Dickies ad campaign shot on an 8x10

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It's good to see that photographer is a young chap.

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/21/dickies-commissioned-photographer-shoot-8x10-camera/

 

[Paul Manuell]

Some lovely portraits there, but nice to see even professionals sometimes get things wrong - the cropping off of the model's foot in the 2nd picture.

 

[Paul Manuell]

Some lovely portraits there, but nice to see even professionals sometimes get things wrong - the cropping off of the model's foot in the 2nd picture.

 

[Paul Manuell]

Hmm, not sure why my post posted twice there ^

 

[Mick Fagan]

Nice, but typesetting could do with a bit of work.

I quote"
For the shoot, Muncey used people who actually where the trousers, rather than “typical models you’d see in a magazine.”
Unquote".

Where people wear trousers, perhaps?

Mick.

 

[MattKing]

Nice, but typesetting could do with a bit of work.

I think you might mean "proof-reading"

 

[Mick Fagan]

I think you might mean "proof-reading"

Ooops, you are correct, proof reading.

Did enough of that in the seventies and early eighties. I thought the nick name we had for a semicolon, was perhaps one of the better things about proof reading.

I'll blame it on an after lunch sleepiness. Been up since 0530 for a gym session, pulled out the leaves in the gutters, mowed some lawns (plural), done a bit of woodturning, had lunch and shortly will be putting the camper on to go and see an exhibition out of Melbourne tomorrow.

https://www.goldstreetstudios.com.a...y-king-sam-wang-jainming-zhong-sept-nov-2017/

Glad I'm retired...

Mick.

 

[hoffy]

Some lovely portraits there, but nice to see even professionals sometimes get things wrong - the cropping off of the model's foot in the 2nd picture.

Hah! I suppose you don't need feet to wear trousers!

One thing I don't understand, though, is the taped white paper background against the white wall - err, why?

Still, I like them!

 

[c41]

Some lovely portraits there, but nice to see even professionals sometimes get things wrong - the cropping off of the model's foot in the 2nd picture.

You're probably right ("even... get things wrong") but I quite like the broken frame with the 'leading' leg and the greys flowing from bottom left floor through to top right curtain.

Nice pictures, thanks for the link.

As far the white paper thing, not to my taste either but then I don't like the shiny trousers in all the pictures either, I don't think I'm in the demographic.

 

[faberryman]

I wonder why Dickies specified 8x10.

 

[cramej]

More deadpan portraits, just shot on 8x10. The only one that works for me is the girl sitting at the desk - if only her foot wasn't cut off.

 

[EdSawyer]

Wow, those suck. Dickies got robbed on that shoot.

 

[rockpowered]

Wow, those suck. Dickies got robbed on that shoot.

Many here are missing the point. The guys have a Youtube Channel called Negative Feedback. They do not position themselves as pros and often they are shooting a particular camera or format for the first time. Dickies was not looking for great images, they wanted to connect their brand to someone with a decent amount of followers. The images are actually irrelevant it's just the social media connection they valued.

 

[BrianShaw]

Many here are missing the point. The guys have a Youtube Channel called Negative Feedback. They do not position themselves as pros and often they are shooting a particular camera or format for the first time. Dickies was not looking for great images, they wanted to connect their brand to someone with a decent amount of followers. The images are actually irrelevant it's just the social media connection they valued.

A very interesting POV. I never would have guessed that myself. But they would have done better by tying into the Kardashians, perhaps... or POTUS.

 

[fiddle]

I doubt people interested in Kardashians wear Dickies.

 

[Prest_400]

I know Dickies since I was quite young, as mom worked in Jeans retail. They were popular around here in the late 2000's for rather Urban and hip hop wide style jeans worn low. Hilarious to think about it, most kids wearing them and showing underwear. Passé now.
A solid niche possibly is the timeless classic rugged Jean.

Many here are missing the point. The guys have a Youtube Channel called Negative Feedback. They do not position themselves as pros and often they are shooting a particular camera or format for the first time. Dickies was not looking for great images, they wanted to connect their brand to someone with a decent amount of followers. The images are actually irrelevant it's just the social media connection they valued.

Quite a good PR maneuver actually. Negative Feedback caters/attracts a young rather newcomer film demographic. By the looks, it's targeting that.
The YT channel is quite well produced for what it is, though some contents are off by some standards like reviewing a B&W film based on lab processing and scans.

The project itself does not maximize the usage of LF (movements) and I actually think a P67 would have done equally well in characteristics on it.

 

[BrianShaw]

....
A solid niche possibly is the timeless classic rugged Jean.

...

I don't have an 8x10 so perhaps I should take four 4x5s of my 501s!

 

[jim10219]

More deadpan portraits, just shot on 8x10. The only one that works for me is the girl sitting at the desk - if only her foot wasn't cut off.

Wow, those suck. Dickies got robbed on that shoot.

The point is to show regular people wearing their pants. The deadpan poses, simple lighting, and rather boring (maybe even distracting) backgrounds reinforces the idea of the "everyman" that they're marketing to. Using studio lighting, backgrounds, professional models with more classical or exciting poses would undermine the brand's identity. The lack of perfection is intentional. Desirable even. The point of using 8x10 film over a cheaper digital medium is to show that even the average person should be fully respected, as they are. Digital is seen as too easy to Photoshop. Film is perceived to be more true to life. With digital, you can take 1,000 shots and pick the best one. With film, you are much more limited in your choices. It's a celebration of each of us, warts and all. It's a statement that these people are worthy of consideration through a costly medium just as they are. And if they be flawed, then that just makes them more relatable. They know their target audience won't be impressed by traditional fashion photography and all of it's tricks and glamour Dickies is consciously making a firm stance against that.

At least that's my interpretation of it all. And I, for one, like it.

 

[faberryman]

The point is to show regular people wearing their pants. The deadpan poses, simple lighting, and rather boring (maybe even distracting) backgrounds reinforces the idea of the "everyman" that they're marketing to. Using studio lighting, backgrounds, professional models with more classical or exciting poses would undermine the brand's identity. The lack of perfection is intentional. Desirable even. The point of using 8x10 film over a cheaper digital medium is to show that even the average person should be fully respected, as they are. Digital is seen as too easy to Photoshop. Film is perceived to be more true to life. With digital, you can take 1,000 shots and pick the best one. With film, you are much more limited in your choices. It's a celebration of each of us, warts and all. It's a statement that these people are worthy of consideration through a costly medium just as they are. And if they be flawed, then that just makes them more relatable. They know their target audience won't be impressed by traditional fashion photography and all of it's tricks and glamour Dickies is consciously making a firm stance against that. At least that's my interpretation of it all. And I, for one, like it.

I think you are giving Dickie's and the photographer too much credit. You might want to take a look at the photography on Dickie's website and rethink that.

 

[MattKing]

The ad campaign got some attention here on PHOTRIO - so it accomplished at least some of what was intended.
It is really tough to interest people in pictures of pants.

 

[cramej]

Many here are missing the point. The guys have a Youtube Channel called Negative Feedback. They do not position themselves as pros and often they are shooting a particular camera or format for the first time. Dickies was not looking for great images, they wanted to connect their brand to someone with a decent amount of followers. The images are actually irrelevant it's just the social media connection they valued.

Meh... Methinks the 8x10 was only done for attention. HEY LOOK I SHOT PICTURES ON BIG FILM!!!! There's nothing there that couldn't have been done on a different format. Especially since the planned use is to be posted online -- as a 640px wide image - and on Instagram. My favorite comment from the article was "Love that heavily pronounced MF/LF look". Really, I think Dickies is doing a disservice to their brand by using a poorly thought out shoot with mediocre results to try and connect to "young people".

I think you are giving Dickie's and the photographer too much credit. You might want to take a look at the photography on Dickie's website and rethink that.

Agreed. They used one of the shots on Instagram.

I looked at George's Instagram as well - pretty bland. I guess being a photographer now consists of shooting pictures of your buddies standing against a wall in the city with a 'blad.

Sure, I sound a bit cynical, but when you see comments like "Sick photo!" and "This shot is sooo great!" for an image of some guy standing against a concrete parking garage wall with a blank stare you really have to wonder. My driver's license photo would probably get good comments on Instagram. Alas, I suppose that's one of the reasons I don't get involved with that kind of stuff.

Ok, rant over.

 

[BrianShaw]

The ad campaign got some attention here on PHOTRIO - so it accomplished at least some of what was intended.
It is really tough to interest people in pictures of pants.

Well, ya... by a dozen of us. But I'm not going to buy any Dickies... how about the rest of you?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I wonder why Dickies specified 8x10.

Probably not Dickies, but the art director for the ad agency.

 

[btaylor]

Curious. The images themselves don't express "8x10" at all. He did not take advantage of the potential for shallow DOF or using movements to change focus planes. As displayed on a computer I don't get any sense of the amazing detail and tonal gradation that comes with the format, or a sense that long exposure times were used or needed. I wish the photographer had looked at some of the extraordinary LF photographs of workers in the past as inspiration to create his contemporary look.

I see what they are trying to convey, a sense of "genuine" through the use of the new "blue collar" hipster, the new curated "worker." Which is bullshit. This is not "everyman," these are trust fund hipsters pretending to be blue collar. I think I can speak with some authority on this as I live in hipster paradise in Los Angeles and work a blue collar job. Dickies does have a legit claim on genuine working class, real work-with-your-hands tradespeople wearing their clothing. I put on their pants every day. As those real jobs disappear they need to appeal to a new market. I get that. But I am truly tired of the hipster artisinal barber, etc. I am looking forward to my first encounter with an artisinal plumber, that will be a riot!

 

[fdonadio]

rather Urban and hip hop wide style jeans worn low. Hilarious to think about it, most kids wearing them and showing underwear. Passé now.

At 50 y.o., I still wear them like that, but I like Levi's 550's and 560's a lot better. I don't care about it being "passé". Heck, some people say film is passé!