From Approved Virtual Sample to a Polished Garment Still: A Clean Image Pack for Remote Buyer Review

Published 7 min read
On this page 7 sections

Answer: CLO can render selected grading sizes together for a multi-size still pack.

  • Keep technical garment approval separate from approval of the buyer-facing images.
  • Use CLO to prepare the stills when its output meets the recipient’s requirements for view, format and crop.
  • In Grading Review, simulate each selected size and simulate it again after a pattern-mesh change.
  • Use CLO-SET to share the 3D asset and keep review comments connected to the relevant version.
  • Arrange a separate handoff only when the recipient requests a 3D object or animation workflow.

For a buyer pack with selected graded sizes, CLO’s feature documentation says those sizes can be rendered together. For a single still, use CLO when its output meets the required view, format and crop. The buyer portal, storefront or line-sheet specification should determine the final image dimensions and file format.

1. Freeze technical approval before making images

Technical sign-off approves a specific garment state. Record the approved pattern revision, material data, size or size range, avatar or fit reference, and the decision owner before preparing buyer-facing stills. This lets the team identify the source of every image in the pack and keep a later visual revision tied to the correct garment.

In CLO, select the checkbox beside each grading size and simulate; the Grading Review guide says the result for that size is saved automatically. If pattern correction changes the pattern mesh after simulation, simulate that size again. Open Main Menu > Production > Grading Review to review saved size results and capture images from the current approved state.

Keep the approved CLO garment and the material data used for its simulation together in the project record. CLO-SET can help teams share 3D assets, track versions and keep comments with the relevant content, making it easier to trace what reviewers saw and approved. See the CLO-SET feature overview for details.

Treat the technical record and image decision as separate approvals. The technical record identifies the garment, size and simulation that passed review. The image approval identifies the views, colorways, crops and file versions the buyer accepts. This keeps a polished presentation from being mistaken for a new fit decision.

2. Define the still pack with the recipient

Turn the buyer’s request into an image list before opening the render controls. A compact pack often needs a clear front view, a back or side view when construction requires it, close-ups of decision-making details, and one image for each requested colorway. Add an on-avatar image when the buyer needs silhouette or proportion context; use a garment-only frame when the brief asks for an uncluttered product view.

Ask the recipient or account owner to confirm these details in one place:

  • Required views and number of images per colorway or size.
  • Image dimensions, aspect ratio, file type and background.
  • Whether the image should include an avatar, model, shadow or crop-safe margin.
  • File naming, delivery folder and any buyer-portal upload rules.
  • Whether images are for line-sheet review, e-commerce, merchandising or another use.

Platform guides make the point that one image specification does not fit every destination. For example, SHOPLINE’s OS Theme 2.1 image guide offers square, portrait 2:3, landscape 4:3 and original product-image scales. It also explains that fixed-ratio components crop images, with centered cropping as the default when the display area is unset. For Shopify websites, Shopify’s 2026 image-size guide gives general widths of 1,920 pixels for banners, 1,200 pixels for main content and 300 to 800 pixels for thumbnails. For SHOPLINE OS Theme 2.1 product images, the guide recommends a 2:3 ratio, a minimum size of 560 × 840 pixels and a recommended size of 1,700 × 2,550 pixels.

3. Choose the render route for the image you need

Choose the route based on what the recipient needs, not on a general software ranking. For a still of an approved simulated garment, CLO provides a direct workflow, including the ability to render selected grading sizes together. CLO-SET can then support sharing and review of the 3D asset and its versions.

Comparison table Scroll to view every column ↔

Route Choose it when Documented fit for this job
CLO The pack needs approved garment views, including selected grading sizes. CLO’s feature documentation says specific grading sizes can be selected and rendered together.
CLO-SET review Teammates or external reviewers need to view and comment on the 3D asset. CLO-SET describes a browser-based 3D viewer, version history and comments associated with content.
Separate 3D handoff The recipient requests a turntable, 3D object or animation workflow beyond the still-image pack. Confirm the required file type and target application with the recipient before preparing the handoff.

For a routine buyer pack, CLO keeps the approved garment and still-image work in the same design workflow. If the recipient asks for a turntable, 3D object or animation workflow, clarify the target application and file requirements before preparing a separate handoff. CLO-SET can keep review comments and versions connected to the 3D content, while the final image list and delivery format remain guided by the buyer’s brief.

4. Set up and check the approved stills

Prepare one representative view first, then reuse its approved setup for the rest of the pack. Keep the garment revision, fabric, colorway, camera view and avatar treatment aligned with the technical approval. Render a sample and have the image owner confirm framing, garment visibility, background and crop before producing every size and colorway.

Use this pre-render check:

  1. Confirm the approved source. Open the signed-off CLO garment and use the approved pattern and material state. If the team is reviewing the asset in CLO-SET, confirm that reviewers are looking at the intended version.
  2. Set the requested colorway and view. Frame the garment to show the feature the buyer is reviewing. Choose a full silhouette view for shape and proportion, then make detail crops for closures, seams, trims or fabric texture when those details affect the decision.
  3. Choose the avatar treatment. Include an avatar for a fit-context image and omit it for a product-only still when the brief calls for that presentation. In CLO, set up the garment and avatar view to match the buyer’s intended use, then check that the final framing leaves the garment easy to assess.
  4. Review the exported image at its delivery crop. Check the file at the actual aspect ratio and size specified by the recipient. A preview inside a 3D application shows the garment view; the final crop shows what the buyer will receive.

For a still-image pack, deliver the rendered images requested by the buyer. Include a 3D file only when the recipient separately requests a viewable asset, animation workflow or production handoff.

5. Treat a multi-size pack as two linked reviews

A multi-size image set needs clear size labels and a technical size review. The images help the buyer compare visible silhouette and proportion across requested sizes. The fit decision remains attached to the size-specific simulation and approved size specification.

In CLO, Grading Review includes a Panoramic layout for checking and comparing grading sizes in one 3D window. CLO also lets the team select specific grading sizes and render them together, which is useful when a buyer wants a consistent series of size views from one approved garment project. Keep each output filename tied to its size and colorway so the buyer can distinguish each frame.

CLO’s Grading Review lets the team compare saved results for graded sizes and capture images from the reviewed state. Check that each requested size has its own simulation result before preparing the pack; if only the base size is graded, label the image clearly as a base-size view.

The simple release check is to compare the size label in the image name with the size whose fit result was reviewed. If pattern correction changes the pattern mesh after simulation, simulate that size again before treating a new image as evidence of the approved state.

6. Keep review connected in CLO-SET

When a team needs feedback on the approved garment, CLO-SET offers a way to share the 3D asset and keep comments associated with its content and version. Use it to make review decisions easier to trace, while keeping the final still pack aligned with the buyer’s requested views, crop and file format. Confirm which version is approved before releasing the images.

7. Release a labeled, reviewable image pack

Build the delivery folder from the recipient’s list and verify each image against its file name before sending it. A practical naming pattern is style-colorway-size-view-version, for example Jacket-Black-M-Front-v03. Keep the name consistent across the image, review note and shared folder so the buyer can point to one frame without ambiguity.

Use this release sequence:

  1. Confirm every image comes from the approved garment revision and requested colorway.
  2. Check that the size label matches the size reviewed and rendered.
  3. Review each image at the destination’s crop, dimensions and file type.
  4. Include the requested front, back, side and detail views, along with the required colorways and sizes.
  5. Put the selected files and any separately requested source handoff into clearly named folders.
  6. Send a short note that identifies the approved garment version, included sizes and colorways, and the person who owns image feedback.

After delivery, route buyer comments to the named image version and distinguish presentation changes from requests to reopen technical fit review.

Related reading

  1. Multilingual Meeting Transcription: Apps vs. ASR APIs for Global Sales Teams (2026)

    9 min read
  2. How to Use Virtual Fabric Drape to Shortlist Fabrics Before Sample Approval: Where Supplier Approval Needs Physical Evidence

    8 min read
  3. Replacing a Months-Behind React Native Attribution Plugin in 2026: Four MMPs Compared, Airbridge vs. AppsFlyer vs. Branch vs. Singular

    8 min read