| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2002 04:13:56 PM · #1 |
I would like opinions on two very nice photos that placed well in the NS challenge.
The Window
Framed
These are both very fine photos, but I do not see the negative space aspect. Both objects are framed by the foreground, and have a detailed background, that is the focus of the compostoin. While these are very affective photos, the definitions of NS that I read, stated that the background provided the negative space for the foreground and the subject. I would also expect more simplicity from the background.
I would like comments on how others viewed these photos in relation to the challenge.
* This message has been edited by an administrator (GordonMcGregor) on 9/24/2002 5:47:25 PM - broken XML. |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 04:18:08 PM · #2 |
Zeiss, I get two big red x's !!
Linda
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 04:28:57 PM · #3 |
| Me too, and both are very nice. |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 04:30:10 PM · #4 |
I believe that the challenge was worded in such a way that the negative space provide the wow for the subject.. I don't think it stated anything about background vs. foreground...
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 05:51:12 PM · #5 |
One of the reasons photographs in galleries get hung with a fairly
decent sized matt around them is that this negative space is often
required to really accentuate the image.
For these two pictures, its my opinion that the fairly bland
foreground frames are acting like the matts that you'd put around
a picture, so the foregrounds are the 'negative' space in much
the same way that a matt would be on a framed picture.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 06:01:35 PM · #6 |
| I think if you looked at these shots without the "negative frame" it's easier to see how much those frames add to the shots. I did a poor man's crop (put paper over the 'frame' space)... While the subject is very interesting on it's own right, when the frame is used, it really does add some wow... |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 07:15:02 PM · #7 |
I agree that the challenge did not state this. However, some of the material provided in the forums did that the negative space was a background element. I am trying to find the link and quote now.
Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
I believe that the challenge was worded in such a way that the negative space provide the wow for the subject.. I don't think it stated anything about background vs. foreground...
|
|
|
|
09/24/2002 07:33:26 PM · #8 |
| It's fairly obvious to me by the submissions that there are many different definitions of negative space. If you try to nail down one specific definition and hold everyone to it, then more power to you :) |
|
|
|
09/24/2002 11:15:08 PM · #9 |
Negative space is simply the area that is not the positive space, or the object and things connected to it in the frame (thus although you might not like the use of the negative space used in The Window and Framed it has negative space in it; maybe the walls forming the window, maybe the subject within the window). Whether you find the use of that space pleasing or not, or whether you like how it is used in the frame, or if it is emphasized in the image as the challenge called for is certainly up to debate.
It could be argued that these photos just use the negative space (that which is not the subject) to frame the object simply a second time. It could also be argued that it is interesting because having the space in the foreground (particularly in Framed) somewhat confuses what is the subject of the photo, the frame itself or the view in the frame.
Here is an interesting Primer on Negative Space. |
|
|
|
09/25/2002 12:43:30 AM · #10 |
I guess, once again, I need to clarify. I think that both of these photos are extremely affective. What I am trying to understand, is the real definition of negative space. There are many techiniques used in photography to emaphasized the subject. And in the broadest term, anything that is not the subject is negative space. But, when a photographer uses negative space to emphasize the subject, does that narrow the definition? Does a landscape with railroad tracks leading to the subject make it a negative space image? Does a very busy background that makes it hard to tell what the subjectg is make it a negative space image?
To me, personally, these are both great photos, that used framing techniques to make great images. But I am still unsure of the negative space aspect. What separates a negative space image from a non-negative space image? Virtually every photo in this challenge contains elements other than the subject. Does that mean every photo met the challenge?
Originally posted by puppet10:
It could also be argued that it is interesting because having the space in the foreground (particularly in Framed) somewhat confuses what is the subject of the photo, the frame itself or the view in the frame.
Here is an interesting Primer on Negative Space.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2002 01:50:13 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
Virtually every photo in this challenge contains elements other than the subject. Does that mean every photo met the challenge?
Yes all the photos contain negative space. (although whether the picture emphasizes the negative space, which iirc was part of the challenge would be up to the voter). |
|
|
|
09/25/2002 02:17:47 AM · #12 |
The only negative space I am currently positive of is that placed between any given two ears! ;'-D
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 02:59:09 PM EDT.
