Nightski

I have been looking through the contest photos for this week. Upon viewing them, I am left wondering which ones qualify as negative space photos. Here are my questions.

1.) Is there a standard percentage of negative space that needs to be in the photo? Or at least a range of percentages?

2.) Does all the negative space need to be the same kind of space or can you have 2 different kinds of space, such as sky and land?

3.)Does the point of interest need to pertain to the negative space?

RRICKEY12 Loc: Cape May N.J.

The most basic way to describe negative space as it applies to design is "space where other things are not present." I find shooting silhouettes using Backlight either in B&W or color, is a good visual exercise in creating negative space. For compositional purposes it should be the dominant area in the photo if possible.

scd Loc: Florida

I'm having the same confusion since the entries so far seem to be all over the place.

RRICKEY12 Loc: Cape May N.J.

I agree....some don't seem to apply whatsoever. The image ought to be simple with no distractions. Black and White will always be easier in creating more impact.

Nightski

So am I. That's why I asked.

Nightski

Would you be willing to post a good example of a negative space photo on this thread to illustrate?

RRICKEY12 Loc: Cape May N.J.

I'd suggest just Googling 'NEGATIVE SPACE'and all kinds of images for it will come up as a good 'resource'

Nightski

I did that. I even went to DPS's page on it, and it has a bunch of photos that are all over the place.

http://digital-photography-school.com/negative-space-weekly-photography-challenge-with-7-examples

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

As I am neither an organizer nor a participant in the contest, I will try to give answers based on my personal understanding of the subject:

1.) There is no standard of negative space for a picture nor a range of percentages, but clearly the subject ought to be a dominant part of the picture.

2.) All negative space needs not to be the same.You may have parts that are sky, others that are a blurry or indistinct background and others that are shadow areas or even black. They all may contribute to enhance the subject and they may have a background harmony. In some classic paintings, dark shadow and nearly black ones were used very successfully.

3.) The point of interest still is the subject, but the negative spaces still are major contributors to the composition's harmony. In a musical concert for solo and orchestra, the solo portions dominate for attention, but the orchestra has an important role in adding beauty to the soloist's performance.

RRICKEY12 Loc: Cape May N.J.

The DPS link you provided has some fine examples of using negative space effectively. Being it's the EMPTY space around the subject itself, a few like the plant or the man engulfed in white space are good examples. The simplest ones are the best. The few that didn't work well are too 'busy' and confusing in design.

Nightski

I was confused about the plant one, because it takes up at least a third of the space.

RRICKEY12 Loc: Cape May N.J.

Well, that still leaves almost 2 thirds of negative space. As long as the concept is understood, I wouldn't be too concerned with rules,
and just have fun experimenting. I still advocate starting out with silhouettes~

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

Nightski,

Your question relies on the subjective view of the individual who looks upon your creative work. There is no "One" Good answer to your question. There are some general guidelines to help you develop images with "Negative Space", and use that space to your advantage.

Here are my questions.

1.) Is there a standard percentage of negative space that needs to be in the photo? Or at least a range of percentages?

No. The Negative Space should not dominate the image. The Negative Space should not attract attention upon itself. The Negative Space should not Divide the image into two different directions. The Negative Space should help enhance the primary point of interest, and lead the viewing eye into the central point of interest.

2.) Does all the negative space need to be the same kind of space or can you have 2 different kinds of space, such as sky and land?

You can have equal types of Negative Space (Sky and Ocean), if the image supports both. When working with multiple Negative Space areas within an image, all must be unequal in size and attention. An Ocean scene can have Negative Space where the overall scene is a sun set with soft billowy clouds, a softly breaking surf, and a rocky beach. The scene could have three equally divided negative spaces, but that could divide the viewers attention away from the central point of interest. The illumination of the ocean and beach at sunset creates two of the negative space components, the softly billowing clouds illuminated by the setting sun could provide the central point of interest if an off shore island were in view. If the composition captured 5/8's of the clouds and island in the image, and 3/8's of the ocean and beach the overall composition would support the unequal division of Negative Space. (Not to mention the photographers feet would remain dry while capturing the photography.)

3.)Does the point of interest need to pertain to the negative space?

It needs to be natural. It is quite difficult to manufacture Negative Space and to make it work attractively without detracting from the principle point of interest. (If you have an image of an interesting statue with the top left 1/4 corner of the image in a bald blue sky, you have your off balance Negative Space, but it is unattractive and may distract attention from the object of the statue. With Post Processing you can select the bald sky and replace it with a more attractive partly clouded sly that will enhance the overall image and not divert attention from the statue.)

I hope this helps answer your question.

Michael G

Nightski

1.)The window one takes up quite a bit of space too, and it's not really telling a story about anything. I thought the whole idea of the negative space was for the negative space to put emphasis on the suubject.

2.)The Subject in the running one seems to be the ratio of space to subject that I would expect, but that photo has so many things going on, it doesn't seem like negative space. There's the chain fence, the railroad track, the clouds, and the grass. It's very busy.

3.) The kids playing ball photo is very busy too. I don't get it.

bunuweld Loc: Arizona

Here is a *very complex* example of negative space in painting (I don't have any handy example in photo).
The main point of interest is the baby and the man's face. secondary, but part of the subject, are the man in front and the angel. The remaining portions of Tiziano's painting mostly are negative spaces.