[Leica] Eye Contact

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 07:40 AM 4/1/99 +0200, you wrote:
>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.

Though the first part is true, the latter attitude is an odious example of 
where the publishing industry is today. Editors too often don't care about 
the photographers. They are interchangeable commodities. There isn't 
anything important in style of the photographer. The context of who the 
photographer is in terms of that person's ability to produce a body of work 
that moves the reader.

No, it's a simple formula, like eye contact makes better pictures. Or means 
a connection. That's too easy, too simple approach to reading photographs.

Too many editors and illustrators THINK they save photographers with 
creative caption writing. It's hogwash. For example, in Time this past 
week, on their web site, there was a picture of the streets in a city in 
Kosovo that was an obvious time exposure. The automobile lights were long 
streaks on the street. There were streaks of light in the sky. They were 
parallel with the curvature of the earth, so they obviously were stars. But 
the "creative" caption writer called them missile tracers. Yep, the editor 
sure saved that one.

And this is not uncommon. Look at the recent issues of LIFE magazine, or 
the new National Geographic Adventure magazine. Talk about a lack of 
respect by editors and illustrators for photos! They're "design" elements. 
That's the future of this industry in magazines.

It takes a very talented photographer to make pictures that move the 
reader. Either to laugh, cry, or do something to change the world. It has 
NOTHING to do with eye contact one way or the other. Each individual photo 
has to be judged on its own merit.

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

My computer's sick. I think my modem is a carrier.