twmeyer Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 <i>"I suddenly realized that when I photograph people I don't anymore want them to look at me. (I used nearly always to wait for them to look me in the eye but now it's as if I think I will see them more clearly if they are not watching me watching them.)"</i> Letter (from Diane Arbus) to her daughter Amy, summer 1967.<p>This is tangential to an exchange in another thread here at PPF, regarding prettied up portraits vs images that emphasised less superficial issues. It also unleashed this "stream of conciousness" blathering. See what you get out of it.<p>In conversation, the greatest insights into a person's actual attitude frequently come when that person looks away from you and reacts with a fleeting facial expression. I believe these expressions can be either intentionally made with the full knowledge that they will be observed, but can, upon confrontation, be dismissed as a mistaken or imagined observation. A sort of visual sarcasm. Or they are detected as a "tell" from which a careful observer can perceive the true feelings of a reluctant conversationalist. <p>If these fleeting micro expressions are recorded on film, any denial becomes less potent and interpretation is then turned over to the imagination of the observer (since the subject has compromised credibility and relinquished control). <p>It becomes even more complex when that observation is removed from the stream of experience that makes up a "real time" conversation and is isolated in a photograph seen by third parties not privy to the whole experience. A visual "quote out of context" becomes possible and the photographer's intengrity and intentions can then become even more significant than the subject's expression. <p>A point of departure and decision arrives and the image can become many things; a straight document, a piercing insight, an editorial comment, a metaphorical symbol, or a blatant lie... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Interesting question Tom. I thought I usually photographed people looking at me, but going over my photos, discovered that frequently I do shoot at the in-between moment when they are looking away.<p> I think I would agree that there are very different "feelings" in these two situations, and that there is a very different emotional reaction from the viewer. Maybe it's easier to look at a few examples. I put together several pages that compare images (not of the same person, although I could probably find some negs and scan them to do a direct comparison) of a person looking at the camera and a person looking away. You can be the judge...<p> <center> <a href="http://www.spirer.com/duo.htm">First Comparison</a><br> <a href="http://www.spirer.com/duo1.htm">Second Comparison</a><br> <a href="http://www.spirer.com/duo2.htm">Third Comparison</a><br> </center> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 you guys make my head hurt thinking about this stuff so deeply ;o) my general tendancy, as the photographer, is to shoot the person when i see something interesting going on with their face (or hands for that matter)....regardless of them looking at or away. Now, having said that, and having giving the present situation (not really sure i see a question here...but rather, more, a discussion starter) some thought. I think the looking at the photographer, the seeing of the inner soul, shall we say, thru the eyes is probably one of the most fleeting moments that one could ever capture........even face to face, it is more of a sense of emotional stimulii, more so than actually seeing it. The rest of the face would have to be mimicing the eyes revalation very closely to have it come out on film. And maybe this is what Arbus was starting to notice happening in her photographs (not quite catching the same thing she saw). That, afterward thing, the looking away.........judging strictly by what runs thru my head when i see something eye to eye, and then look away.........seems to last longer, and seems to have more of a concious level of thought (on the part of the subject), and probably has more time duration and intensity in the facial expressions than that deep inner soul thing. I mean, when i'm thinking about something that just happened, I'm locked in that moment for what seems like an eternity................and although having never seen myself during that time, but having seen others during it, i can understand how it is probably slightly easier to get "it" to film. That what you, as the photographer, is seeing/sensing is more readily transferable to a visual medium, because more of "it" is seen, than just sort of "felt". As i said, earlier, or at least implied, this is the first time i actually even thought about this...............but, forgiving my total lack of ability with the written "art" form.............it's pretty close to what i think... ...although, you will have me thinking about this one for days now. Wonder what it's gonna do to me the first time i confront someone with a camera...................hmmmmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 jeeze...i dont think about any of this stuff at all....should i? <p> what drives me to snap a certain picture, im learning to question less and less. after a while i hope never to question it or doubt it, and just do it, just as i dont question my breathing.... <p> its something that needs to be done, or i die....(both shooting and breathing that is....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted September 16, 2003 Author Share Posted September 16, 2003 Yeah, Grant, I can definately relate to that... "just do it, just as i dont question my breathing...."<p> The cerebral crap I was contemplating up top is only done after the fact, if that stuff dominates your concious mind while you're looking through the finder, you'll just second guess yourself into a inner stalemate, frozen on the shutter release. <p>This all starts with post production editing, which is also a very creative process, and an important extention/component of the creative photographic effort. But even this conscious editing eventually will work it's way into your unconscious methodology, like any technical consideration made during the photographing that will be essential for good processing of film or digital files in order to get your vision on the page... do ya think?... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 i suck at editing, guess thats why i just keep shooting.... <p> :D <p> once the camera is down and away, i sometimes think about it all. thought can be fuel for the intuition i s'pose.....fill up the mind, then hit the gas and let it ride.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henk Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Tom, A freudian analysis of visual communication? Well i do know eyecontact with strangers is usually for showing someone your interested in them. I always try to confuse and lengthen the act of visually communicating, and consequently feel like Diane Arbus when i cant maintain enough distance to keep the act strictly visual. I also tend to study someone i find interesting before making eyecontact. Somehow i like those images better because i am less actively involved. In all this acting and play everything is possible, i like it that way.... BTW i think Mike Dixon also works on this level, i hope he will add to this discussion. I think this is the essence of people photography, stream on.... Greetings, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Snagging eye contact while shooting candids with a digicam is a hit or miss proposition for me. Having even a little eye contact many times compensates for other weaknesses in the print. Of course none of this applies where the lack of contact, as in Jeff's photos above, is intentional for artistic purposes. With respect to personal relationships, eye contact (for me) is an indictor of honesty and trust, and almost always, the lack of it sure raises suspicion and notions of deception. It's interesting that the lack of intentional eye contact in photos through bad timing doesn't conjure those same negative feelings... I think a lot of this may be cultural as well. When dealing with US customers at work, I unconsciously always make strong eye contact across a meeting table. Some cultures, I've been told view this as aggressive behavior and impolite - so I try to keep that in check when hosting visitors from overseas - but it's difficult not to do. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 glad you mentioned the cultural thing about eye contact brad...from what ive heard the japanese culture doesnt see eye contact as a necessarily good thing....maybe its different today, i dont know....also, there many different forms of eye contact. its whats behind the eye that seems to count, if the ever comes through at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m_johnson Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 Like TS, I've never really pondered this much, other than usually being pleased when some eye contact is captured. But I suppose in the end it depends on the photo and what's being captured.<P> I'm certain <a href=http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/WebImages/8-30-03NYCWeb/image/ny-prada.jpg>this photo</a> would not work as well if the woman was looking to the side. Her direct head-on look exudes confidence and there's no-doubt she carries herself well in life. On the other hand, what's captured in <a href=http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/WebImages/8-30-03NYCWeb/image/ny-siamese1.jpg>this photo</a> is a moment the two women are sharing - coupled with the curious sign and standpipe. No eye contact necessary here, IMO. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_diaz Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 For me, a portrait is often largely about the relationship between the subject and the viewer, which, when shooting, means that it depends on the relationship between the subject and the photographer. This relationship can range from one of intense intimacy to completely impersonal voyeurism.<p> Two of my favorite portraits by Philippe Halsman show this range of relationships. The first is of <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues99/jan99/halsman2.html">Albert Einstein,</a> taken when he was talking about his despair that his work had made the atomic bomb possible. <P> The second is of <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues99/jan99/halsman10.html">Winston Churchill,</a> who was being uncoopoerative and refused to face the camera.<P> I think that those fleeting facial (and bodily) expressions made when a person looks away are just as important as the fleeting expressions when a person looks at you (or the camera). Either way, it exhibits a powerful emotion, which is why we shoot people in the first place. A really talented portrait photographer can not only anticipate these moments and capture them, but he or she can also create them in a subject with more frequency than a less talented photographer.<P> Of course I'm overgeneralizing about photographers; I'm mostly talking about what I would like to become, so please take these statements with a grain of salt. Thanks. BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted September 17, 2003 Author Share Posted September 17, 2003 I think you're right, Brian. It's informative for us, as photographers, to read about and see the techniques employed by other photographers, and to objectively inspect our own processes, attitudes and techniques. These are not seperate issues, but integral components of the creative life. You're attitude toward life is reflected in the work you do. Karsh, Avedon, Leibowitz, Arbus, and all great stylists of portrait photography have particular characteristics that form the nature of their work, how their subjects are perceived, and how we (as photographers) feel about them.<p>Watching different wedding photographers is an incredible exercise in human capacity. Their success and failure is so dependant on their ability to read a person (or an entire family!), quickly, and help them rise to an occassion that will stick with them for years, and even generations. These same interpersonal skills are employed by Jeff when he's on the street, by Mike when he's in a club and by <i>every</i> photographer of people. Their ablility to intuit what will work and what won't, in order to get what they want from a particular subject/setting, is critical to the successful photograph.<p>So yes, Henk, it's psychology going in and psychology coming out... at the moments leading up to and in the instant of shutter release, and then when your edit decides which image (if any!) hits your mark. In the photographer, the subject and the viewing audience, psychology is what "people photography" is all about... t<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkantor Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 They are not looking at you; they are looking at a camera lens. But the more important point is that they are making eye contact with the viewer, and the photographer is no longer in the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted September 17, 2003 Author Share Posted September 17, 2003 Sure John, I suppose your camera operates all by itself. Your position would be correct if the camera lens opens the door and welcomes them into it's studio, if your camera lens shows up at the wedding carrying $7000.00 worth of his little equipment buddies, if the camera lens tells them where to look and how to sit. <p> Tell me, really, do you expect that everyone you photograph believes that you disappear every time a camera lens interjects itself in front of your face? That they actually forget that a human being (that they were just talking to a second ago) is no longer in their presence? That they have the intellectual and emotional capacity and spiritual unawareness to completely forget you exist while the lens makes it's picture? And then they write <i>you</i> a check, because "that wonderful camera lens did such a great job!"? Does the photo editor at "Schmoville Magazine" look at the pictures you deliver and say, "Man, that lens really knows how to get the most from a model!".<p>It is now, I thought, well known that that observation alters behaviour, even in things that are unaware they are being observed (including, but not limited to chemical processes, particle physics, puppy dogs and policemen). <p>Perhaps your photography takes place in an alternate universe... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_diaz Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 I don't think that the photographer can be removed from the equation. In a sense, during the shoot the photographer has to be the advocate for the viewer of the photo that does not yet exist. In my earlier example, Albert Einstein was not looking at the camera; he was sharing a moment with Halsman, who was at the time also using a camera. The moment would have happened without the camera, but it would not have happened without Halsman. One of the major challenges for the photographer in cases like this is to get the subject to virtually forget that the camera exists. It's ironic, but the camera is possibly the greatest obstacle to fine portrait photography. On a related matter, I suppose that one of the reasons I really like TRLs over SLRs for portraits is that you don't need to cover your face with the camera, so less attention is paid to some machine and more is paid to a human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 <i>They are not looking at you; they are looking at a camera lens. But the more important point is that they are making eye contact with the viewer, and the photographer is no longer in the equation.</i><p> I will have to add to Tom's commentary on this, I can't think of anything farther from what really happens (supporting Tom's alternate universe theory here.)<P> If it were true, it would be easy to replicate Avedon's work, for example, by putting up a big white backdrop, hiring his assistants, stealing his camera, telling the subject to look at the camera, and BOOM! an Avedon portrait!<p> But we know it doesn't work that way. If you watch the Avedon DVD (originally a PBS program), and this DVD is a good reason to use Avedon as an example, you see Avedon's non-stop interaction with the subject while shooting. The subject is communicating directly the photographer, and the photographer is communicating directly with the viewer.<p> My own case isn't as interesting - after all, you can't go to a gallery or museum and see how I show this - but I interact constantly with my subjects. Very differently than Avedon, but I'm looking for something different in mine. The expressions I get (whether with direct eye contact or not) are the result of my prodding in certain directions, not in terms of pose, but in what the subject is conveying. The viewer gets my view of the subjects, not a view of the subjects.<p> Making this even a bit more direct, I usually try not to have the camera between me and the subject when shooting. If it's on a tripod, I usually frame and then stand next to the tripod and shoot while interacting. With a digicam, I use the screen so I can hold it down or in front but not directly in front, so I can maintain contact with the subjects.<p> On top of all that, I'm really not interested in what the subjects want to say to the viewer. If that's the purpose for a portrait, they can take it themselves. I'm willing to bet it will look nothing like what I take. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sidlo Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 This doesn't address your point directly, but I think it is sufficiently related to mention: When photographing on the street sometimes I look at people directly, and sometimes I don't. In <a href=http://www.johnsidlo.com/images/SuspiciousCouplesm.jpg>this (otherwise unremarkable) example</a> I remember looking at this couple who both were not looking directly at me, but past me down the sidewalk. I diverted my eyes from them, and simultaneously slightly turned the camera toward them (hanging on the strap around my neck) and a step or so later, took their picture. I was surprised to see them looking directly back at me. It is possible they noticed the twist of the camera in their direction, but I doubt it. I think they waited for me to look away, and then both simultaneously checked ME out, in a manner similarl to my own surreptitious snap. Maybe this is a New England thing - the averted eyes to a direct glance - but I've noticed often after I took this picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 i think a good portrait is a photograph of the relationship, or space, between the photographer and sitter, and has less to do with the actualities presented. being able to see beyond matter and form, is the art, and is what its all about in my mind. without that essence all you got is a piece of film, or in an increasingly number of peoples cases, a buncha bits and bytes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_. Posted September 17, 2003 Share Posted September 17, 2003 that comment is for portraits, or what i consider a portrait. <p> street photography mind you, is a whole other situation, where the photographer may or may not be directly invloved with the people in the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkantor Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 "The subject is communicating directly the photographer, and the photographer is communicating directly with the viewer." As you said, the subject is "interacting" with the photographer. (I didn't say no interacting; I said no eye contact.) But after the image is made, the photographer is out of the equation - and from the viewer's perspective, they are interacting simultaneously (and problematically) with two things: the subject of the picture and the work of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 As I pointed out, I don't put the camera between me and the subject, the eye contact is with me. You don't seem to want to hear this. Beyond that, what people see in the image is not the subject, but my view of the subject. I've had people I've photographed declare that what is in the photo is not them, which is true. It's me, it's my vision of them, which often has nothing to do with who they are or how they see themselves. Give two photographers the same subject and the results will probably be completely different, reflecting that the fundamental interaction is between the photographer and the viewer. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 I agree the most(who cares???)with John Kantor, "the photographer is no longer in the equation". Of course,there are exceptions, like when the subject is not just somebody on the street/in your studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 <i><<Does the photo editor at "Schmoville Magazine" look at the pictures you deliver and say, "Man, that lens really knows how to get the most from a model!".>></i> <br>Nope, tom, the editor probably does not, but everyday people tend to do so. You might have different experience with this, tho'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted September 18, 2003 Share Posted September 18, 2003 <i>"On a related matter, I suppose that one of the reasons I really like TRLs over SLRs for portraits is that you don't need to cover your face with the camera, so less attention is paid to some machine and more is paid to a human being."</i> <br>A propos, TLR, Brian, do you tell the model to look at you while using the TLR, or to look into your camera lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now