| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2002 10:41:40 AM · #1 |
I'm looking at the NS submissions. My initial take:
1. The competition was to photo NS that adds "WOW" to the picture. I don't consider pure black or white to add "WOW."
2. My submission was a attempt to add wow while leaving a clearly defined yet colorful NS. I am already getting comments that the NS is not true NS. Baloney!
|
|
|
|
09/16/2002 10:54:01 AM · #2 |
pure Black and White can add space, depending on what the subject is. A perfect example in my opinion of blackness adding to the image is "Fire Lips" with that person breating fire into the frame.
I would actually consider this more negative spacey than a background with different colours and textures etc. |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 11:10:04 AM · #3 |
I think this challenge is going to produce some rather varied results. Good shots will certainly be penalised due to there being too many defintions of Negative Space.
I've already had some comments saying my photo doesn't show negative space whereas others say it does.
I'm purposely avoiding putting any "That's not negative space" on any of my comments!
Cheers,
Tim |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 11:16:21 AM · #4 |
I haven't gotten any comments yet at all! This is very rare for me. I thought this photo would do pretty well, so it's kind of disappointing to be on 4.6. I thought I knew how this site worked!
|
|
|
|
09/16/2002 11:27:54 AM · #5 |
I already have 10 comments.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2002 11:30:13 AM · #6 |
| Lisa, I thought that by now I would also know how people will vote....I have been positively surprised for the last couple of weeks (after many preceding weeks of negative surprises). I guess it's really tough, since we never shoot the same thing....maybe we should have the same subject a couple of weeks in a row?? |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 11:31:36 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
I already have 10 comments.
That sounds awesome! You must be hitting a 20-25% vote ratio....top ten this week Zeiss? |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 11:42:14 AM · #8 |
after looking at all the submissions imo there seems to be very few images that i would call a neg space photo. i am approching this from the position of a designer so maybe my definition is different. there are a few excellent shots though that really used the negative space to emphasis the subject and made very interesting images. it's a tuff one because every photo has what could be defined as negative space. i just think most people missed it this week. i'm not going to vote down too much for this because it's all about interpritation.
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/16/2002 11:41:38 AM. |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 12:03:58 PM · #9 |
| I am doing better this week then last, I did get a comment that said I didn't have enough negative space. hmmmm....are we suppose to have a little, tiny subject and the rest negative. I don't think so. Anyway I am pretty happy with my score so far. |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 12:20:45 PM · #10 |
just my 2 cents:
For me, as far as meeting the challenge, I ask 2 questions
1. Does the "negative" space (non-subject area) bring out the subject (the neg space area could be small or large) - does it alter the way the subject is being seen? Does it do something different...what if another color or angle was used... (would a yellow flower look as good with a yellow background, purple, black etc)...what if the "neg space" was cropped out...would it be better or worse..
2. Has the positive area created something entirely different out of the negative area? Therefore, the viewer almost sees 2 subjects.
These are just 2 of my ideas of good use of neg space--of course I'm always open to other ideas. I don't usually take away for 'not meeting the challenge' unless it REALLY doesn't...I usually give the benefit of the doubt and that I don't understand their take on it.
I think the results may be extremely varied for this challenge.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2002 12:28:55 PM · #11 |
I'm leaving a lot of comments this week. I don't know if that's good or bad. I'm a little disappointed with a lot of these shots. I think that might be due (at least it is in my case) to the lack of experience in trying to take a negative space shot. I'm still in the mindset of 'focus on the subject', not 'focus on the shot and the subject will come thru.' Is that clear? I've taken shots that were with negative space, but no one told me that was what it was. My problem was focusing on the negative space, not taking a good shot. I like the shot I took, but my comments (all 3 of them) are saying I didn't need that much NS.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2002 12:42:25 PM · #12 |
I couldn't have said it better Ruthann. This is exactly how I am voting.
Originally posted by RedRuthann:
just my 2 cents:
For me, as far as meeting the challenge, I ask 2 questions
1. Does the "negative" space (non-subject area) bring out the subject (the neg space area could be small or large) - does it alter the way the subject is being seen? Does it do something different...what if another color or angle was used... (would a yellow flower look as good with a yellow background, purple, black etc)...what if the "neg space" was cropped out...would it be better or worse..
2. Has the positive area created something entirely different out of the negative area? Therefore, the viewer almost sees 2 subjects.
These are just 2 of my ideas of good use of neg space--of course I'm always open to other ideas. I don't usually take away for 'not meeting the challenge' unless it REALLY doesn't...I usually give the benefit of the doubt and that I don't understand their take on it.
I think the results may be extremely varied for this challenge.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2002 01:54:37 PM · #13 |
This post was stripped from yesterdays comments on Autool sitting back this challenge. Swashbuckler (with the help of his wife' - ) did such a fine job of defining negative space I thought I'd repost it (at least in part) here. Thanks again Swash!
Also, Ruthann is right on. She gets it and this is not an easy concept to grasp... and a headache to vote. Thanks Ruth!
Originally posted by Swashbuckler:
[i]... the "real" concept. It isn't about blank spaces, it just happens that negative space CAN be displayed that way. It's more in the idea of emphasis and how a non-subject can add emphasis to your subject, almost to the point where your non-subject "is the subject".
Originally posted by mcmurma:
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
I would like to thank you and your wife. This is the best definition of "negative space" I have seen posted here this week.
It's not about black and white. It's not about high contrast. It's not about a subject in a corner. It's about using space to define boundries around the subject. For this challenge we have been asked to make this space the "wow" of our photo's... not the subject. |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 10:02:12 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
It's not about a subject in a corner. It's about using space to define boundries around the subject. For this challenge we have been asked to make this space the "wow" of our photo's... not the subject.
This is exactly what I did, and what do I get for it? So far, 4.12 AND remarks that there is no NS in the pic! Several here really need to take more than a 1-second view each picture.
Oh well, good thing I'm at least having fun. :-)
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/16/2002 10:01:41 PM. |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 10:50:31 PM · #15 |
Part of the deffinition of neg space should be about the line that seperates the two. It should be active not passive. It should define both shapes. It should lead the eye to the whole image. There should be a balance of tension and weight between + and - areas but acymetrical balance (object inthe corner) is more dynamic, therefore appealing.
I concur very few including me 'got it.'
* This message has been edited by the author on 9/16/2002 10:51:43 PM. |
|
|
|
09/16/2002 11:54:33 PM · #16 |
I also agree with RedRuthann. I had great difficulty with this challenge. How to make a shot without an understanding of what is negative space.
I have a problem with just Black or just White. |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 12:07:53 AM · #17 |
| I have a feeling, from the comments that I am recieving, that some are looking for "blank space" |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 12:37:37 AM · #18 |
Here is the sight that I read to learn more about negative space.negative space tuturial
This is a must read for everyone. |
|
|
|
09/17/2002 01:03:08 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Frank Beckman:
I have a feeling, from the comments that I am recieving, that some are looking for "blank space"
Some ppl surely are. Others are expecting a subject and some blank space. When in fact both could work well.
Take, for example, a blank wall with interesting lighting (diffuse shadows and highlights)... Your subject would be the light, the shadows and surrounding wall the "negative space."
On the other hand, stronger shadows on a wall (a sharply defined profile perhaps) would provide the reverse scenario--the shadow would take on the role of the subject and the wall around it becomes the "negative space."
Either way, the trick this challenge is make the "negative space" do the talking and provide the 'wow.'
Lots of folks, myself included, are having a tough time defining the subject. It can be so confusing with some shots! You have to define what the subject "is" before you can try to visually exclude it from its surroundings and then "score" the negative space.
Thats where I'm having most of my trouble.
Ultimately, I think it just makes it easier for some folks if there's no subject in the first place ' - ) |
|
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: 08/26/2025 06:56:43 PM EDT.
