RE: [Leica] Eye Contact

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

Eric,

"Odious" ? "Simple formula" ? You do have knee jerk reactions that are 
totally out of phase with what the posters you answer to have written. 
NOBODY here wrote that "eye contact makes better pictures".

Regarding the status of the photographer in my sentence, I maintain what I 
have written, and I extend that to the editor as well. What is important is 
the relationship between the viewer (or the reader) and the picture (or the 
story). I do not place the editor ABOVE the photographer. But I do make the 
distinction between photographic work and illustrative work. Some 
photographers are very capable suppliers of effective illustrations, but do 
not necessarily produce images that are going to survive the article they 
are linked with. Some people design great sketches and great caricatures, 
other people are great painters.

Regarding the "eye contact" thing, I maintain the following: 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. I 
have listed my views of those other ways in 2 previous posts, so I'll stop 
repeating myself here.

At the end of the day, I fully agree with your last paragraph hereunder. 
And certainly wish you read more than 1 paragraph of the posts you react 
against with so much anger.

Alan


On jeudi 1 avril 1999 15:43, Eric Welch [SMTP:ewelch@ponyexpress.net] 
wrote:
> 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 a  
bout
> 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.