It is called the Fly Stitch and is mostly used for small leaves. Below is the example taken from Trish Burr's book called Crewel and Surface Embroidery: 

And then I got an idea of using 3 or 5 layers of satin stitches of low-density instead of motif stitches so that to avoid this border. For is will not make all the elements look better. 
In order to try I created a design with 3 layers of stitches of 1.5 mm density: 

Here's the sample — columns look monolithic. 

I think that if one lowers density even more, to 2 mm, it will be a good imitation of hand embroidery. But the "border" technique will do for several kinds of designs. 
Perhaps, someone will share their thoughts on embroidery with woolen threads? So we would not be reinventing the wheel. 
Besides, today I found out that the tension of the acrylic thread should be increased. There won't be any breakages: everything looks splendid.
But loose tensioning leads to "bird nesting". 
 
Original text by Marina Belova 
In my opinion, FSL is one of the most popular things in machine embroidery. Especially judging from the all the hype on the forums and in numerous discussions: what, where and how to embroider. Read it — and you'll think that it is immensely complex, and not within the scope of anyone's ability. 
Today I managed to make a few samples with different stabilizers at last, in order to find out whether it was really so difficult and whether one needed special skills for it. 
I chose 3 designs for my experiment. I deliberately made them different in style. 
The first design was from Zundt. The size was not big — 9.7х9.7 cm. But the stitch count was impressive — 28500. 

The second design was from Adorable Ideas. The size, too, was not large, 8х8, and the stitch count was 12200. 

The third design was also from Adorable Ideas. The size, again, was not too big, 10.3х10.4 cm, and the stitch count was 12500. 

These designs got into my hands as the result of a strange accident. I ordered some CD's from the manufacturer, they got the whole thing mixed up and sent me these designs instead. Sending them back would cost a bundle. So I kept them; now they gather dust on my shelf. I became the owner of designs I didn't need. Every CD contains from 53 to 55 designs in various formats. Each one of them is in the *.emb format that allows making changes. Even our Western colleagues make mistakes sometimes. 
But two of those designs came in handy. 
I chose 3 stabilizers for my backing: 
Gunold Solvy 80 (40 microns) water-soluble film  Gunold Solvy Fabric (40 g/m2) water-soluble stabilizer  Gunold Thermogaze — a heat-away stabilizer  I decided to use one layer of each. You won't know anything until you embroider. 
I used an ordinary polyester Fufu's as the upper thread. The bobbin thread remained standard. 
The needle was standard, too: #70 with SES needlepoint. 
So I hooped the film and decided to embroider the design that had the highest stitch count and density. This stabilizer seemed to me the most reliable of all. 

I embroidered the entire design on the film, and almost nothing was cut out (except in 2 places). Nothing was shifted at all. 

Therefore, even one of this film can be used. 
The only things I did not like about this design were the high stitch count and the abundance of the short stitches. Thread breakage occurred exactly on these short stitches, which did not happen when embroidering the other designs with the same threads. In my opinion, this design should be scaled before embroidery without stitch recounting. At least by 5%. 
I decided to use water-soluble stabilizer for the second design, the most open-worked of all three, considering it to be the flimsiest. It stretched well in one direction, which I didn't at all like, and I thought that there would be shifting. 

This is the ready design: nothing has shifted or lost because of the cutting. Everything came out splendid. 

Thermogaze was third in the line, and it had issued a strange crackling noise when hooping, but I did not notice any tearing. 

The third design was embroidered wonderfully. Though I thought that the needle would damage it. 

When I unhooped it, I immediately saw what that crackling noise that I heard during the embroidery hoop meant — the thermogaze between the rings tore while hooping. That reminds me that I should be more careful while hooping. 

Now it's time to remove the stabilizers. 
I put the water soluble materials into the bowl filled with warm water and rinsed carefully. 
Water-soluble stabilizer washed off quickly and without traces — this is cutwork, after all. 

As for the film, it required some effort. The design was dense, and the film took a long time to solve. 

But neither first nor the second lace didn't lose it shape after having been washed and dried. 

Now it was the turn of the last of the lace samples, embroidered on thermogaze. 
I put it between the 2 layers of thermogaze and turned the temperature of the iron to the maximum. Then I just left the iron where the lace was.
For about one minute and a half, I think. 

Then I decided to see what happened. The thermogaze became darker. I touched it slightly, and it broke instantly. 

I took the lace and began to crumple it — the thermogaze easily came off and crumbled. The lace became clean and extremely soft to the touch. 
This is what was left of thermogaze: 

This piece of lace maintained its shape, too. 

Frankly speaking, I liked thermogaze most of all — there was less trouble with removing it. 
There is nothing difficult in embroidering items like these ones. I think that the whole matter of whether the result will be satisfactory or not depends only on the design quality. 
Of course, I cannot claim the integrity of the test. I should have embroidered one design with each stabilizer, and compare them after that. But now, when the embroidery is completed, I think that I would get good results anyway. 
Original text by Marina Belova 
I've already written about the various defects in machine embroidery, but today I want to dwell on these illustrative examples of the particular defects known as puckering of the embroidery and pulling of the fabric: 
01 

02 

03 

I'd like to remind everyone that the reasons for getting such a discouraging result are these several factors: 
The design. A multi-layered design of high density and stitch count, with lots of details and fill pattern at various angles, is one of the main reasons for puckering of both the embroidery and the fabric around it. 
The designs of high density warp the embroidery and the fabric around because we artificially add threads to the already existing fibers, which are thus moved apart and become distorted. Different stitch angles and different stitch lengths lead to the multi-directional push and pull distortion, which is more difficult to correct by the push and pull compensation. It is therefore considered that the designs with unidirectional stitches (for example, horizontal ones) and simple outlines are embroidered better that the others. 
The fabric. The less stable the fabric is, the more prone to distortion it will be. 
Everything seems to be clear: don't break these rules, and the embroidery will look wonderful. But let's see what rules I've broken in the past to achieve the results I've achieved, falling into the familiar traps. The obvious mistakes in digitizing and embroidery are marked red: 
Factors

1

2

3

The design

high-quality cutwork design of low density

design of high density, with superfluous understitching

design of high density

The fabric

Thin and stretchy suiting cloth

knitwear pique

T-shirt knitwear

Stabilizer

not used

used

used

Speed embroidery

700 rpm

700 rpm

700 rpm

Tension

standard

standard

standard

Thread

rayon

polyester

polyester

Needle

#70

#70-75

#70-75

Hooping

correctly framed was correct, but the frame was too big for the design

the fabric was not hooped, just sprayed with temporary spray adhesive and stuck onto the stabilizer

the fabric was not hooped, just sprayed with temporary spray adhesive and stuck onto the stabilizer

Summary: if I tried to stabilize the fabric in any way, the result would be much better. To say nothing about finding the design parameters that would be good for this type of fabric. 
Apart from the factors specified, which directly influence the embroidery process, a design might be severely distorted after washing or dry-cleaning, however good it looks right after the embroidery. Sadly, the manufacturers don't take this into account. 
I've often seen embroidery results (including mine) that looked horrible after the washing: towels, bed linen, clothes and other items made of various textiles. Not always could they be returned to a more or less good-looking shape. 
How to conquer it? Frankly, I don't know. This defect can be partly removed by ironing. But only in case the pull is a very light one. I've also read many times in various sources that the best aid in preventing the post-embroidery distortion is washing and pressing the item prior to the embroidery But it is not always possible, is it? Therefore, the best way of avoiding such a nuisance and keeping the shape of the embroidery is using a dense cut-away stabilizer. Or am I wrong? 
Original text by Marina Belova 
Choosing a right stabilizer for a particular fabric is important for every embroiderer. If you want to know what a stabilizer is, what kinds of stabilizers are there and where they can be used, along with the other stuff, click here. 
Wrong stabilizer plays has a great impact on the embroidery, for it is one of the reasons for various technical defects, which nobody wants. 
Below are the recommendations on matching a particular type of fabric with a particular kind of stabilizer, which I found in various sources. You always need to have some kind of guide, if only a short one, which will give you a hint to where you stand and where to go from there. And then, to find a right kind of stabilizer for your type of fabric. 
Obviously, one should choose a stabilizer according to the fabric qualities, such as: thickness, density, quality, type and so on. The basic rule goes as follows: the more tightly-woven and stable the fabric is, the lighter stabilizer it needs. And vice versa. In case you've found a right match you'll need only 1 layer of stabilizer (this is true in 99,9% of all cases). 
The fabric
 
The stabilizer
 
Acrylic fabric
 
Cut-away
 
Acetate fabric
 
Cut-away
 
Velvet
 
Tear-away adhesive stabilizer (Filmoplast) or heat-away stabilizer (Thermogaze)
 
Corduroy
 
Tear-away for the thick fabrics and cut-away for the thin ones
 
Vynil
 
Tear-away
 
Felt
 
Cut-away
 
Gabardine
 
Cut-away
 
Gauzy fabric
 
Dense water soluble for the backing and thin water soluble for the topping
 
Jersey
 
Cut-away
 
Denim
 
Tear-away or no stabilizer
 
Chamois
 
Cut-away for the thin fabrics and tear-away for thick ones
 
Fake fur
 
Tear-away for the backing and water-soluble film for the topping
 
Damask
 
Cut-away
 
Leather
 
Cut-away for the thin fabrics and tear-away for thick ones
 
Lycra
 
Spunbond
 
Linen
 
Cut-away with temporary spray adhesive
 
Terry cloth
 
Cut-away or tear-away for the backing and water-soluble film for the topping
 
Muslin
 
Cut-away with temporary spray adhesive
 
Nylon
 
Tear-away adhesive (Filmoplast), heat-away (Thermogaze) or high-quality tear-away stabilizer
 
Voluminous knitwear
 
Cut-away with temporary spray adhesive
 
Organdy
 
Cut-away adhesive
 
Organza
 
Water soluble or high-quality tear-away
 
Sailcloth
 
Cut-away for the thin fabrics and tear-away for thick ones
 
Brocade
 
Tear-away
 
Percale
 
Cut-away
 
Pique
 
Cut-away for the backing and water-soluble film for the topping
 
Velour
 
Tear-away adhesive (Filmoplast)
 
Poplin
 
Tear-away or cut-away, depending on the fabric thickness
 
Sateen
 
Cut-away
 
Sateen
 
Cut-away with temporary spray adhesive or tear-away adhesive (Filmoplast)
 
Spandex
 
Cut-away with temporary spray adhesive or tear-away adhesive (Filmoplast), spunbond
 
Woolen cloth
 
Cut-away
 
Tweed
 
Cut-away
 
Knitwear (T-shirts)
 
Cut-away, tear-away or spunbond, depending on the quality of knitted fabric
 
Flannel
 
Cut-away
 
Fleece
 
Cut-away
 
Canvas
 
Tear-away or no stabilizer
 
Silk
 
Tear-away
 
Chiffon
 
Tear-away
 

I want to remind everyone that the aforementioned matches are the basic recommendations and not the rules. 
What is also interesting is that a stabilizer is often replaced with other, cheaper, materials for cost reasons — the means the manufacturers strictly advise against (naturally). For example, you may see a stabilizer replaced with the printing paper, the embroidery spunbond with the building one, and water-soluble film with polyethylene. There is a lot of information about it on the Web. 
I decided to check if water soluble film replacement was at all possible. You can read about this experiment here. 
Original text by Marina Belova 
Before now, I've never thought about reducing the stitch count in order to cut production costs. But now it's time to begin. In addition to the economic reasons that may be expressed through the formula: lower stitch count = embroidery process acceleration, reducing the stitch count makes the design look better. And it reduces the distortion of the fabric, too. 
There are many ways of lowering stitch count in the design without sacrificing the quality of the embroidery; for example: 
Increasing the lengths of the underlay and connector stitches  Increasing the stitch length in the objects that contain split stitches (satin stitches with patterns, fills)  Lowering the density of the satin stitches and fill stitches  Replacing the standard monolithic fill patterns with motif stitches  Making the design simpler: replacing the satin stitch outlines around the Tatami fills and with the running stitch outlines and removing the unnecessary details.  Placing an appliqué in the large surface areas, outlined with zigzag stitches  Using a thicker thread, which allows to substantially decrease the density  Deliberately changing the design so that a part of it will not be embroidered. For example, deleting the background fill so that the fabric will work as a backing.  Reducing the number of trims and color changes  Replacing some pre-digitized fills for the ones digitized manually  All of these methods are based on changing the design manually and not with the help of various options in the software like Outline Processor or Process. 
Let's look at some of these recommendations more closely: 
1. Underlay stitches and connector stitches lengths 
By default the running stitch even in different editors is 2—3 mm long. This is the perfect length for the outlines, but it is too short for the understitching. Without any hesitation, you can make the underlay stitches 4—5 mm long, and that will lower the underlay stitch count by 40—50%. This will not work well with the narrow stitch columns less than 2 mm wide. But in other cases, you should not lose the opportunity to increase stitch length. 
2. Density 
It's better not to use the dynamically varying stitch density in order to save up on stitch count, but set the right density value manually, in accordance with the size, color and type of the fabric. But to do that you'll have to work hard, using both your hands and brains because every object containing stitches of varying size needs to be split into several pieces. Each one of these parts will have its individual embroidery parameters. 
If you have more that one layer of stitches, you'd better not forget to lower the density of every new layer by no less 10%. 
It's also advisable to increase the fill stitch length by at least 25% as compared to the default value. But you'll need to do a test run after a change like that. 
3. Trimming and color change 
One should reduce the number of trims and color changes. All of these operations require time that equals to embroidering 130 and 65 stitches, respectfully. Why so many? Because the machine lowers its speed before every trim, and then has to accelerate again. 
Besides, every trim calls for the tie-off at the beginning and the end of the objects. And even taking into consideration that a tie-off contains only a few stitches, but, if you have lots of them, it means additional stitches. 
4. Making the design simpler 
The easiest you can do is remove the satin stitch outlines or replace them with the running stitch ones. You should be careful doing this: running stitch outlines are considered the most complex of all. It is extremely difficult for them to hit the right spot, without gapping and overlapping. Difficult, but not impossible. 
The machine embroidery design of your choice may contain a large number of details. You should define the size of these details when assessing the image. For example, it is recommended to embroider details that are less than 1 mm in size with running stitches or remove them altogether. 
5. Replacing the pre-digitized fills with the ones digitized manually 
Not so long ago I had a vital necessity of saving the stitches, for we outsourced the embroiderers for a huge project. And the embroiderer, as you know, is paid per thousand stitches. Therefore, we needed to reduce the stitch count to fit the budget. 
My design had 83000 stitches. So I had to select the elements manually, throwing away everything I could spare. I managed to save the largest number of stitches by manually changing the motif patterns. The pattern was ultimately simple: one layer of running stitch curves. 
So, I decided to get rid of the already existing pattern, add a new one manually, and digitize it with the running stitch. The resulting cut in the stitch number was about 20-25% for every object. What was especially good was that when you drew the stitches manually on the already existing pattern, you could see in what places you could do without it at all, and lower the stitch count even more. Thanks to these easy manipulations I managed to save about 12000 stitches. 

So much for you stitch count algorithms. Often your own two hands are better that any automatic device. The only disadvantage of this method is that it takes a bit more of your time. 
P.S.: I just remembered another method of saving the stitches, which I use. I slightly move the edges of the fills. This option has a different name in different editors. For example, in Stitch Era, there is Exclusion Margin, and in Tajima the similar option is called Critical Zone. With it help you may eliminate about 3% of stitches by simply moving the fill pattern 1 mm from the edge, the alteration being almost invisible to the eye. 

Together with the aforementioned methods, it will help you to make the design much simpler and lower the production costs. 
Original text by Marina Belova 
Leather, faux leather, chamois and vinyl are, in my opinion, the most mysterious fabrics for machine embroidery. There are a lot of materials on the subject on the Web. And these materials are so different that you could be lost in it. The only way left is, as usual, to collect knowledge and practice. 
All leather-like materials, as well as fabrics, vary in weight, thickness, texture, density, hardness and softness. However, there are several things they have in common: 
These materials will not tolerate any mistakes — if the needle has penetrated the fabric, the hole stays visible forever.  There may also be hoop burn.  Leather-like materials are perforated along the perimeter (where the needle had penetrated the fabric).  All of these factors pose their own requirements to the various parts of the embroidery process on leather-like materials, such as the choice of needles and stabilizers, ways of hooping etc. 

I'll name the main ones for you: 
I haven't seen two needle choice recommendations alike. There is a huge variety of needle points: some people advise to use a light ball point, some — a normal round point, and some — a narrow wedge point or even a round point with triangular tip. There are so many of them that it makes your head spin. I guess, I'll have to figure this out myself, by trial and error, as usual.  As for the choice of a stabilizer, everything seems to be more or less clear: average tear-away, average or dense cut-away or adhesive paper (like Filmoplast), according to the type of fabric. An ordinary fusible interfacing has been suggested for additional leather stabilization.  I've seen the following recommendations on the hooping of the leather-like materials: wrap the hoop in a soft fabric and loosen the hoop screw to a point where the hoop won't be leaving any traces on the fabric, but so that the material will still be pulled tightly. If the fabric cannot be hooped, all that is left is to stick it onto the adhesive paper. An alternative hooping method is to use a special magnetic hoop (for those who own it, of course).  You can use the ordinary (#40) or thicker (#30) threads.  To prevent gaps, the embroidery speed should be lowered. As for cleaning and oiling of the machine, you'll need to do it after every two or three items.  Creating machine embroidery designs for leather and similar materials is believed to be a job for experienced digitizers. But how can you gain experience, if you don't try? Therefore, let's dip into a variety of tips from the Western gurus of machine embroidery design digitizing.  Creating a machine embroidery design for leather is different from creating a design for other fabrics because you have to control the number of needle penetrations that can be done in many ways. That's because the question posed before a digitizer is a very serious one: how to avoid perforation. 
The main rules of creating a design are: 
increase the fill stitch length and the underlay stitch length to 4—5 mm.  The width of satin columns should be no less that 3—4 mm.  Lower the density of satin stitches by 30—35%. Some people even recommend lowering the density by 50%.  Lower the fill density by 20—25%. On the use of understitching there is a difference of opinions. Some people say that all of the understitching should be spared, the other ones — that it should stay in place. And even more than that — they recommend increasing their density because the finishing layer of satin stitches, in this case, is lighter. At the same time, you should place the understitching within the outline and away from the finishing layer of stitches. 
You should avoid: 
small elements  a large number of fills (you may use an appliqué instead).  This is all, in a nutshell. And now it's time to practice. 
Original text by Nadezhda Agureeva 
Broidery.ru magazine 
Machine embroidered cutwork (also called richelieu) is not that different from the free-motion cutwork. The smoothness of the satin column is determined at the stage of the design creation, and it's within your power to preserve the beauty of this particular kind of embroidery with the help of careful hooping and stabilizing. 
Unlike the free-motion embroidery, the machine embroidery has both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, there is a vast majority of beautiful ready designs as well as the automation of the embroidery process, and on the other hand, there is a high possibility of encountering a poor quality design. 
The embroidery process, for our purpose, may be divided into four steps: fabric preparation, basting, cutting out pieces of fabric and then making bridges, nets, and satin columns. 
Fabric preparation 
The preparation of the fabric consists of choosing the right type of stabilizer and careful hooping. As the fabric often shrinks after washing, I recommend washing or steaming the fabric in advance so as not to damage the embroidery. Choose your bobbin thread with attention. On some of the home embroidery machines automatic thread tensioner just doesn't work as it should, therefore, the underthread may show on the right side. I recommend using the bobbing thread of the same color as the main one. 
Basting 
As a rule, the designs are created with the consideration that the machine should make a stop after stitching the outline so as to give the embroiderer a possibility of cutting out pieces. If you have an embroidery editor, watch the whole process in the embroidery simulator. Pay attention to the number of colors in your design. Home embroidery machines make a stop when a color change is needed; therefore, your design should contain two colors at least. If your design is monochromatic, you will have to follow the embroidery process closely so that to manually stop the machine when it is needed. 
Making holes 
Pay attention to cutting out pieces of fabric when you're making your cutwork. Be patient and prepare the sharp scissors. When doing the cutting out take your hoop off the machine, but, in any case do not unhoop the fabric! When making holes, try to avoid shifting of the fabric in the hoop. Because the final step of your embroidery process depends on that. 
A hole made correctly will guarantee an almost 100% success. 
Finalizing 
Having cut out all of the pieces, proceed to the final step — making bridges. This process is automatic, so it won't require your involvement. 
Before embroidering on your main fabric or item, make a test piece first. And while you're doing it, pay attention to how the thread lies on the fabric, and what steps of your embroidery process cause your difficulties. If you chose a proper stabilizer and hooped the fabric correctly, but the quality of the sample did not satisfy you, you'd probably better choose another design.

Making cutwork on your embroidery machine: the process 
We will need the fabric, threads and two kinds of stabilizer (the topping and the backing).  Stick your backing to the wrong side of the fabric. If you wrong side is unlined, I advise you to use a tear-away stabilizer.  Carefully hoop your fabric. Make the fabric drum tight and tighten the screw. 
Place the hoop into your embroidery machine and start the embroidery.  After having stitched the basting stitch the machine should make a stop. To do this, you need to choose a design that contains at least two colors. Take your hoop off the machine. In any case, do not unhoop the fabric.  Take any sharp instrument and make a small cut in it, in order to cut the holes with scissors later. 
Make the holes in it using scissors. Try not to distort your fabric and catch the stitches that are already there.  To continue our work, we'll need water soluble topping.  Carefully pin the stabilizer to the fabric. 
Is is not necessary to use the stabilizer for the entire embroidery area. Just covering the areas you're going to cut out will be sufficient. This will prevent stitches from sinking in places where the fabric is missing.  Insert your hoop back into the machine and proceed with your embroidery.  Remove the jump stitches after the completion. The wrong side should be as neat as the right side! 
Rinse your ready item with water, in order to remove the topping from the right side of the embroidery and the backing leftovers from the wrong side. 
Having completed this task, remove the leftovers of the backing from the wrong side of the embroidery and iron the item. 
Original text by Marina Belova 
Recently I allowed my mind to dwell upon the days of my youth, when hair ties just appeared on the market. So I decided to embroider an ordinary hair tie, particularly as my hair is now long enough to make a ponytail. 
Frankly speaking, at first I scratched my head over how to do it. And why? Simply because would it be my professional machine, I would join the hair and the embroidery with a few stitches without hesitation, but on home embroidery machine the trick wouldn't pass (I've tried). And then it suddenly dawned upon me. It's very simple — you don't need to stitch the hair tie, but instead the ribbon, to which the tie is attached. 
Here it is what I got: 

The back side: 

The emoticon may look big, but is only 4 cm in diameter. I created the simplest possible design, almost like the one for the chevron, but with an additional stitching that allowed me to cover the back side of the emoticon with the fabric. The overall stitch count was 3200. 

All I needed for my embroidery was a hair tie, a piece of fabric and a ribbon: 

I hooped only the tear-away stabilizer: 

The basting stitch came first, as always. 

Then I placed my fabric in the hoop and began to embroider the design on the right side:
 
Here's the emoticon already embroidered: 

Then I took the hoop off the machine and trimmed all of the extra fabric around my embroidery, then turned it the wrong side up. And that was where the most interesting part began. I sprayed the wrong side of the fabric with a temporary spray adhesive and placed the hair tie with a ribbon that had been run through it, in accordance with the embroidered nose so as to hit the center. I secured the ends of the ribbon with a paper adhesive: 

I placed a hair tie into the hoop so that it would not shift during the embroidery, and stuck a piece of adhesive tape to it so that it didn't get under the border. All this thing turned out to be quite puffy, so I even doubted that my home machine could cope with it. 
Then I put my hoop into the machine and encircled the emoticon with a zig-zag border, along which I decided to cut both the hair tie and the ribbon on the wrong side. The machine struggled over it, but succeeded: 

I take hoop off again and trimmed all the extras. But I didn't remove the adhesive tape: 

After that, I changed the color of my under thread to black — the color of my border. 

Then I put the hoop back into the machine and embroidered the border: 

This is the wrong side: 

I unstuck the adhesive tape, and the hair tie was uncovered: 

After that, all I had left was to remove the stabilizer and all the other leftovers (threads, stabilizer fibers, etc.) 

And this is how it looks from the front: 




Original text by Marina Belova 
I continue my quest of embroidering fluffy toys on my embroidery machine. Last time I wrote about making a simple one piece stuffed teddy-bear. Today I decided to make the task harder and embroider paws and several other details separately. 
A couple of days ago I came across a pattern in a Chinese magazine called Pomelo Handicraft, and this pattern seemed suitable for making what I wanted — a Japanese animation character Totoro. So I decided to make it. Here's what I got: 

This toy was created entirely on my embroidery machine, except for one short side seam (about 3 cm), which was made by hand. In order to make my Totoro, I needed to create 2 embroidery design files. 
One for ears, paws, and tail: 

And another one for embroidering different parts and sewing them all together: 

I picked several pieces of gray stretchy velvet as the main fabric for my Totoro's coat. For applique on the belly — the faux fur cuttings, and for the teeth applique — the ordinary calico. 
My first step was to embroider the flap pieces of the toy. In order to do this I hooped the velvet, folded it in two with the pile surface on the inside: 

Then I started the machine and stitched the details: 

My subsequent operations were trimming the details along the perimeter (I had stitched a zig-zag outline) and turn them the right side up. I should mark that it was not easy to do the latter, for these details are very small. And so I decided not to stuff them, but to leave as they were: 

Now I needed to hoop a tear-away stabilizer: 

After that I embroidered an outline: 

Attached the velvet to the stabilizer with its right side up: 

Then I stitched the velvet along the perimeter to prevent it from peeling off and embroidered the eyes and the outline of the first applique — the mouth: 

Now I position the fabric for the mouth: 

I stitch and trim it and enclose it in a satin column border. I will skip these steps as the obvious ones. Immediately after that I stitch the outline for the belly: 

Place a piece of fur for the belly applique: 

After having completed this applique comes the most important part — positioning of the flap details. I placed them in accordance with the embroidered marks and tried to secure them with glue, which doesn't usually work well on velvet: 

Then I stitch these details to the fabric: 

Now I cover this with another layer of velvet the wrong side up for the back part of the toy: 

And after that comes the finishing touch: sewing the parts together. I left a small opening on the side through which I would stuff the toy with a filler: 

That is all; now I may take the hoop off. I trimmed the fabric along the perimeter in accordance with the outline, embroidered at the very beginning: 

Then I removed the stabilizer and turned the yet two-dimensional Totoro up front: 

The rest is easy — I stuff the toy and sew up the opening. But you may go without stuffing if you like. I think that I should have made the hind-paws, too, for he looks somewhat strange. But I'll leave it for the next time. 

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.