Adding negative space in Advanced?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

02/08/2007 12:52:34 PM · #5

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by TCGuru:
Doesn't it say that your border must be clearly recognizable as a border? Correct me if I am wrong.

You're certainly not wrong, and the above scenario is part of the reason why. It is not legal to create a border that masquerades as an extension of the image; we have DQ'd for it in the past.

Yes I've learnt from this personally. Adding negative space is a big no no.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

11/19/2007 09:36:57 PM · #6

Damn, good thing I had a search, i was thinking of submitting a photo which did that. Ah well.

Anyone on the SC inform me as to the reason why that is something which is not allowed, considering it is very common practice when you have a pure white or pure black background?

Only thing i can think of is that it isnt the "photo" you took but another one created in photoshop... although if you are going by that reasoning (the classicist film photographer line as i see it), such an extension could be made in your regular darkroom, no?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

11/19/2007 10:17:33 PM · #7

Originally posted by inshaala:

Why not just take the picture that way in the first place?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/20/2007 09:56:57 AM · #8

And what happens if you see the composition after the fact...? simple answer you have but that really wasnt the question.

Besides, in the original shot posted in this thread, what is to say there wasnt studio size limitations for the black space and the effect of a large negative space could only be achieved in postwork and that was the original intent of the photographer on taking the image rather than spending extra cash on making a larger studio...

Anyone willing to answer? I'm not wanting to kick up a fuss about not being able to submit a photo which uses this technique (i submitted it anyway without the extension as it still looks good - so this isnt a personal thing). Just wanted to know the reasoning behind it.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

11/20/2007 10:19:32 AM · #9

I have to agree with the shoot it right in the first place philosophy and I think the rule is a good one otherwise, again, this becomes more about computer use than photography.

I have no studio at all and no backgrounds other than a piece of foamcore which is looking more gray than black these days. If you see jet black in my shots its because I made sure to brightly light the subject and place it so that the background was relatively ill lit. Hit it with levels or curves and blammo the background goes black.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/20/2007 10:25:44 AM · #10

What about in a non-studio setting then? The recent shot i was thinking of posting with the extension was taken outside of a studio setting where i was more concerned with getting the shot right in terms of focus, exposure, and depth of field (moving subject, extremely bad lighting* and through glass) than the composition.

*used centre spot for AF because of this and thus composition played less important part knowing that later i could add the extension as i knew the background would be like your grey foamcore...

ETA - Yes i know this is part computer use rather than photography, but if the argument is based along those lines what is the distinguishing factor? I am not a film user nor very experienced, but i cant think that there hasnt been a fair few film photographers use this technique.

Message edited by author 2007-11-20 10:29:51.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

11/20/2007 10:28:12 AM · #11

Don't know. I've got a recycle bin full of shots that I didn't leave myself enough room in when I composed them and could not salvage later due to the editing rules. So it goes.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/20/2007 10:29:30 AM · #12

It's not so much that the concept of adding canvas extensions to add/enhance negative space is such a bad idea in and of itself, because it's not. The problem is that the ruleset (correctly, IMO) does not allow "adding anything to your image, and so for reasons of consistency asymmetrical borders that have the effect of extending the canvas are not allowed.

It's a similar line of reasoning to not allowing true HDRI imaging from multiple exposures of the same scene in advanced; it's not that anybody would dispute that this is an effective, purely photographic technique, but to make an exception to the "no multiple-image compositing" rule would open a can of worms.

R.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/20/2007 10:33:03 AM · #13

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm not questioning the fact that the rule is clear in it's application with regards to adding the negative space. I am just asking for a reasoning behind the rule considering it is a fairly normal practice in my view. And what can of worms would it open should it be allowed? Overuse of neg space is the only bad thing which could come of it...

I can see this is going to get down to the photography is what is taken at the point of capture vs final product argument. Maybe that is the reasoning...

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/20/2007 11:42:04 AM · #14

Originally posted by inshaala:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's not so much that the concept of adding canvas extensions to add/enhance negative space is such a bad idea in and of itself, because it's not. The problem is that the ruleset (correctly, IMO) does not allow "adding anything to your image, and so for reasons of consistency asymmetrical borders that have the effect of extending the canvas are not allowed.

It's a similar line of reasoning to not allowing true HDRI imaging from multiple exposures of the same scene in advanced; it's not that anybody would dispute that this is an effective, purely photographic technique, but to make an exception to the "no multiple-image compositing" rule would open a can of worms.

R.

I'm not questioning the fact that the rule is clear in it's application with regards to adding the negative space. I am just asking for a reasoning behind the rule considering it is a fairly normal practice in my view. And what can of worms would it open should it be allowed? Overuse of neg space is the only bad thing which could come of it...

I can see this is going to get down to the photography is what is taken at the point of capture vs final product argument. Maybe that is the reasoning...

You're not taking my point: to add negative space is to add to the image an element that was not part of the capture. To allow us to do this with negative space but not with other sorts of elements would be inconsistent. When we allow exceptions to the rules (any of the rules) and allow inconsistency to stand, there's a potential snowball effect where more and more inconsistencies get institutionalized, and then the rules get more and more complex.

SC is attempting to make the rules MORE consistent even as we speak, for there are still inconsistencies in them. The more consistent we get, the simpler the rules are to understand, and that's a Good Thing. I'd rather have clearly-understandable rules than more liberal rules that allow exceptions to basic principles in specific scenarios.

R.