It might seem that film has been relegated to a pursuit sustained mostly by enthusiasts, but as this campaign by Dickies shows, it can still create the kind of images large brands are happy to use. Go behind the scenes of this shoot with a large format camera.
The Chamonix 8x10 large format camera is an absolute beast, weighing almost 10 lbs. and dwarfing any 35mm or medium format rig that dare stand near it. However, when paired with a Nikkor 300mm f/5.6 lens, it churns out beautiful negatives that are almost 60 times bigger than those that come out of a 35mm camera. Of course, with each negative sheet costing around $4, it's clear that truly, everything is bigger with large format photography. In this neat video from Negative Feedback, you'll follow them as they shoot a 50th anniversary campaign for Dickies 874 pants, interviewing and taking portraits of lovers of the well-known trousers. I thought it was pretty neat to see a larger brand embracing film photography, and the final shots seemed to really capture the essence of what the campaign was going for (though of course, that's a result of the photographer's vision and execution rather than the choice of film), while I couldn't help but admire the detail, which made me really wish I could see the prints in person.
The fall off on the environmental portraits are incomparable. Nothing else like large format for that look. Glad that it's still being used in campaigns and seems appropriate to use film for a 50 year anniversary, I also thought it was fitting that the subjects are crafts persons who are doing hand crafted artistry: boot making, barber, etc.
I agree; I just adore that falloff.
Film will probably never die entirely, but it has become a niche product and rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things. Most of these discussions aren't about the technical quality of things but about the overall package. Most people don't want to drag this around. These kinds of photographs are very nice but hardly suitable for 99% of all projects.
Unimportant, Why? Ever see Diane Arbus's stuff? You've never actually recorded light/radiation unless you have shot film. Next time you go to the doctor for an xray tell him/her to shoot digital. Some of us prefer these types of discussions over ones about a $40k electric camera.
Great comments.... the major difference between film and digital is that digital is easier. The biggest reason that photographers switched was because of the ease of use. I am so glad that I shot film for 30 years before getting into digital. Having the ability to execute film photography definitely puts you a leg up when transitioning to digital. You actually understand photography and sensitometry. Plus, you have paid the dues of getting things right because of the delay between shooting and viewing a completed image.
@Matt Barr X-rays have been digital in my country for the past 12-15 years. I don't know what they use in your country but unless you all live in caves in an absolute backwater, they will use digital X-rays. Films were important but they are niches products now.
I feel like the amount of this photographer's focus and attention that was required to make these photos with LF could have been spent in a dozen other ways that would have resulted in far more compelling images.
deleted