Comments on: Eye Contact in Photography

By: david rann @fotofilia

david rann @fotofilia — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:51:20 +0000

I think psychologically we’re hard-wired to look at people who are looking at us – which is why advertisers use many images of eye-contact shots – If you’re sitting in a traffic jam, you can’t help but look at the billboard photo of the face looking at you. Also, we “read” people through their eyes, “windows to the soul” and all that. We instinctively want to know what other people are thinking and might be trying to communicate. Portraits without eye-contact have, I believe, inherently less impact than those that do.

By: Gbenga Loveeyes Images

Gbenga Loveeyes Images — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:57:40 +0000

Right Darren, You are very correct. Eye contact most times gives a feeling of synergy between the image and the photographer. It also depict the mood. Nice one .

By: Herve

Herve — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:14:27 +0000

Hello,

Eye contact is eye catching, definitely. But in my opinion eyes away tend to be more natural, intimate and somehow authentic. When shooting for fun (no particular expectation or foreseeable use of the pictures), I tend to do both. In a magazine, eye contacts are stronger on the cover or on the first page of a long interview. Then on the other pages, I think eyes away are more intimate and relevant.
There still is a particular case; (small) group shots. Is that situation, my preference is to have one person looking at the camera, and the other ones interacting between them; i.e. if i am shooting a woman and her husband, I often ask her to look at me, and ask him to look at her. Same for a family. It gives the ‘reader’ an opportunity to see how my subject interacts with others, rather than just have a clue on what they look like!

By: Stan

Stan — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:49:58 +0000

Re: Eye contact:

Sometimes I see portraits or especially ads where the person, usually a pretty woman, appears to be looking at me and I find those are attention-getting shots. Some of our kitty calendar images are like that and my wife and insist “the cat is looking at me!” We can be at either side of the calendar. Those are special images for us.

Stan

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:15:54 +0000

Like some others have said, usually it depends. When I’m photographing some kind of event with people talking or doing some kind of activity, I would rather they didn’t look directly at the camera, so It’s like the camera is more of an “observer”, and people can see what it is more really like, not just “Hey get together and look over here so I can take your picture”, if anybody knows what I mean.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 21:42:11 +0000

they say that the eye is the window of the soul, eye contact gives a more emotions on your subject. Great Job!

By: Trav

Trav — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:21:31 +0000

I also find that direct eyes contact often look too posed. For portraits of people, I generally prefer no eye contact, as the result generally gives off the feeling that the photographer, as an observer, has captured the subject’s mood, feeling, etc., (a slice of life, as Jackie put it) rather than interfering with it or “stealing” the model’s naturalness by pointing the lense in their direction.

On the other hand, good “chemistry” between the photographer and the model can make all the difference in the world. A model who feels comfortable will obviously look more natural, and good results may come from eye contact. From my experience, I’ve found that eye contact works best not only when there’s a fun, relaxed mood, but also when the subjects gives off an emotion, of any kind, strong enough to outweigh the fact that he/she is posing for a picture. Either way, it’s usually a good idea to try both. You never know when an apparently bland model might surprise you with a glimpse of intensity…

By: Jackie

Jackie — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:01:41 +0000

i love both eye contact and just being an observer. I am a headshot photographer for actors, so my clients always have to look into the lens, but sometimes I get a little *slice of life* from them w/out them knowing . I love them – they say something completely different about each client.

By: Stacey Debono

Stacey Debono — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 18:36:50 +0000

It’s funny….I always crack up when I see people post stuff like “ALWAYS” and “NEVER” when talking about our craft.

Rules are made for breaking…..they are put there as guidelines. Ive seen images that have been knock down gorgeous (and have made a LOT of money…I might add) that have not one shred of white in the eyes showing….the eyes are cast down. It can be very, very effective.

I ask my models very often to look away. Depends on the situation/time/place/lighting, etc. I agree wholeheartedly with Al Holliday – a lot of the times direct contact just looks too posed. But then again, direct contact can work too – depends on the situation.

Just my two cents.

By: Al Holliday

Al Holliday — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:40:38 +0000

In almost all cases, I HATE direct eye contact to the lens. I prefer a real candid approach, meaning eyes
off camera, but I do want to see the eyes. I do not want an overly posed setting,
which looking at the camera is overly
posed. It is also the easy way for the photographer, rather than seeking a situation in which
the subject is “normal.” I see many magazines in which the editor has asked for
direct eye contact with subjects, and in my opinion the value of the photo as showing personality
of the subject is destroyed, although it makes the job of the photographers easier. The exception is a studio head shot used for employment and formal occasions. I am the radical in my camera clubs.