Sunnybuck Loc: Pleasanton, Kansas

Being new to this photography thing, please explain definition of negative space, because it sound like I may have a good number of them.

ediesaul

Lighthouses's photo: Gorgeous photo. Simple yet complex.

negative space?

(Download)

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

Too late :lol:

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Thank you ediesaul.
Does your image contain negative space?
Yes it does.
The black is negative space and has been used to offset the bright colours perfectly, to emphasise them, and draw focus to them - which is exactly the purpose of negative space.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Yes, both of you, Lighthouse and Edie, very nice shots!
Let's not forget that negative space is used in a lot of ways to convey a lot of things.
One of the first things you are taught if shooting commercial or stock is to use negative space in a way that logos, text or ads can be fit into your compositions. Just a few of the reasons to use -space. ;-)
SS

ediesaul

Phew!

Negative space 2?

(Download)

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

So perhaps we ought think of negative space as simply some degree of uniformity to all that isnt the subject? as in this recent example?

Nacent Snowball

(Download)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Yes ....... but that is not the primary reason why the image works.
An interesting one with a multiplication of compositional elements.
Yes, the sky is negative space for me. (Not sure if it would be if it was a stronger sky and the potential is definitely there for that to happen)
The image has leading lines coming in from the corners to steer us to the true subject.
Thirds - yes i know, it looks more fifths than thirds. For me "thirds" is a pretty rubbery thing. A near enough approximation fits the definition for me.
And the now for the obvious reason this image works - colour contrast, the bright yellowtruck just screams "hey look at me, I am the subject"
I think this would happen anyway, but the negative space probably does magnify it.

ediesaul

Thank you for a very interesting analysis.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Edie, I'm gonna jump in here.
If we have a lot of space with nothing in it, it's definately negative space. But is there good and bad -space?
Let's keep this within what we have already gone over in the 1st 50 pages. We need to treat that space as something that actually strengthens the composition. It isn't just because we had a wide angle lens and we wanted to get a huge amount of horizon as we often see with landscapes or sunsets.
To shoot side to side we also have to go up and down. But that's often a byproduct of going wide, not because we were actually needing those elements to carry our composition.
So negative space can work against us also. It's the reason people shoot panos. To get the shot with the detail but without all that space.
I guess what I'm saying is don't confuse "negative" space with "empty" space.
Empty space is a by-product and negative space is an intentional piece of our composition. We want it to enhace the compostion not work against it. Does that make sense? Sorry for getting long winded! That's definately not like me! :lol:
SS

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

...and to stand with the guy whose given name is my surname and wouldn't have a qualm about standing alone, I think we've already devoted more verbage to negative space than it warrants.

Where do you stand on this, RG?

Dave (Graham)

ediesaul

Hi, SharpShooter! Are you referring to the photo of the woman with no head and the colorful dress or the highway photo of the yellow truck?

The first photo was taken on a busy street in Las Vegas and I wanted to concentrate the viewer's eyes on the dress, so I painted black over the elements that distracted anyone's view from the dress. That's why even the woman's face was of no interest to me. So, if it's intentional, it's negative space, right?

In the second photo, your comments seem applicable. I thought the negative space was the long road leading to the truck (not the sky). But I see that that part of the photo is not "negative" because of the painted lines on the road. It just has an "empty" feel to it. It is not negative space.

Did I get it?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Edie, no, the road is not negative space. But the negative space needs to help support the composition by being part of how we plan it. ;-)
SS

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

[quote=SharpShooter]Lets talk about composition! It seems we just never do that here. This IS after all a PHOTOGRAPHY forum. But we never talk about photography "

xxxxxcc

It has struck me, while closely examining the images submitted in this marvelous thread of Straight Shooter's (up to page 44 or 45) that more than half at least casually adhere to the rule of thirds, while 26% strictly adhere to "the thirds". And this is not to say that those images failed, in any way, to illustrate the other canons of composition that they were submitted to exemplify.

As one with particular interest in animals and wildlife I find that the degree to which the great majority of my images of active animals (including children) adhere to the various canons of composition depends far more on serendipity and/or post-exposure cropping than on pre-exposure planning (other than allowing sufficient headroom for cropping....).
By way of example here's a single image illustrating several distinct and independent compositional elements.

The image does, by the bye, contain "negative space". I leave it to your tender mercies to determine its possible compositional value here.

Dave in SD

"thirds"

(Download)

Diagonal and "GoldenTriangles"

(Download)

Hogarth's Curve

(Download)

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Set with negative space (too much of it for some folks' liking)

But I do this every time there's fog.

Thanks to Graham for ideas on editing the last one.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)