| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2011 04:36:35 PM · #1 |
So I'm trying to really make sure I understand "negative space" and I'm pretty sure that I do now, but just wanted to clarify. I took a photo this morning and thought "this is great negative space" and then when I really started to look at it, I started to think that I was wrong and in fact what I thought as negative space was actually the subject of the photo. So...
I noticed for the last challenge, some people made comments on this photo - //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=539851 - saying that "the sky seems very busy to be called negative here - lots of clouds, colors, contrasts.." and "the sky looks positive to me. I don't see any NS..."
Now that I see that, I understand and agree. Are those opinions about that photo pretty accurate? Because if they are, then my photo definitely does not show negative space well.
But then I look at this and think this DOES qualify - //farm4.static.flickr.com/3582/3315644558_d0c14f7c71.jpg
does it?
more details and tips around negative space, please and thanks! |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 04:50:02 PM · #2 |
I think you are right about both of them. I think the difference is that the clouds is a major element that grabs the eye in the landscape. The wallpaper does have a busy pattern, but it is repetitious and the eye is led right to the chair. It's very subjective, I think. Maybe someone else can explain it better.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2011 04:54:41 PM · #3 |
| if it helps i wouldn't consider that negative space, but that's just my opinion, no real logic behind it. |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 04:57:38 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
if it helps i wouldn't consider that negative space, but that's just my opinion, no real logic behind it. |
which one? |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 04:58:17 PM · #5 |
I've always interpreted negative space to be the area around the subject that functions to focus the eye to the subject and provides some emotive or situational context to the subject. It's function is the emphasize/enhance the subject, not take away from it.
In the first image, the clouds did not focus the viewers attention on the image, but drew the eye throughout the image as new focal points of interest appeared in the clouds. In the second image with the chair, I'm torn. The lines are repetitive as Spiffy says, and so momentarily only hold the interest of the viewer, so could be considered as negative space. They also clearly contrast and contradict the bland monotone of the chair, thus emphasizing that aspect, which works for the image. But I find they also tend to lead my eye to the left out of the frame, rather than focus my eye on the chair, which goes against the principle of NS as I view it. So it's a toss-up for me whether I would consider that NS or not. |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 04:59:12 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
I think you are right about both of them. I think the difference is that the clouds is a major element that grabs the eye in the landscape. The wallpaper does have a busy pattern, but it is repetitious and the eye is led right to the chair. It's very subjective, I think. Maybe someone else can explain it better. |
Yeah, I think the negative space can't compete with the subject. The two should clearly either be subject OR negative space.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2011 04:59:57 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by gcoulson:
I've always interpreted negative space to be the area around the subject that functions to focus the eye to the subject and provides some emotive or situational context to the subject. It's function is the emphasize/enhance the subject, not take away from it.
In the first image, the clouds did not focus the viewers attention on the image, but drew the eye throughout the image as new focal points of interest appeared in the clouds. In the second image with the chair, I'm torn. The lines are repetitive as Spiffy says, and so momentarily only hold the interest of the viewer, so could be considered as negative space. They also clearly contrast and contradict the bland monotone of the chair, thus emphasizing that aspect, which works for the image. But I find they also tend to lead my eye to the left out of the frame, rather than focus my eye on the chair, which goes against the principle of NS as I view it. So it's a toss-up for me whether I would consider that NS or not. |
This is great! Thanks! |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 05:03:54 PM · #8 |
| Steve explained it pretty well. The wallpaper does have a busy pattern, but the pattern is very monotonous in how it repeats. It offers no surprises and by itself doesn't hold much interest. The eye and brain "get it" instantly. The chair placed against it stands in surprising relief to the pattern. I'd say it's a good use of negative space. Negative space should add impact or interest to your subject in a way that a more prominent framing of your subject wouldn't. |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 05:06:50 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Steve explained it pretty well. The wallpaper does have a busy pattern, but the pattern is very monotonous in how it repeats. It offers no surprises and by itself doesn't hold much interest. The eye and brain "get it" instantly. The chair placed against it stands in surprising relief to the pattern. I'd say it's a good use of negative space. Negative space should add impact or interest to your subject in a way that a more prominent framing of your subject wouldn't. |
Wow, great response as well. You're all putting into words what brain is sort of understanding, but not able to put into words, but gets even more when someone finally does put it into words.
Thank you thank you!!
Message edited by author 2011-02-24 17:07:00. |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 05:23:32 PM · #10 |
I think it's a serious misconception that "negative" space means "empty" space. The striped artwork on the wall is distinctly a negative space to me. In fact, it's an excellent one. The cloud shot, on the other hand, the space just isn't "negative" in relationship to anything, see? I mean, you could conceivably have a TON of that sky and then way down in the lower right a streaking a soaring eagle, and if the eagle itself were a powerful enough element to qualify as subject, those massive, piled clouds could be negative space in that context.
In my opinion, anyway.
R. |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 06:28:54 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think it's a serious misconception that "negative" space means "empty" space. The striped artwork on the wall is distinctly a negative space to me. In fact, it's an excellent one. The cloud shot, on the other hand, the space just isn't "negative" in relationship to anything, see? I mean, you could conceivably have a TON of that sky and then way down in the lower right a streaking a soaring eagle, and if the eagle itself were a powerful enough element to qualify as subject, those massive, piled clouds could be negative space in that context.
In my opinion, anyway.
R. |
Ok, I get that.
I think.
I think?
:S |
|
|
|
02/24/2011 08:13:50 PM · #12 |
i posted this in the other Negative Space thread, too
I don't want to seem negative (he he), but most of the entries in the past three challenges are only tangentally "negative space", based on the more traditional understanding of the term... simply having a blurry, simple, or single color background doesn't usually qualify as negative space as traditionally understood. the space around the main subject is supposed to contribute something.
Google it or check Wikipedia (//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_space). there were some nice shots, though.
Comments?
-mefnj |
|
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: 08/07/2025 12:20:04 PM EDT.
