Hi All,
We have occasionally had group discussions here. Since we had a mini discussion about negative space in recent post I thought might be fun to have another.
Please enter your favorite shot which uses negative space. Explain how you use the negative space I your work.
This is the definition that I used recently and the image with it:. the negative space can be thought of as the shape around the subject that creates the outline of the subject. It is a thing of its own in the image. I know this is very philosophical but .... It is what it is. Negative space is just as much a shape in the image as the subject. When I got this, my negative space images took a leap forward. The black in this image is just as much a shape as the leaves and, without it, the leaf shape wouldn't be there. I hope this makes any sense.
Ummm...did this one recently, filled the negative space with gradient, and, I keep having this strange feeling that the negative space within this image is actually the subject rather than a good-to-have element. Pretty interesting, huh?
Yes! I think successful negative space IS the subject of this type of image. Nice one here too Hunter!
Thanks!（*＾-＾*）
Most of the images in my portfolio have the traditional sense of negative space, where it's simply a white or black space to draw the eye to the subject.
Nice examples Matthew!
I generally use negative space to enhance the tension or mood in my images. On some occasions, I’ll use it to contour, but that’s usually driven by the scene or subject.
Good point. Would you care to put in an example Robert?
Oh, sorry Ruth - didn't see your response earlier. No, I don't have one that is really worth sharing. I like your examples though.
Cheers,
Rob
I often use large blocks of negative space to provide balance to a strong subject, provide contrast within the frame and/or to create a sense of size (eg man vs nature).
There are so many ways this can be used. to great effect.
Love your 'people on beaches' images Alan. This one is a great example of negative space that is not blank/empty. Nicely done!
Robert's comment got me thinking about negative space and mood. Here are two shots where I think the nagative space sets the mood of the image. Hope and Dispair? Or teen angst anyway!
Must we?
It's just space, as far as I can see. Positive compositional element. Name seems redundant to me, but obviously others see it differently.
Well, I thought we need a new contrarian, Ruth, so I'm volunteering. I stoically await crucifixion. ;-)
New contrarian? 😘
It's ok if you aren't into the topic.
Can't find the emoji for a raspberry...
Seriously, I just find the "negative" part hard to understand, Ruth. That's why to me it's just space. Your example here fits your definition, but Alan's doesn't seem to, and Hunter himself points to the very issue I'm talking about. If others find it useful, that's great. I'm just puzzled at my inability to see or get what lots of others seem to.
Are these examples in your view? Or is there too much going on in the "space" for it to be "space" in this context?
Ah Chris, you sly old dog - drawing me in with possibly my two favorite image of yours....
I think the term negative space like most things in art is open to individual interpretation. How does that differ from ‘space’? I guess you’d have task the person that coined the positive/negative space phrase.
BTW - your expert use of ‘space’ is a critical element to your excellent examples.
Thanks, Alan!
Curious to know your takes on this one. Like Chris I wonder if there's too much going on in the sky. Do the drifting petals take away from the tree?
I think they're fine, Bruce, and transform - animate - what would otherwise be a valid, more minimalist image in its own right. For me, the leaves add to it.
I still puzzle why an issue is made of the space as such. (Reminds me of economists talking about negative growth, which could equally be called positive shrinkage.) Without space, you get a different image e.g. with a frame-filling image of, say, a wall texture, or verdant forest. Maybe you've got slightly positive space here! Sorry, can't resist stirring the pot... ;-)
He who stirs the pot must first to taste the brew.
This topic is interesting because it is a core element of good minimalist composition. Minimalism is difficult for many.
And composition in general is weak spot for many. You are a connoisseur of good compsition. Perhaps you believe that people just have an eye for it or they don't. I believe that, if amateurs would spend a little more time focusing on composition, their work would take a big leap forward. Just me.
Well, I suspect that with composition as with anything else, people's intrinsic ability & ultimate potential varies, Ruth. And I do think that pointers such as the rule of thirds can no doubt help to develop composition.
Maybe I take this concept of negative space for granted, and can't see the wood for the trees here. Plainly people DO find the negative space idea helpful. In all seriousness, I don't mean to poo-poo this, and I'm sorry if I came across as snarky. I was just being a bit silly.
I think your input in this Group has been enormously positive and inspiring to many, I'm sure, Ruth.
Sorry to hear you'd like to hand over the job of moderator, but understand, as it is a responsibility. You've fulfilled the job admirably - it has been the best Group by far in my opinion, largely because of you.
Thanks again.
I'm curious about your using the rule of thirds as a helpful composition tool. For this rule, what is in the two thirds of the rest of the image? In other words, if you had to use descriptive words in order to describe this rule, could you not say that the subject 'third' is the positive space and the remaining two thirds are the negative space? All of this is just semantics and a way to use some language to describe the conscious attention to the composition of the image. It is only one of a cadre of compositional elements. The term allows us to look at a photograph and try and put into words it's arrangement. There's no deeper meaning. The concept is intended to help someone go from the first two images below (common mistake of busy background and little composition) to the second and third images by giving some thought to what's in all are areas of space in the image. Again, it's just for conversation. I'm taking your stirring spoon away. 😉
If I understand you correctly, I think we're talking about very different meanings of this rule, Ruth. The rule of which I'm aware refers to placing the subject or point of interest on one of the points in a grid superimposed on the image as below, i.e. where one of the red dots is. It does not refer to area.
Its potential value, I believe, is to discourage tyros from doing what most of us have done - putting the subject in the middle. This is likely to be an improvement, but I'm surprised how often apparently experienced and competent photographers here still use it, and wrestle with its implementation, when I would have thought its usefulness had expired for them. I see it as a first approximation or VERY crude rule of thumb.
I think the "third" point is seldom the BEST place for the subject, and the rule falls apart with more complex scenes.
Totally agree Chris. I think balance in the frame is more important and that the 'rule' of thirds if often a good staring point, but as often not the ideal position.
I tend not to follow the rule, but do find that some do actually end up that way (see my image above).
Most times a composition just 'feels' right, whether following prescribed rules or not.
I appreciate your thoughts, Chris. I concur, it is more minimalist.
er...I think even if there are a lot of stuff going on in the sky, it's still...space, isn't it?
It is but not necessarily negative space in the context of Ruth's definition. More minimalist.
Staring into the Abyss ... im still learning but apparently one's eye is drawn to the lightest part of the image ... but what about this "black hole" effect where it just sucks up all your attention even if your eyes are wandering to the outskirts of this partial frozen lake (the title may also amplify/frame the visual effect intended)?
I love this! A favorite for me. I would hang this in my house!
Thank you for the complement Ruth
Nice work Marius. The eye is also drawn to areas of focus and contrast. I think this image really works because of that. I find my eye traveling around the boundary of dark and light.
Thank you Alan
Agree with Ruth, Marius! This is a gem.
Thank you Sir
I've been holding back and pondering this for a few days now. Though I have been thru art school, and know quite well what negative space is, I look and think of it in the same concept as "contrast" - or I should say "spatial contrast" of subject and non-subject. The contrast is that negative, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily need to be the "greater percentage" of the photo.
An example of this is when I shoot a forest scene looking thru and base the tree-trunks that are in silhouette and showcase the leaves. The steadfast subjects would (and should normally) be the trunks - in turn the majority of the image is the canopy of leaves without a solid subject outside what they represent.
So for me, "Negative Space" also parallels "Negative Subject" or Flipping the "Spatial Contrast" of Subject and non-Subject in the frame.
If all that makes any sense or not... or I'm just Fruit-loops... lol. :)
Very well put and something to think about. Thanks for the effort and info!
I think that's more or less my interpretation Joe. Not that I really think about that when composing or editing - I just do what feels right to me.
Interestingly enough, petapixel just put out an article on this very topic. There were a few good examples contained within.
https://petapixel.com/2021/02/09/a-quick-look-at-using-negative-space-in...
Thanks for sharing Matthew!
You're welcome! I immediately was reminded of this conversation.