Techniques Exploration Group: Negative Space

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

08/29/2006 12:48:41 AM · #1

This is the opening post for the Techniques Exploration Group, looking this time at negative space. This is the third technique we've looked at; the others were high contrast B&W and painting with light.

We'll start another technique on Sunday, September 17, 2006, but this can continue as long as people are interested.

Check out the first post of High Contrast B&W for details on the concept and how to participate.

Message edited by author 2006-09-11 02:08:28.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

09/04/2006 10:41:59 PM · #2

Okay, we're one week into negative space, and no one's posted anything. Hmm.

Maybe this techniques thing wasn't as interesting as it first seemed?

Once I get past tomorrow night, I'll post a few of my own shots and explain why I did what I did with negative space.

Nuzzer

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/04/2006 10:50:55 PM · #3

By negative space do you mean a large amount of space in the picture that is not used by the main element? Like this?

_eug

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/04/2006 11:14:25 PM · #4

I missed this post. I think the techniques thread needs discussion to make it valuable. Since Concept, How It'll Work, How to Participate are the same for every week it makes 75% of the first post in a thread redundant.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/04/2006 11:47:07 PM · #5

I have been on holidays (vacation) for a month and missed all this - Great idea to revive some of these.

I have been playing around with this a bit and trying to avoid doing it in post. I would love any comments on these anybody has and maybe they can start this discussion a little.

This was mostly because I had WAY too much space between me and the person jumping so figured I would try and include some of the interesting sky pattern and I like the effect in some ways. On the other hand it might just be a speck in the sky :-)

This was deliberate with the empty space on the left - the fact that I didn't get the focus correct was not so deliberate!!. I have seen people balance the flash and background and I love the effect but as you can see, I am a fair way from getting the hang of this technique (I digress - maybe this is another topic to add?).

This one has a bit of negative space but is clouded by the tails running into the space on the left. I liked the effect of this but I think that has more to do with the patterns rather than the negative space.

Not sure if this one qualifies but I was trying to include a lot more foreground (I got a new wide angle just before this trip). The kid is almost in the middle of the image but to me, it seems to appear to have a large chunk of space in the foreground.

Anyway, Maybe somebody finds some of this interesting (or not) but I will try to get some reading in and coment on others posts as they appear.

P.S. - My main machine is dead until Thursday (am using an old laptop - a pain to edit stuff on believe me!) when the little brown truck delivers a replacement PSU, so if I don't reply straight away I am not necessarily ignoring any replies :-)

Message edited by author 2006-09-04 23:48:00.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

09/05/2006 12:16:06 AM · #6

Originally posted by Nuzzer:

By negative space do you mean a large amount of space in the picture that is not used by the main element? Like this?

Bingo!

Or like these from my portfolio. Since I haven't managed to leave the computer, I'll go ahead and discuss why I left so much negative space in each.

This ferry was coming into the dock before we left. Although it's a large ship capable of holding hundreds of cars and thousands of people, it seemed small compared to the vast whiteness of the fog. Hence the framing. A secondary "message," if you will, was the feeling of mystery and a little nervousness of going out on the water when you can't see where you're going.

In this, my Zen entry, I was trying to convey a sense of calm. The large green space was to give your eye very little to latch onto, so your mind wouldn't be in a whirl. The single frog was intended to push you into the blankness. Probably didn't work that way, but that's what I was tyring to do. :)

Originally posted by _eug:

Yep, you're right, Eug. I'm just trying to avoid people asking the same questions each time. Maybe I should just refer people to the opening thread for one of the earlier ones?

Edited to say I edited the first post, and I'll use the same short format from here on out.

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 00:52:15.

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/05/2006 12:40:27 AM · #7

How's this?

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

09/05/2006 12:51:37 AM · #8

Originally posted by eschelar:

How's this?

So wonderful it's my latest favorite. :) The black space there absolutely made the shot connect to the title on several levels, all of them clever.

Qart

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/05/2006 01:08:35 AM · #9

I love negative space and incorporate it into my images regularily. I have alot of admiration for those who can effectively compose a 'busy' image but to me, often a strong subject needs no supporting cast... :)

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/05/2006 10:01:15 PM · #10

Originally posted by levyj413:

This is a great example of negative space. It seems natural that the "frog" would move toward the space - like it's soft of down hill.

Originally posted by eschelar:

I like this but I think there are other elements at play with the strong colour choices and the truncation. The truncation seems to add a sneaky quality that seems to add a life-like quality (there is a word for that but it's been too long since my english classes:).

Is it possible that negative space helps calm an image but there is something else necessary to make a great image - like a colour contrast or something??

Jaded_Housewife

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/05/2006 10:04:22 PM · #11

i was told TOO much negative space for this one a few times. its tricky to know how much is too much. is it best to have alot only when your subject is moving into/towards it and not when you have stationary items just sitting there like mine?

whoops would help if i added the pic. lol

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 22:04:40.

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/06/2006 01:21:39 AM · #12

By means of definition, perhaps we could have someone who is more versed in such matters than myself comment on the use of the term "Negative Space" vs the simple use of a plain background.

In my shot with Tweety, I was specifically using negative space for mood. It was an actual element of the photo.

In the examples of the frog, dog and ferry, likewise.

To my inexperienced eye, around half of the pics in this thread do not match my definition of 'negative space images'.

May I make a stab at it? Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about can correct me. I'm just making these definitions up based on observations. Others, please don't take offense, this is about learning.

Negative space is an area with low detail and smooth graduations, or gentle regular patterns (as in water, a field, or a nondescript sky). The aspect of it being negative indicates that it plays a role opposite to the primary subject.

Would it be fair to say that an area that is just empty space that does not specifically play opposites to the subject would basically be just empty space? or perhaps areas of low detail? background...

A picture with a strong element of Negative space would comprise of a large amount of empty/negative space when compared to the primary subject.

It can be used as an element of contrast in either theme, concept or color.

It can also be used as an complementary element in either theme, concept or color to provide a link to a contrst in theme, or concept.

I think of the frog, which is a good example of a complementary color which highlights a contrast in the nature of the dead green space and the living frog... I also think of one of JJBeguin's shots where there was a visually busy image of people walking around as a sea of unimportant faces, but with a single face staring starkly out of the crowd at the camera. Complementary themes and colors, but a stark contrast in concept.

How's that?

Message edited by author 2006-09-06 01:24:26.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

09/06/2006 02:20:12 AM · #13

I like your thoughts, eschelar. I was thinking something similar as I tried to put into words why I agree that I'd like to see less white background in jaded_youth's shot, while simultaneously explaining why I liked my frog shot.

Lemme try this. I think it sums up how I compose my shots, too. Who knows? If I get this sort of right, I might actually have learned something. :)

I think "negative space" just means anything other than the main subject. But when to use a little vs. a lot is the question we're exploring in this thread.

In a shot where a great deal of detail in the main subject is important, or where the mood is 100% coming from the main subject, I tend to frame tightly in the camera or crop tightly afterward.

Examples:

But when I'm trying to contrast the subject off with a background, or I want to show some context, I back up a bit:

And then, when I really want to enhance the mood by making the subject small, esp. a mood of isolation or calmness, I go with a large amount of negative space, like in the pics I posted earlier.

Another reason would be to show where an active subject is headed next (the old "get the subject moving into the frame" rule). I usually agree, although I have one picture of my daughter where the fact she's nearly out of the frame conveys speed pretty well, at least to me.

Edited to get each set of photos on one line so this isn't a mile-long post.

Message edited by author 2006-09-06 13:13:21.

dr rick

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/06/2006 04:04:21 PM · #14

Negative space is an important element in most every photograph. Indeed, in most every artwork. If you take a class in drawing or painting, you will certainly hear a lot about negative space and its importance. Unfortunately, it seems to be widely overlooked in photography, although paying attention to it will certainly improve composition.

Certainly negative space can play a leading role, which is what eschelar alludes to in his post. But it is important even when it isn't emphasized. It serves two major functions: creating balance and defining shapes.

Negative space is important to add balance to photos. Too much negative space will make the subject seem isolated; too little will make it crowded. Negative space in the wrong place will make the photo seem lopsided. Like any composition rule, breaking it is appropriate when that has a purpose (like levyj413's frog, which also breaks the rule against putting the subject next to the edge, but works very well).

Here's a photo I took a few weeks ago:

It isn't really about the ice, but the swirls in the water. Crop off the negative space at the left and the photo seems like it's going to tip over. That space is essential to give balance to the photo. But it isn't what eschelar would term a "negative space image".

Shapes are defined not only by the objects being photographed, but by the space surrounding them. This negative space has a shape of its own, complementary to the shape of the subjects, which can be interesting in its own right. For example, look at the shape of the white space in the following photo:

An extreme example of how negative space defines shapes is seen in close-ups such as the following:

There is no negative space surrounding the rose; I got so close it was eliminated. But each petal is defined by the negative space around it, which happens to be another petal that itself is defined by the negative space around it. It isn't as complicated as it sounds; the elements (petals in this case) are just playing dual roles. But I think it illustrates the importance of negative space in any photo.

_eug

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/06/2006 04:15:50 PM · #15

Thanks to

dr rick for a helpful explanation.

I was looking at my Top image when thinking about negative space, but didn't know if or how it applied, but I think I'll take a stab at understanding through describing.

The subject is the runners poised to take the battons and the first runner to enter the frame ready to hand it off. The subject has a strong diagonal element. The track is the negative space which has a flow the to it in the form of the lane markings.

Am I close?

Message edited by author 2006-09-06 16:17:53.

justamistere

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

09/06/2006 05:01:33 PM · #16

I design extremely user-friendly and creative screens on PCs all the time.

IMHO, A "physical", picture or painting's matte and frame are negative spaces to complement, emphisize, or contrast, one or more key elements/subjects in you composition.

Even within the invisible boundries of an unframed composition the negative space is used in the same way. The Bokeh challenge used negative space creatively. Usually if there isn't enough, than it can create uneasy/unrelaxed emotions. They are used very emotively to further draw the viewers eyes and emotions down an intended path of feeling.

So you might say that negative space helps navigate the emotions of the viewer.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

09/07/2006 07:39:46 PM · #17

Originally posted by _eug:

Thanks to dr rick for a helpful explanation.

I was looking at my Top image when thinking about negative space, but didn't know if or how it applied, but I think I'll take a stab at understanding through describing.

The subject is the runners poised to take the battons and the first runner to enter the frame ready to hand it off. The subject has a strong diagonal element. The track is the negative space which has a flow the to it in the form of the lane markings.

Am I close?

I think so. I think the lane markings in your photo are what make the shot. They make the entire space feel curved.

Here's one of my favorites on the site, by alfresco.

I suggest looking at the thumbnail first, where almost no detail is visible. The diver's body and the cliff, with the dark water at the bottom, seem to be the negative space here, or at least are dark objects balancing the bright sky's shape.

Then look at the full-size image, where you start getting more detail in the sky and water. Now what's the positive vs. negative space? I'm not sure whether the bright space below the diver counts as negative or not. It's so important to the feeling of where she is (very high) and where she's going next (down), that it could be considered part of the subject.

What do you all think?

And do your thoughts change when you look at how he put it on a card, cropping out the water entirely?

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

09/11/2006 02:08:10 AM · #18

Bump.

Also, since I'm on a business trip this week, we'll let this technique run another week.

Anybody have any thoughts on the most recent posts?

eschelar