Re: [Leica] I missed it.

["Gareth Jolly" <garethjolly@bigpond.com>]

>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 inclined to agree with the general proposition that eye contact detracts
from a documentary photograph.

But sometimes, eye contact adds an intensity to a photograph.  At other
times, it adds humour.  At times, a subtle reminder of the photographer's
presence.

In my experience, this has often been where one person in a crowd is aware
of, and looking directly at, the photographer - the remainder unaware.  For
example, Marc Riboud's shot of striking dock workers in 1954 - popularised
(in Australia anyway) on an ad for James Boag beer.

I took a shot of a group of moped riders in Rome last year.  I was using a
50mm lens.  They were stopped at the lights (unusual for Rome, I know).  As
I bolted my camera up to my eye, the central moped rider stared directly,
contemptuously at me, from behind his sunglasses.  The rest were oblivious.

I think it is his stare that makes the shot.

See what you think:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/garethjolly/front.htm

Feedback would be appreciated.

Regards
Gareth Jolly

What did his gaze say?




Most often



>
>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?
>