| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/29/2002 10:24:23 AM · #1 |
I could have posted this as a comment on the picture, but I wasn't sure anyone would see it way down there at the bottom...;-)
Anyway, as you may have known or guessed, this photo was a self-portrait. So if you think I'm objective at all about this, you're way off.
I realize the texture aspect may have been tangential, instead of being the central element in the picture. I chose to submit it anyway and take the low scores because I (and everyone who knows me that I showed the photo to) really loved it and thought it was very expressive.
But really the purpose of this post is to sort of 'answer' some of the comments I received.
Background
The most frequent comment I got is about the 'blown out', 'overexposed', 'too bright' left side. Well, it's actually not overexposed. It's a white wall...that's the color it is. You can still see the texture, so it's really not blown out. It's really just that the other side is in shadow from the window light fading out. In my estimation it's a teeny bit too bright. I've corrected it slightly in photoshop using an illegal spot edit in my own personal version. But, the reason I chose that lighting is because I thought it emphasized the corner-ness of the photo. A flat background wouldn't have had nearly as much expressive quality as the gradient. I think it gives a much more three dimensional effect than an even toned background. And I know, cause I've tried it :-)
Negative Space
As you probably know by now, I really think that negative space is an interesting photographic tool that's not used too often on this site. But, it has to have a purpose. In this photograph, it seemed as if the purpose was obvious. The subject (me) is hiding inside a big sweater. The title is 'shy'. She's in a shadow, yet looking out and observing. I chose to have the empty space towards the window, towards the light to provide a sense to the viewer that the subject was somewhat isolated. I'm not sure what better way there would be to emphasize isolation other than empty space.
Black and white
This was less of a clear cut decision for me. I had a few people suggest it and a few that liked the B&W version better. It sort of came down to the fact that I liked the sort of desaturated muted colors in the color version. I could probably justify that as an artistic decision somehow, but really at this point, I think I just liked it better :-)
In any case, I do realize this sort of explanation is somewhat pointless and may be considered whiney. But really, I just really like the picture and want everyone to understand as much as possible.
If anyone is interested in discussing this photograph in light of my explanation here, I'd be absolutely thrilled. Especially those who didn't find anything particularly striking about it.
High resolution spot edited image |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 12:58:30 PM · #2 |
I didn't comment at all this week. I'm finding it difficult to do now that a huge chunk of my time is being spent stage managing a play.
So, let me take a few moments here.
I dug this. The negative space works (but then I like to use it too). I do like the touched up version a little bit better cause it adds a bit more visually to the photo that I think was missing in your submission. The gradient is very cool. If people have problems with texture in this photo -- good grief. Between the wall and the sweater, what more could they want? The title, in conjunction with the slightly out of frame subject really work well together (as does your pose).
The comment I would have made would be the lighting on the left side of your face (right as you look at the image). Totally a personal preference thing but it seems to be either too dark, or not dark enough. I think keeping it dark is important to the photo (adding to the hidden quality), but it bothers me that I can _just_ make out that side.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 01:09:17 PM · #3 |
Coming from personal experience: I think that sometimes it is hard for people to "think out of the box".... I was one that said I don't understand Negative Space photos, but I still scored it high because I thought it was well done.
I took art in college, and my parents were influential, but that doesn't mean I know everything about art (who does?). Even if I did, I may perceive things differently - all a matter of taste.
Regarding it "not being texture", well, I agree with Patella.
I'm glad you brought this up though, Kim, because I did want to begin a discussion on this style of photography, but didn't before now because I didn't want to in any way influence the voting, as there have been submissions using this. I haven't yet perused the new entries, so forgive me if this is starting a bad thread. So, if you and/or others are game.....
What about Negative Space Photography?
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 01:14:32 PM · #4 |
Kimbly..it''s perfect...If you change it anymore I will hunt you down and kill you :-P
"Imperfections" (if that is what you want to call them) give character to a photo.
It''s so funny. We will allow established photographers all the leeway in the world to have little blemishes or "artistic" quirks in their photos in order to take us on a journey. But in amatuer stuff we analyze stuff to the point of dehumanizing things.
Reminds me of people commenting on Bob Dylan and his nasal singing or the quirky way Joni Mitchell sings in the rising and falling poetic way.
You think people like that have a chance to make it nowadays? Maybe the occasional Dave Matthews. But much rarer for sure.
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/29/2002 1:15:46 PM. |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 01:20:07 PM · #5 |
You're right, Hokie. As a global society, I think there is this pursuit for "perfection" - even at the cost of reality and art, etc.
Does "perfection" then make it perfect? Or does it make it artificial?
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 01:24:03 PM · #6 |
OK, I'm a nitpicker on this site -- and I do it intentionally. I'm harder on some of my top scorers than I am on bottom scorers precisely to push that extra little bit on people that I think are doing exceptionally well.
I point out "flaws" to give photographers something to think about the next time they shoot and help them be, perhaps, that nth degree better.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 01:27:24 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
You're right, Hokie. As a global society, I think there is this pursuit for "perfection" - even at the cost of reality and art, etc.
Does "perfection" then make it perfect? Or does it make it artificial?
I don't know what is perfect in the absolute sense.
I know if something appeals to me or it doesn't. I know generally if say..a photo..is generally out of focus or a little dark or bright tomy eyes. But I can't claim absolute certainty if the effect was intentional or not. Just if it appeals to me.
But proclamations by other amatuers of absolute certainty with extreme prejudice (scores of 1,2 or 3 especially) scare me a bit.
As much of a curmudgeon as I admit to being these folks are worse than me :-)
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 01:44:43 PM · #8 |
So... going back....
What about this Negative Space issue.. I am genuinely interested.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 01:51:16 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
So... going back....
What about this Negative Space issue.. I am genuinely interested.
I have a question of negative space.
Is the space still considered "negative space" if it is void of any detail or is it simply negative space if the subject is pushed into an extreme offcenter locations?
Like Kimbly''s shot is classic negative space.
But what about Dry or Crucifixion?
Does their use of more detail to the surrounding elements take them out of the negative space genre?
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/29/2002 1:53:19 PM. |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 02:04:37 PM · #10 |
Good question. I didn''t look at "Dry" as being negative space. I, in my not even enough to be limited, knowledge of this concept, thought it would be more like Ocean Echo, or Kim''s, or even Peekaboo. But my question is (among others)... what is the history of this? What is the impact the artist is looking for? I saw what Kim was aiming for with "Shy", and maybe can even see what Chariot was aiming for in his, but....
* This message has been edited by the author on 7/29/2002 2:05:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 02:10:05 PM · #11 |
Technically, negative space is any space not filled by positive space. Clear as mud, right?
A good long article about it can be found here.
Those of us who have been using negative space as a major compositional element (we all pretty much use negative space in its most technical sense) tend to do it to balance a subject that is pushed far to one edge of the frame (like in Kimbly's "Shy") or to emphasize some emotion (loneliness in Arnit's "Disappointment") or for some other reason.
Overall, I think the article above is the best thing to read -- and then figure out how it applies to large areas. :-)
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 02:12:20 PM · #12 |
I guess I would consider the 'negative space' as the empty space whose purpose is to place an object in a specific part of a frame.
With the crucifixion photo, I think the depth of field is used primarily to put emphasis on a specific part of the image (the cross). Rather than placing the object, it's more of a leader or another element of the photo. The color of the cross also serves to draw your eye towards it.
They're both framing techniques, but subtely different. I dunno whether they're both 'negative space', but I don't think the definition of it really matters :-) |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 02:18:40 PM · #13 |
there are differeing degrees of negative
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 02:18:49 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Patella:
Technically, negative space is any space not filled by positive space. Clear as mud, right?
A good long article about it can be found here.
...Overall, I think the article above is the best thing to read -- and then figure out how it applies to large areas. :-)
ABSOLUTE MUST READING!!
Thanks Jeff for the link.
We need this posted in the how to section.
So many things we talk about here every week are covered in this article.
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 02:19:43 PM · #15 |
Actually, Patella, I had read this article last week. I was looking for some explaination/information on the uses when I happened upon it. Was a good article, but of course it doesn't talk about the extremes.
So, what you are saying maybe is that the artist/photographer uses it for a specific impact, and, if done well, will successfully lead your eye to the "Wow", and that there are no actual rules to it or history... more of (again) "thinking out of the box" pursuit?
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 02:25:25 PM · #16 |
Discussions like these are my favorite around here :-)
My photo this week is using some techniques like this but in a non-traditional, weird way.
It's weeks like this that I find myself wishing I could write all the story behind the photo stuff >:-/ SCREW THE SCORING, LETS TALK PHOTOGRAPHY!!!! |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 03:16:02 PM · #17 |
I think Negative space is an asset when well used (and I think Kimbly's "Shy" CERTAINLY used it well)... For those that vote down negative space wherever they see it, please look here... Would you mark this down?
I'll stick my head on the chopping block here by suggesting we need a challange for "Negative Space"... I'd like to see this and other 'rules' put to rest before we have a bunch of voters with rulers commenting, "Sorry, you missed the rule of thirds by almost an 1/8th of an inch ~ 1 ~ cluelessvoter" |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 03:20:45 PM · #18 |
I posted in another thread about the Martin Scorsese movie "The Last Waltz". A lot of the footage was shot with negative space being used.
The funny part when watching it? You could see the camera guys GOING for the negative space shot.
You would see a camera angle switch and see the camera person actually slowly shift from a center to a negative space shot..like he was reminding himself "O.K...I learned that negative space is good" |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 05:18:48 PM · #19 |
Myqyl: Again, I am not up on Negative Space, but in the example you give I consider the light beams part of the composition. Am I off?
Well, I may have been one of those "clueless voters" before... this is why I am trying to learn about it as I see more of that format used.
I wouldn't mind having a negative space challenge either. It may teach me and others more about perception, and other ways of capturing emotion or whatever.
Hokie: I have yet to find that movie! ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 05:21:39 PM · #20 |
wow.. what a cool concept.. a negative space challenge... hmm... go suggest that in the 'challenge suggestions' forum... that would be big fun i think :)
|
|
|
|
07/29/2002 05:26:15 PM · #21 |
it's not rocket science. .
all negative space is is "breathing room" around the elements in a composition.
some people like more of it than others. some people even have more of
a tolerance for it than others.
but there are no hard and fast rules that determine the right amount or kind of neg space. . But one's tolerance for it can be built up and acquired, just as a tolerance and even like for things like atonal music, beer, and coffee can be .. :-D
often people who don't like it in a particular instance, however, feel like the composition is missing something or unbalanced. |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 05:26:38 PM · #22 |
Hey Karen..
The Last Waltz was filmed back in 1976 so it may be hard to find. I just found it 2 weeks ago while my wife and I were perusing the the latest DVD releases.
I bought it on DVD because I love concert DVD stuff. At about 2 hours, the incredible historical significance, the incredible live music and with all the other cool add ons it is worth the price. |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 05:35:14 PM · #23 |
it is hard to find. i tried blockbuster this weekend and they told me to get lost ... : (
<sniff> |
|
|
|
07/29/2002 05:56:24 PM · #24 |
Try Best Buy.
I bought mine there as they have the best prices on DVD and Concert DVD. |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 07:16:28 AM · #25 |
Kimbly,
I scored your "shy" as an 8. I really liked it - the concept and the execution. Especially the fact that it was submitted for the "texture" challenge. While I'm happy to see plenty of conventional texture pictures I would be disappointed if there weren't a few, more creative texture shots - like yours.
Anyway, my personal preference is for a picture to "pop" off the page at me. I like it to grab my attention and hold it. That tends to mean I like strong contrasts and colours and especially sharp focus. Your picture was a little flat in colour for my taste but I understand that it was one of the features that appealed to you.
> This was less of a clear cut decision for me. I had a few people
> suggest it and a few that liked the B&W version better. It sort of
> came down to the fact that I liked the sort of desaturated muted
> colors in the color version. I could probably justify that as an
> artistic decision somehow, but really at this point, I think I just
> liked it better :-)
There is room in photography for asthetics as well as artistry. In my option a good picture employs both. It's fine just to say that "I liked the desaturated colours" and leave it at that.
Regarding your spot edited version - It nicely removed that bright spot on the left of the submitted version. But it's made that diagonal crease/scratch in the wall much more prominent. I find myself looking at that almost as much as at you. That didn't happen in the submitted version.
Also regarding the composition and use of negative space - Personally I love it. When used well negative space makes a picture tell a story or set a tone - you achieved that here. But since the light is coming from the left and the shy subject is peering out from her shadow - shouldn't she be looking towards the light?
John
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 03:30:33 AM EDT.
