| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2023 09:41:28 AM · #1 |
I know education hurts, but here is the wikipedia entry for Negative Space:
"In art and design, negative space is the empty space around and between the subject(s) of an image.[1] Negative space may be most evident when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape, and such space occasionally is used to artistic effect as the "real" subject of an image."
None of the top ten use the actual definition of negative space. Here are two examples from further down the results:
 
Posted in case maybe one or two of you can actually admit you didn't know something and were wrong about something. I've been trying that lately and I find it very rewarding.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2023 10:01:15 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... None of the top ten use the actual definition of negative space. Here are two examples from further down the results: |
... but, according to Don, in this thread (Negative Space vs Minimalism), you stated: "negative space is just the space around the subject. it can be minimal or complicated. there is no correlation.". I'd say, based on that, the Top 10 did have some use of Negative Space. ??? |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 10:41:57 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I know education hurts, but here is the wikipedia entry for Negative Space:
"In art and design, negative space is the empty space around and between the subject(s) of an image.[1] Negative space may be most evident when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape, and such space occasionally is used to artistic effect as the "real" subject of an image."
None of the top ten use the actual definition of negative space. Here are two examples from further down the results:
Posted in case maybe one or two of you can actually admit you didn't know something and were wrong about something. I've been trying that lately and I find it very rewarding. |
Personally I NEVER use Wikipedia as a source of any information as it is not a reliable source since anyone can edit the definition not just experts in the source/field being defined.
I used personal experience from my own photography class(es) which more closely matches this: Negative Space In Photography
While I know I donât know everything; I do know what I was taught AND, most importantly, how I apply the definition to my art. Personally, the photos in the Top 10 ALL used negative space effectively, as I know it to be. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 10:56:46 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I know education hurts, but here is the wikipedia entry for Negative Space:
"In art and design, negative space is the empty space around and between the subject(s) of an image.[1] Negative space may be most evident when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape, and such space occasionally is used to artistic effect as the "real" subject of an image."
None of the top ten use the actual definition of negative space. Here are two examples from further down the results:
Posted in case maybe one or two of you can actually admit you didn't know something and were wrong about something. I've been trying that lately and I find it very rewarding. |
I generally view your input as accurate and well reasoned.
In this instance, I feel you're pretty far off base.
I think the Top 10 are terrific representations of it.
The only caveat is that I feel this one should have been at least a Top 3 if not the blue instead of 8th......
Of course, purely subjectively, I thought this was an easy 6+, but that's just me.....8>)
I'm with Erin as I also virtually never consider Wiki, or YouTube as reputable citations.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2023 11:06:28 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The only caveat is that I feel this one should have been at least a Top 3 if not the blue instead of 8th......
|
I agree - I would pick that image over and over - it was in my top 3; which had the 1st and 5th place in it as well. Stunning image!!
Message edited by author 2023-07-12 11:09:28. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 11:16:33 AM · #6 |
Here is the relevant part of the paragraph that you continue to ignore:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape |
|
|
|
|
07/12/2023 11:26:17 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Here is the relevant part of the paragraph that you continue to ignore:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape |
|
I, personally, donât happen to agree with that definition. I use negative space as a place for rest and to draw attention to my subject, not to be âaâ subject. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 11:26:42 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Here is the relevant part of the paragraph that you continue to ignore:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape |
|
I agree with Don.
Here's a snippet from another source (Negative space photography), that perhaps will be more enduring than Wikipedia? Gina actually pointed out that link in an earlier discussion on this topic.
"Negative space photography is related to minimalist photography. It emphasizes not just the subject but also the empty space around the subject. So, although the viewerâs eyes may focuson a central figure, they canât help but notice the large section of emptiness that surrounds anddefines that figure. Essentially, that emptiness (in whatever form it takes) gives definition and emphasis to the subject. âIf the model or the performer is the noun,â says photographer Jimmy Marble, âthe negative space is the adjective.â" |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 11:50:00 AM · #9 |
| Awwww the beauty of art . . . Even definitions are open to interpretation / application which frames the finished piece of art itself which is open to interpretation of meeting a âdefinitionâ and then of being pleasing to the viewer. So much subjectivity. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 12:00:35 PM · #10 |
I know what Don is trying to say, and the best example is the "Rubin's vase" illusion: is it a vase or is it two faces?
This is the strictest definition of the technique, and based on it, NONE of the challenge entries meet it. Not even the ones he highlighted. However, we have an amazing assortment of minimalist entries.
It is incredibly hard to conceptualize and shoot "negative space", not only because it is confusing and hard to understand, but because the "subject" is the space created, not the (more noticeable) thing creating the space. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 12:25:18 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I know what Don is trying to say, and the best example is the "Rubin's vase" illusion: is it a vase or is it two faces?
This is the strictest definition of the technique, and based on it, NONE of the challenge entries meet it. Not even the ones he highlighted. However, we have an amazing assortment of minimalist entries.
It is incredibly hard to conceptualize and shoot "negative space", not only because it is confusing and hard to understand, but because the "subject" is the space created, not the (more noticeable) thing creating the space. |
To me, that is a cognitive optical illusion not a definition of negative space as it relates to photography or as I was taught to think of negative space in an artistic format. You are right though, none of the entries meets that criteria. ETA: What a fun discussion on people's perceptions, a great reminder of what is truly unique about art.
Fun side note: How funny that the cat is bookended by four images of birds . . . poetic!
Message edited by author 2023-07-12 12:29:18. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 12:38:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Here's a snippet from another source (Negative space photography), that perhaps will be more enduring than Wikipedia? Gina actually pointed out that link in an earlier discussion on this topic. |
Has anyone in this conversation bothered to look at this article? There are some exemplary examples of Negative Space photos in it. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 12:39:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
Awwww the beauty of art . . . Even definitions are open to interpretation / application which frames the finished piece of art itself which is open to interpretation of meeting a âdefinitionâ and then of being pleasing to the viewer. So much subjectivity. |
that's fine. it's the same as voting high for nudes in an Overexposed challenge. I just get a little frustrated because in this challenge only the nudes are getting ribbons. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 01:06:00 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Here's a snippet from another source (Negative space photography), that perhaps will be more enduring than Wikipedia? Gina actually pointed out that link in an earlier discussion on this topic. |
Has anyone in this conversation bothered to look at this article? There are some exemplary examples of Negative Space photos in it. |
Yes, but I think the only true "negative" space example is the drone shot with the shadow. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 01:16:56 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
Awwww the beauty of art . . . Even definitions are open to interpretation / application which frames the finished piece of art itself which is open to interpretation of meeting a âdefinitionâ and then of being pleasing to the viewer. So much subjectivity. |
that's fine. it's the same as voting high for nudes in an Overexposed challenge. I just get a little frustrated because in this challenge only the nudes are getting ribbons. |
Looking back, it does occur to me we could just have made this the "Very Lonely Birds" challenge and gotten the same results :-) |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 01:23:07 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The only caveat is that I feel this one should have been at least a Top 3 if not the blue instead of 8th......
|
I agree - I would pick that image over and over - it was in my top 3; which had the 1st and 5th place in it as well. Stunning image!! |
Thanks so much!
And I'm glad that this thread was started. I don't have time to delve into it, but I want to come back to it in a bit. Because It's worth exploring. So thanks, Don.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2023 01:51:11 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Here's a snippet from another source (Negative space photography), that perhaps will be more enduring than Wikipedia? Gina actually pointed out that link in an earlier discussion on this topic. |
Has anyone in this conversation bothered to look at this article? There are some exemplary examples of Negative Space photos in it. |
Yes, but I think the only true "negative" space example is the drone shot with the shadow. |
Not according to the article. :-) ... and I agree with the article examples. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 02:50:05 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Here is the relevant part of the paragraph that you continue to ignore:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape |
|
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
I, personally, donât happen to agree with that definition. I use negative space as a place for rest and to draw attention to my subject, not to be âaâ subject. |
I don't think ignore is the correct word. I don't think it's a valid premise.
To me, a negative space image is such that its nothingness (i.e. negating) adds to the focal point.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2023 02:56:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I know what Don is trying to say, and the best example is the "Rubin's vase" illusion: is it a vase or is it two faces?
This is the strictest definition of the technique, and based on it, NONE of the challenge entries meet it. Not even the ones he highlighted. However, we have an amazing assortment of minimalist entries.
It is incredibly hard to conceptualize and shoot "negative space", not only because it is confusing and hard to understand, but because the "subject" is the space created, not the (more noticeable) thing creating the space. |
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
To me, that is a cognitive optical illusion not a definition of negative space as it relates to photography or as I was taught to think of negative space in an artistic format |
I'm on board here.
To me, Rubin's vase can hardly be considered negative space since it has (IMO) two equally distinct images.
Where's the negative space?
It's possible I just don't get it or that it really is some obtuse definition as designated acceptable in photography classes, but.....
|
|
|
|
07/12/2023 04:50:51 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
Awwww the beauty of art . . . Even definitions are open to interpretation / application which frames the finished piece of art itself which is open to interpretation of meeting a âdefinitionâ and then of being pleasing to the viewer. So much subjectivity. |
that's fine. it's the same as voting high for nudes in an Overexposed challenge. I just get a little frustrated because in this challenge only the nudes are getting ribbons. |
If enough people interpreted overexposed as nudes, then they would in fact be the only oneâs getting the ribbons for that challenge. It is no different than the abandoned challenge having the front page images all be buildings. It was largely believed to be a building specific topic by voters and participants. While I understand negative space photography to be in line with the Top 10 I absolutely can appreciate how you interpret it differently, neither of us need to admit we were wrong or didnât know something; we just believe or were taught differently.
ETA: I went a looked at a few of the past Negative Space challenges and the three or four I looked at all ribbon winners (and for the most part the Top 10) resembled the same definition of Negative Space that was used here. So, not sure that this outcome is all that surprising.
Message edited by author 2023-07-12 16:54:21. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 06:12:01 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Here is the relevant part of the paragraph that you continue to ignore:
Originally posted by posthumous:
when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape |
|
I agree with Don.
Here's a snippet from another source (Negative space photography), that perhaps will be more enduring than Wikipedia? Gina actually pointed out that link in an earlier discussion on this topic.
"Negative space photography is related to minimalist photography. It emphasizes not just the subject but also the empty space around the subject. So, although the viewerâs eyes may focuson a central figure, they canât help but notice the large section of emptiness that surrounds and defines that figure. Essentially, that emptiness (in whatever form it takes) gives definition and emphasis to the subject. âIf the model or the performer is the noun,â says photographer Jimmy Marble, âthe negative space is the adjective.â" |
I thought I tried to follow that/a similar definition, to the point of having a wedge of reflected light leading to the subject ... :-(
 |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 07:02:06 PM · #22 |
The Negative Space challenge was nothing more than a free study. Birds and bugs captured with precision won the day.
I think Wendy's offering was sensational. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 08:24:15 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
... ETA: I went a looked at a few of the past Negative Space challenges and the three or four I looked at all ribbon winners (and for the most part the Top 10) resembled the same definition of Negative Space that was used here. So, not sure that this outcome is all that surprising. |
Check out the prior Minimalism challenges and you'll find similar results to Negative Space as well. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 08:52:53 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
... ETA: I went a looked at a few of the past Negative Space challenges and the three or four I looked at all ribbon winners (and for the most part the Top 10) resembled the same definition of Negative Space that was used here. So, not sure that this outcome is all that surprising. |
Check out the prior Minimalism challenges and you'll find similar results to Negative Space as well. |
I could definitely see that happening. I feel like this definition defines the difference (for me):
Negative space photography is related to minimalist photography. It emphasizes not just the subject but also the empty space around the subject. So, although the viewer's eyes may focuson a central figure, they can't help but notice the large section of emptiness that surrounds and defines that figure. |
|
|
|
07/12/2023 08:54:47 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
The Negative Space challenge was nothing more than a free study. Birds and bugs captured with precision won the day.
I think Wendy's offering was sensational. |
Hey there, my cat is offended to be lumped with birds and bugs!
To be fair I had something else planned but when I got injured I went with what I could physically do, just not wanting to let my team down by doing nothing. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/31/2025 12:50:37 AM EDT.
