RE: [Leica] I missed it.

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Eric,

Let's formulate this differently: direct eye contact between viewer and 
subject (note the absence of the photographer in this relationship) makes 
it easier for the viewer to relate to the subject. "Easier" does not mean 
it is "better" for the photographer to systematically organise that direct 
eye contact. A good, efficient, picture works more interestingly if the 
photographer can offer to the viewer other means of relating to the 
persons. I mentionned some of those means in my post: showing intensive 
interaction between the subjects, or capturing 
composition/tonalities/attitudes/expressions that are powerful enough.

Nevertheless, photojournalism and eye contact are not necessarily 
contradictory. Plenty of images come to mind were a member of a group looks 
at the viewer while the others go about their business. There (sadly) is a 
very large crop of those in the moving pictures of the latest events at the 
Kosovo borders.

It is difficult to produce images that 'work' on their own right. Very 
often, pictures of people "getting on with their lifes" fail to function as 
soon as the caption disappears. In those circumstances, it is the caption 
and the article that tell the story, transforming the pictures into 
illustrations.

Alan

On mercredi 31 mars 1999 16:30, Eric Welch [SMTP:ewelch@ponyexpress.net] 
wrote:
> At 03:45 PM 3/31/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >The
> >absence of eye contact makes it more difficult for the viewer to relate 
to
> >the people that are being photographed
>
> Direct eye contact stops the action. Stops any kind of real  life that
> could have been communicated by the photograph. It says "Hey, I'm being
> photographed." It has little to do with the life of the person.
>
> I'm not under the delusion that somehow magically a person is not aware 
of
> the camera. But when a person gets on with their life, the pictures 
becomes
> more communicative in a way that portraits never are. It tells us 
something
> about the person's life, and transcends just telling us what they look
> like, or what objects are in their environment.
>
> For sure, as you say, it's not easy to do, and the best work is done by
> masters. But this is the life blood of photojournalism. Which is where
> Leica Ms are the most desired camera around. (For those of us who aren't
> married to fill flash, but low-light candid photojournalism/documentary
> photography. Portraits are often static, easy to do compared to real life 
> documentary photography.
>
> Any "connection" to the person is an illusion anyway. Kind of like people 
> who look at pictures and move around the room and say "their eyes are
> following me." Of course they are, it's a two-dimensional picture. 
They're
> in a three-dimensional world. Photography's real strength is informing 
the
> viewer. Might as well get beyond surfaces and with the use of photos and
> words, inform people as much as possible.
>
> Maybe the message that started this topic isn't directly related to the
> direction I'm taking, though. If their goal is to do portraits where 
there
> is eye contact, and they are just too shy to approach the subject, then 
you
> are right. The picture will be strengthened by eye contact. Some times. I 
> don't think there is a formula, or principal that applies in all
> situations. I find some portraits, where they are looking off somewhere,
> are very powerful. That's for portraits. I wasn't talking about 
portraits.
> I'm talking about photos of people in the act of being themselves. That's 
> where eye contact kills the photo.
>
> Eric Welch
> St. Joseph, MO
> http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
>
> What is the probability that something will happen according to the odds?
>