RE: [Leica] I missed it.

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Bruce,

I agree with you that there is no systematic approach to the eye-contact 
issue, one way or the other.

That said, I find that our debates much too often concentrate on the 
relationship between subject and photographer, which is NOT the main issue 
IMHO. The main issue is the relationship between the picture and its 
viewers: that is where the picture justifies itself and comes to life. The 
photographer is an intermediate step between the subject and the viewer. 
The talented photographer is the one that carries the subject into  images 
that will seem relevant to the viewer. In the case of pictures of people 
(and animals as well), eye-contact is the easy, obvious, way of linking the 
subject to the viewer. There are also many other ways, that are much harder 
to use.

At the end of the day, to my eyes, pictures are often not "missed" because 
of bad focusing or bad exposure settings, but rather because they fail to 
connect the viewer to what is represented on the print. This very often 
happens with images of 'people going about their lives' (social 
photography, photojournalism, street photography, whatever you call them).

The pics you mention, and many others that have been mentionned in other 
threads, are successful because the photographer has found ways to 
establish that affective link between the subject(s) and the viewer. And 
then no one really cares if the image is 'razor sharp' or not. Pics lacking 
that link will systematically require an explicit caption in order to 
connect to the viewer, even if they are otherwise perfectly focused and 
perfectly exposed. Then, it is the combined talent of the editor and the 
'illustrator' that saves the day.

Every time I look at my pics, I wonder if they are in a position to relate 
to an unknown viewer. Generally they fail that test. Sometimes (very 
rarely) they pass. And that is a thrill even greater than looking through a 
Leica loupe at the contrast/resolution/tonalities of a 'technically 
correct' Velvia slide produced through a Summicron ASPH ;-)

Alan



On mercredi 31 mars 1999 17:05, Bruce Feldman [SMTP:brucef@waw.pdi.net] 
wrote:

>  I think that eye-contact, to the viewer, makes the photographer a 
conscious
> presence in the photograph.  Sometimes that "works," sometimes it 
doesn't.
> Leica-user Rodtchenko's famous "Portrait of My Mother" comes to mind (old
> woman with glasses; pimple on her brow picked up by polka dots on her hat
> and the circles of her granny glasses, remember?) where she's looking 
away
> from the photographer, would be distancing to the viewer if there were 
eye
> contact.  We would lose the leit-motiv of the photo.  Same with 
Rodtchenko's
> equally famous, "Girl With Leica" -- better known to LUG members as 
"Leica
> with Girl."  It would not be effective with eye contact because we would
> lose the primacy of the geometry; the light squares superimposed on the
> girl.  And, most importantly, it would upstage the Leica!
>
> One of the reasons I don't much like Diane Arbus' work is because of that
> "in your face" eye-contact, confrontational Sixties style.  But, if I 
recall
> correctly, August Sander the technique in a softer, more palatable way in
> some of his portraits.  To sum up, I don't think we can generalize about
> eye-contact; there are too many other important variables.
>
> Bruce Feldman
> Warsaw, Poland
>
>
>
>