Extreme Negative Space

[hanzo]

Is that a beach? Not sure I've ever seen a cat on a beach before

Its photoshopped! just kidding.. nice picture
I think the seagull is a bit overexposed though..

 

[G1 User]

I like these
This is what I was taking about, with the rule of thirds, it is used here too with a large negative space....

It is always difficult to use negative space. In most of my photographs it is simply boring. For example here is a picture I took a couple of weeks ago down by the lake.

It is a rather blah, run of the mill picture of a gull against a solid blue sky. A yawner.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I almost deleted it but then I thought it would be interesting to see if I can salvage it in Lightroom.

Add a little vignetting and make it look a little older and I think the negative space becomes more interesting.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Or just mess with the sky color to make it look like a very threatening sky.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And lastly I converted it to black and white - and darkened the sky completely.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Again, none of them are great shots, but any one is an improvement over the original.

 

[G1 User]

And this a great example breaking the rule of thirds with 2 subjects separated with a large and interesting empty space

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Streetshooter]

G1, good ideas but I see it differently again. Sorry.
The original is a very good use of "Negative Space" with positioning.
The hook is that the bird looks like it's in B&W against the Blue sky. This further draws to the illusion.

The rest, force the Negative Space and make it more important that the bird.
The space competes with the subject instead of supporting it.
The first, everything works naturally and the negative space supports the bird.

 

[angloasturian]

Negative Space

Three photos with plenty of space - but I'm not sure I'd call it negative.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Narnian]

G1, good ideas but I see it differently again. Sorry.
The original is a very good use of "Negative Space" with positioning.
The hook is that the bird looks like it's in B&W against the Blue sky. This further draws to the illusion.

The rest, force the Negative Space and make it more important that the bird.
The space competes with the subject instead of supporting it.
The first, everything works naturally and the negative space supports the bird.

Do you think it would have been competing if I had only shown the third picture without the context of the first? Does the first photo make you look at the others differently?

In my case I see the others as evoking different moods but not distracting from the bird. Of course I am still learning Lightroom and maybe I am just excited about messing around with it.

But that is why I am here - every pair of eyes, every brain, every heart is different in how it responds. I am fascinated by reactions - I have put up photos I thought were ho-hum and people said they were great. Other times I have put up what I thought were great photos that people ignored (mostly) or ripped (politely) to shreds. And other times I get mixed reactions - those are always the most interesting.

Everybody in my family likes a different version of the bird photo - of course. My wife agrees with you, Don. :tongue:

 

[G1 User]

G1, good ideas but I see it differently again. Sorry.
The original is a very good use of "Negative Space" with positioning.
The hook is that the bird looks like it's in B&W against the Blue sky. This further draws to the illusion.

The rest, force the Negative Space and make it more important that the bird.
The space competes with the subject instead of supporting it.
The first, everything works naturally and the negative space supports the bird.

I am seeing more on what you are seeing/saying.... #1 #3
Here is post from another forum that is a good example of what you are saying.
No promos, just adding to this thread

 

[Streetshooter]

Images need a punch as a joke needs a punchline.
The punch in the 1st is the play of B&W against the color.
Forget the rule of thirds etc... That's about framing. Your already past that part.
Punch is a form of juxtaposition.
Your play in the 1st image creates the visual juxtaposition so that the viewer sees it but is unaware of seeing it. It's a very natural effect and not forced as the other images.

They view the 1st and wonder what it is that is stimulating the brain.
The others don't do that as they are to literal.
There is a lack of unconscious stimulation.
Hmmmm, I think I said what I said the right way.

 

[jhob]

A few more along these lines from today:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I'm enjoying this thread, there's some interesting images and discussion going on, I'm learning a lot.

 

[BillN]

he's my bird shot - crows have always been negative to me

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Djarum]

Maybe I just see things different. Images are about INTENT. Regardless of the success of the image or not. So, what I see in John's attempts. is....

Being that he intentionally made Extreme Negative Space using the sky for it and putting an object in somewhere to make the statement,

I see the sky not as negative space at all but the subject of the image.
His intent is clear. The tree, lamp etc could be seen as the Negative Space. He just inserted something to create contrast to the implied negative space.

In the above examples, the one with the dogs and the sky.
It is easy to see the dogs as the subject surrounded by the sky and that makes the sky, negative space.

In images, negative space is usually used to create visual tension. It does not have to be a large area but could be.

I hope that I'm not being misunderstood. In a portrait , the subject would be seen as the intent, or and I hate to do it this way....positive space....hate saying that...
the background, even a building etc... would be the negative space.

I completly agree.

I think for me, for the OP's pictures, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the intent is. I think its easy to get led down the road to assume negative space is large swaths of sky or large swaths of color from some object in the image, but in many cases, this in fact can or could be the actual subject of the image.

For example of the lampost, is the subject the lampost or the sky? If its the lampost, I don't feel that the negative space of the sky adds any visual tension. If it is the sky, the lampost just doesn't make sense, at least to me.

On the otherhand, the picture with the dogs and the sky, the sky is obviously not the subject, and it does add a dramatic effect to the image.

 

[Stephen Geis]

A few more along these lines from today:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I'm enjoying this thread, there's some interesting images and discussion going on, I'm learning a lot.

John,

I like this photo - the raptor in flight - the bird at rest on the lamp post - this REALLY works ...

 

[Streetshooter]

DJ,
The next White Russian is on me....
Well, not on me but I'm buying..
Don

 

[kevinparis]

not sure where this fits in the negative space canon... but its a pic that does work for me... it also falls into the area where the act of taking a photo and discovering an image overlap... this wasn't the photo i intended to take...actually not sure what photo I was trying to take... but the image does have something that i can't quite put my finger one that makes me smile

View attachment 153726
bound for glory by kevinparis, on Flickr

K

 

[jhob]

I think for me, for the OP's pictures, I'm having a hard time figuring out what the intent is.

The intent was to frame the bird as being lost in a vastness of sky

For example of the lampost, is the subject the lampost or the sky? If its the lampost, I don't feel that the negative space of the sky adds any visual tension. If it is the sky, the lampost just doesn't make sense, at least to me.

The subject is the bird, on the lamp post. I think it works, although I prefer my more recent effort posted in this thread along these lines, an altogether more dynamic image which does have more tension.

 

[Kosta]

John,

I like this photo - the raptor in flight - the bird at rest on the lamp post - this REALLY works ...

I like this shot, and I personally think you could crop it some more to reduce that negative space a little more to draw the viewer's attention more toward the object

my 2cents! I like the work being done

 

[JohnF]

Hi -

I like using negative space, it can give pictures a special dynamic...

At the IAA in Frankfurt:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And in Frankfurt itself:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

JohnF

 

[jhob]

A couple more from today, one with lots of space in the frame, the other not so much.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Djarum]

The intent was to frame the bird as being lost in a vastness of sky



The subject is the bird, on the lamp post. I think it works, although I prefer my more recent effort posted in this thread along these lines, an altogether more dynamic image which does have more tension.

I didn't realize that was a bird on the lamp post. I thought it was something part of the lampost. Now that I've looked again, I see that it is a bird, but it still doesn't work for me.

 

[pdh]

Same roses ...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

View attachment 153789