Photography and Psychoanalysis

The frequent assumptions of what is felt when looking at a photograph that lie behind Barthes' assertions in Camera Lucida are an inherent result of his extremely personal approach to discovering the essence of photography. As someone who is likewise arrested by photographic images, I can honestly say that all of his descriptions rang true to me. However, it still boggles me how photography and film could be so different, since they are in many ways the most similar of the plastic arts. In fact, the very element that makes them most similar (the capture of images on film with a camera) seems to be what creates the most striking difference between them. How can the lens be the defining mediator between the spectator and the image in film, but seems to be almost ignorable in photography? Photography seems to be exempt, for Barthes, from the idea of "the look". I think the answer might have something to do with psychoanalysis, and the similarity in the narrative structure of both film and psychoanalytic scenarios. The narrative structure of film, as opposed to the isolated moment of the photographic image, allies the viewer with the narrative structure of psychoanalysis through the mediation of the lens. In this way, the film lens becomes important as the mechanism for the look, a look which, by being part of a narrative structure, becomes allied with psychoanalysis. Does photography then exist outside the realm of psychoanalysis?