The Philadephia mallet

I'm was fascinated the other day by Asher's invocation of the "Philadelphia mallet theory" (which I presume to be named somehow in honor of the home of the academic who espoused it). It basically says that when prehistoric man invented a better mallet, he felt the need to smash flat everything within reach with it.

It's quite parallel to one of my own favorite chestnuts: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Today we have available a wonderful toolbox for image manipulation. It accommodates everything from basic cropping or simple adjusting of the "tonal scale" to the creation of an image without any photographic source at all - sometimes a "realistic" image, sometimes wholly "abstract".

As I look over the many images presented in the different branches of this forum, I wonder whether many of our artists have "Philadelphia Man's" view of the mallet. Over and over, I see an image I feel is really wonderful, but have the feeling that it doesn't somehow look "natural" (indeed, whatever that means).

We so often hear in critiques that in the delivered image, the model's skin has a "plastic" look. We often see that the model, perhaps as a result of a too-ambitious use of fill flash, or maybe by an over-ambitious emulation of that in post processing, has what I call the "supermodel on the beach" look.

I think a problem is that we, like Philadelphia Man, feel an unavoidable drive to make use of all the image modification tools in our kit.

I think the situation with the visual arts is quite different from that in the verbal arts. In the latter, the aspiring writer is exhorted to "revise, revise, revise".

But I think in the "realistic" branch of photographic art (and I thus exclude works in which extreme effects are part of the art), "she who edits best" may be "she who edits least".

This is not an argument in the direction of "honesty in photography" (a notion that I feel is so ambiguous it can hardly be dealt with). It is an argument for restraint in the use of the powerful tools we all have in our kit. Just because we can do it, gang, isn't a reason to do it at every opportunity. Lets not confuse the completion of an image with a competition in virtuosity in the use of image editing software.

Hi Doug,

I can imagine the reasons as to why you did not point to any example pictures to demonstrate your point. But it would be nice if you could be a bit more specific. If any of my pictures fall into the scope of this discussion, please feel free to use them as an example .

I usually process my images for the following reasons:
- White balance correction (most images)
- Exposure adjustment (highlights and shadows) (almost all images)
- Presence (local contrast enhancement) (some images)
- CA correction (when applicable)
- Noise reduction (when really needed)
- Output sharpening after resizing (always)
So what is your take on this list? When used moderately, all will be OK. But what is the definition of moderate?

To digress, I have been a video filmer for a long time. There, the situation was/is worse. The so-called transition effects are used extensively by many amateurs, which result in really awful films.

Hi, Cem,

Cem_Usakligil said:

Hi Doug,

I can imagine the reasons as to why you did not point to any example pictures to demonstrate your point.

Click to expand...

Well, of course the problem is that what might seem unwarranted to me, and in a certain context, might not be to someone else, perhaps in a differetn context. And I'm not interested in trying to explain, by the use of examples, what my criteria might be. My criteria aren't important here.

But it would be nice if you could be a bit more specific.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have no "rating system" in place for this matter!

When used moderately, all will be OK. But what is the definition of moderate?

Click to expand...

There can be no "definition" of "moderate". And how much is too much depends so much on what were are working with and in what context.

My point was just to encourage all practitioners to continue to reflect on the matter of, "I can make such and such a change right here. Should I?

To digress, I have been a video filmer for a long time. There, the situation was/is worse. The so-called transition effects are used extensively by many amateurs, which result in really awful films.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Doug.

I agree with your thoughts and/or observations completely.


Have any of my recent photographic posts given you even the slightest inspiration on posting this subject???

Just curious what was the catalyst, or was it an over edited photo that inspired you?

I have thought that Ethics provides a dividing line between what one has the power to do and what one should do. Now "should" is a filter. The nature of the filter depends on what limits one is willing to put on one's own impulsivity.

In photography, a discipline is warranted to enable one to have any voice at all. It's so easy to allow all the floodgates of optimization and HDR to overwhelm one's own small voice. That discipline to hold back from what one can easily do, can start as a "moral" appearing goal like, "factive photography" (or "Truth in Photography"). That, at least, puts one on a path of some clarity. Having limited oneself, then one needs to allow one's own voice. One should use the tools, but feel troubled. It's almost as if one needs guilt in going to the mallet cupboard in Photoshop! Maybe then we'll only knock down sufficient bushes and boulders to reveal our very private path!

My own view is that, often, only 7% to 87% of any change might be really needed. To get the lower figure, sometimes, one may need to put aside the image to allow the brain to realize what is the difference between a helpful nuance and that artificial look when one has beaten the life out of the picture.

Asher

Doug_Kerr said:

... As I look over the many images presented in the different branches of this forum, I wonder whether many of our artists have "Philadelphia Man's" view of the mallet. Over and over, I see an image I feel is really wonderful, but have the feeling that it doesn't somehow look "natural" (indeed, whatever that means).

.....

But I think in the "realistic" branch of photographic art (and I thus exclude works in which extreme effects are part of the art), "she who edits best" may be "she who edits least".

This is not an argument in the direction of "honesty in photography" (a notion that I feel is so ambiguous it can hardly be dealt with). It is an argument for restraint in the use of the powerful tools we all have in our kit. Just because we can do it, gang, isn't a reason to do it at every opportunity. Lets not confuse the completion of an image with a competition in virtuosity in the use of image editing software....

Click to expand...

Doug_Kerr said:

...Well, of course the problem is that what might seem unwarranted to me, and in a certain context, might not be to someone else, perhaps in a differetn context. And I'm not interested in trying to explain, by the use of examples, what my criteria might be. My criteria aren't important here. ....
There can be no "definition" of "moderate". And how much is too much depends so much on what were are working with and in what context. ....
My point was just to encourage all practitioners to continue to reflect on the matter of, "I can make such and such a change right here. Should I?

Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

Disclaimer first: I agree with the the points you have made (the bold sentences in the quote above). I also think that I understand where you're coming from, so you have me on-board already.

Having said that, I have posed the questions in my previous mail due to the fact that in your build-up towards making your point, you make some very interesting and bold statements.

So apparently there are many images posted here which are wonderful in essence but do not look natural. You cannot just make this statement and then dismiss the responsibility of showing examples of what you mean by that. And the fact that your criteria aren't important does not take away this responsibility IMO. Because the subjective statement you've made is also a result of your personal criteria. Therefore, it is important for us to know what they are in order to evaluate your statement properly.

Like Will, and I am sure there some more out there, I too considered whether you were also referring to some of my pictures. And if that would have been the case, I would then have really wanted to receive some honest C&C so that I can become conscious of any perceived unnaturalness in my pictures.

Finally, of course the definition of moderate is context sensitive. That's the point I was trying to make by posing the question. Since all is subjective and also context sensitive, how can we then set rules or guidelines? My answer is, we can't and shouldn't.

Cheers,

Cem_Usakligil said:

Like Will, and I am sure there some more out there, I too considered whether you were also referring to some of my pictures.

Click to expand...

Cem, You misunderstood my post. I know that doug knows that as a general rule I do not retouch my photos and prefer to use lighting and levels to achieve the end result I am looking for. I am not against removing an occasional ZIT or other blemish that would not been there a week before or later or anything that would not change there natural appearance. I was just wondering if my unretouched photos had sparked the idea for him to post since most posts are retouched for content. As in that porcelain skin look.

Will Thompson said:

Cem, You misunderstood my post. I know that doug knows that as a general rule I do not retouch my photos and prefer to use lighting and levels to achieve the end result I am looking for. I am not against removing an occasional ZIT or other blemish that would not been there a week before or later or anything that would not change there natural appearance. I was just wondering if my unretouched photos had sparked the idea for him to post since most posts are retouched for content. As in that porcelain skin look.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the misunderstanding Will, I stand corrected

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

I have thought that Ethics provides a dividing line between what one has the power to do and what one should do. Now "should" is a filter.

Click to expand...

My point in this thread has nothing to do with ethical considerations. Many artistic results I don't find attractive do not transgress any ethical boundaries.

My own view is that, often, only 7% to 87% of any change might be really needed. To get the lower figure, sometimes, one may need to put aside the image to allow the brain to realize what is the difference between a helpful nuance and that artificial look when one has beaten the life out of the picture. [Emphasis added]

Click to expand...

I think your phrase I emphasized really captures the essence of my concern!

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Cem,

Cem_Usakligil said:

So apparently there are many images posted here which are wonderful in essence but do not look natural. You cannot just make this statement and then dismiss the responsibility of showing examples of what you mean by that

Click to expand...

Well, actually I can, and did!

Since all is subjective and also context sensitive, how can we then set rules or guidelines? My answer is, we can't and shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, as with so much human endeavor. Again, my point was not to so much suggest that there can be rules and guidelines as to merely try and make all of us aware of the possible disadvantages of "excess".

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Will,

Will Thompson said:

Have any of my recent photographic posts given you even the slightest inspiration on posting this subject???

Click to expand...

No, not at all.

Just curious what was the catalyst, or was it an over edited photo that inspired you?

Click to expand...

No, no single work or small set of works. The thought just bubbled up as a result of seeing a lot of different works.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug_Kerr said:

...Well, actually I can, and did!
..

Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

LOL, I should have seen that one coming.

I am/was not disagreeing with you at all, so I'll just thank you for the "provocative" impulse you've provided to think about this issue.

Cheers,

Hi, Cem,

Cem_Usakligil said:

I am/was not disagreeing with you at all, so I'll just thank you for the "provocative" impulse you've provided to think about this issue.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That was what I was trying to provide.

Best regards,

Doug

Asher Kelman said:

I have thought that Ethics provides a dividing line between what one has the power to do and what one should do. Now "should" is a filter. The nature of the filter depends on what limits one is willing to put on one's own impulsivity.

Click to expand...

That, Doug, is merely a master idea that we would probably agree on. We can use a similar paradigm in our photography. This more careful use of image "enhancements" might protect images we seek to label as our work and style. The human tool of "Ethics" itself, does not, itself, provide some moral path of holiness to heaven. So putting aside the supposed "higher" values of "ethical" standards and we are left with a personal ethical approach to having our own values in our photography realized.

So with this explanation in play, the following analagous use of a ""moral'-appearing" standard for our work in photography might make better sense.

Asher Kelman said:

In photography, a discipline is warranted to enable one to have any voice at all. It's so easy to allow all the floodgates of optimization and HDR to overwhelm one's own small voice. That discipline to hold back from what one can easily do, can start as a "moral" appearing goal like, "factive photography" (or "Truth in Photography"). That, at least, puts one on a path of some clarity. Having limited oneself, then one needs to allow one's own voice. One should use the tools, but feel troubled. It's almost as if one needs guilt in going to the mallet cupboard in Photoshop! Maybe then we'll only knock down sufficient bushes and boulders to reveal our very private path!

My own view is that, often, only 7% to 87% of any change might be really needed. To get the lower figure, sometimes, one may need to put aside the image to allow the brain to realize what is the difference between a helpful nuance and that artificial look when one has beaten the life out of the picture.

Click to expand...

I think Doug is probably right, that when we first aquire the ability to fiddle we tend to go abit overboard, but but then (hopefully) we realise that we are not actually expressing our vision by doing this and somehow master the tool(s) that enslaved us.

Mike

Mike Shimwell said:

I think Doug is probably right, that when we first aquire the ability to fiddle we tend to go abit overboard, but but then (hopefully) we realise that we are not actually expressing our vision by doing this and somehow master the tool(s) that enslaved us.

Mike

Click to expand...

Mike we need to master the ideas that we wish to express, not the tools. Tools can be changed: oils to chalk to colored crayons to woven tapestry. The ideas still have to be generated.

Too often we have people that neither have ideas to express nor tools they have mastered.

In the final analysis complex tools are not the block to artistic creation; rather it's lack of something that needs to be expressed as art.

This is where I hope we can make progress, by starting with an overriding goal to put into a physical form our wishes and needs to be experienced by us all. That is what we hope we might get out of working with each others images, here in OPF. At least that's our wish and belief of what's possible.

Asher

Thanks Asher for directing me to this interesting discussion. Here is another perspective while we're tip-toeing around this.

Before digital was invented I made thousands of chromes. Thousands of un-interesting chromes. I was in the mood to make pictures and I made them even though the lighting was flat and the subject was colorless and boring. Maybe I'm the only one that ever did this but I doubt it. Typically I'd put these all on a light table and look for hours trying to find that one picture that might float to the top of all this murk. In those days we didn't have the internet and we didn't have photoshop and so thankfully all those chromes are in a box somewhere forgotten. My point is how badly I wanted all of those almost beens to BE.

The problem I see today is that we're still taking the same boring colorless ill illuminated pictures as ever, but now we've got photoshop. You see where I'm going with this.

I owe much to a wonderful guy who did workshops all over the Eastern Sierra and introduced me to a lot of ideas that made my photos better. Velvia was just coming on the scene, and he taught me about color temperature and saturation. I won't tell you his name for any bribe. In the intervening years our paths have diverted. I've gone off the deep end with ginormous cameras and rediculous lenses. He got on the digital rollercoaster and only one thing matters. OK, 2. Sharpness beyond sharpness, and saturation that makes Velvia look like grandma's out of date polaroid 559. He can't see it, and I can't tell him, but God love him, his pictures look like they just fell off a Disney animators table. They're perfectly awful. This is my ever so humble opinion of course and always always YMMV !

What's generally missing in our photography? It's"magic"!

Jim Galli said:

.......
The problem I see today is that we're still taking the same boring colorless ill illuminated pictures as ever, but now we've got photoshop. You see where I'm going with this.

I owe much to a wonderful guy who did workshops all over the Eastern Sierra and introduced me to a lot of ideas that made my photos better. ............... he got on the digital rollercoaster and only one thing matters. OK, 2. Sharpness beyond sharpness, and saturation that makes Velvia look like grandma's out of date polaroid 559. He can't see it, and I can't tell him, but God love him, his pictures look like they just fell off a Disney animators table. They're perfectly awful.

Click to expand...

Jim,

As I have said one needs a lot of restraint not to rely on the photoshop cupboard of "better" mallets. This is like lipstick and makeup which obfuscates what "is" and taken to the extreme makes whores out of everyone.

One still needs imagination and sufficient technical ability to engrave that in a physical form. Photography with a digital camera merely takes care of focus and exposure. However the subject, form and lighting need to come together with some "magic". That's the stuff we want to learn to add. For this, one needs creativity, openness and imagination and then a background in art and photography. Also one has to acquire experience expressing complete ideas. Well at least complete enough ideas in a physical form such that the observer can fill in the spaces and get enthralled. Before one makes "modern art" or expressive derivatives of real things, one should be proficient in photographing simple objects. When one looks at one pear, tree or old house lit beautifully, more than that object is shown.


Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Jim,

This is like lipstick and makeup which obfuscates what "is" and taken to the extreme makes whores out of everyone.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher, I love your turn of phrase

Mike

Asher Kelman said:

Mike we need to master the ideas that we wish to express, not the tools. Tools can be changed: oils to chalk to colored crayons to woven tapestry. The ideas still have to be generated.

Too often we have people that neither have ideas to express nor tools they have mastered.

In the final analysis complex tools are not the block to artistic creation; rather it's lack of something that needs to be expressed as art.

This is where I hope we can make progress, by starting with an overriding goal to put into a physical form our wishes and needs to be experienced by us all. That is what we hope we might get out of working with each others images, here in OPF. At least that's our wish and belief of what's possible.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher

Perhaps I should have said master our use of the tools rather than the tools themselves, that is to master ourselves. My intent was that in the excitement of having a new tool we forget that it's the expression that matters and that the tool is just a means to an end.

I agree that the need is for ideas, and beyond that I think having an internal need for expression is probably vital. We are born to create and to communicate/express as much as to breathe I think.

And the forum is perhaps one of the very few places that I receive feedback that actually helps me to progress in my need for expression that is (hopefully) more than just mundane. And for that, I am grateful.

Mike

Here are 4 photos just for Doug!

Almost enough PS to make you ill!

Hi Will,

None of these photoshopped images were in your original thread, LOL!

Just for Doug?

Better for all of us if you show even just one pair of pictures, before and afterwards to illustrate your point. Even more apt would be 3 pictures: before, minimum needed, with all the softness/porcelain skin etc that we do!

Asher