|
|
09/12/2002 04:23:11 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by inspzil: Originally posted by jakking: [i]Still no luck. The page is there but what I guess to be the pic is replaced by a Photo-Sig sign.
That's bad karma...I'll keep trying. Maybe I'll turn off my computer monitor and take a picture of it!!!
[/i]
I'll have you know, I have nothing ot do with this!
I did not do it, no matter what anyone says.
:-)
|
|
|
09/12/2002 05:22:08 PM · #66 |
Thanks ppl... for the comment... anyway, i'll post for the challenge. I still think I don't have a clear understanding of the theme "Negative Space". Just let them decide.
Eric Cheah www.pbase.com/ericcheah
|
|
|
09/12/2002 06:30:10 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by spiderman: Originally posted by a1leyez0nm3: [i]can i ask for an opinion? would this be a good shot to submit??? its nothing special but so far its all that i could come up with:
dawn over a small mountain
sorry - i get this
Webshots Community Error A problem has been detected.
You do not appear to be the owner of this album. Make sure you are logged in.
[/i]
woops...
//community.webshots.com/photo/49694258/49896800DXopaU
|
|
|
09/13/2002 10:05:02 AM · #68 |
I'm wondering if THIS would qualify as use of "negative space"... The field has texture and interest in it's own right, but does that make it "non-negative"? or does the fact that it is obviously NOT the subject, along with the uniform (more or less) color, make it negative?
I suggested this challenge subject a while back and now I'm struggling to understand it :) Guess it's true, be careful what you pray for :)
|
|
|
09/13/2002 10:16:59 AM · #69 |
myqyl,
I think it "qualifies" but I'm not sure it's that effective. It might work better if you had a wider crop, or if the field was full of flowers with your subject holding just one or two. Something to help convey the smallness of the subject in comparison with the background, without making the background itself the subject. |
|
|
09/13/2002 10:19:42 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: myqyl,
I think it "qualifies" but I'm not sure it's that effective. It might work better if you had a wider crop, or if the field was full of flowers with your subject holding just one or two. Something to help convey the smallness of the subject in comparison with the background, without making the background itself the subject.
Thanks :)
Actually the field WAS filled with flowers, but fields don't stay that way around her very long :) I'm trying to teach her they look nicer in the ground :)
But your comment gives me hope for my current idea :)
|
|
|
09/13/2002 10:40:49 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by myqyl: Actually the field WAS filled with flowers, but fields don't stay that way around her very long :) I'm trying to teach her they look nicer in the ground :)
Give her the camera and let her take her own pictures of the flowers. She can keep them forever that way, and will learn how much nicer a picture you can take if there aren't big "holes" in the subject. Also, if you're working on something similar to this, you might try standing on a ladder or something to suggest the look of an aerial photo or at least a real high perspective. |
|
|
09/13/2002 10:45:05 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Jenguin: Basically.. negative space is an emptyness added to your photo. Usually, the main focus of your image is by itself.. what surrounds it is not necessarily "blank" .. but the fact that it lacks something actually adds to your photo.
You see it in advertisements all the time.
That's so there's a place to put the copy (type) where it's readable. You'll also find photos where there is image there, but it's been "ghosted" or faded into the background. |
|
|
09/13/2002 11:03:02 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE: myqyl,
I think it "qualifies" but I'm not sure it's that effective. It might work better if you had a wider crop, or if the field was full of flowers with your subject holding just one or two. Something to help convey the smallness of the subject in comparison with the background, without making the background itself the subject.
I don't think you quite understand what we are supposed to do for the challenge. It doesnt matter how small the subject is. It is how well the subject stands out above the background. Does the negative bring your eye to the positive part of the photo? At least that is what I got out of it when I read the tuturial they had on here the other day that I can't find.
|
|
|
09/13/2002 12:03:41 PM · #74 |
myqyl, I think your picture there qualifies for negspace. It's not the greatest example but it meets the criterion in my book at least. You might try to play with cropping a bit more and see whether you could make it more dynamic for the challenge. Hokie posted an excellent example of a further recrop of his Eye Contact submission. Have a look at that if you will.
Anticipate that next week there will be lots of comments like "This does NOT meet the challenge", mainly made by people who don't understand negspace very well themselves (and I was not referring to you here, myqyl, at all) and who will give lousy scores. |
|
|
09/13/2002 12:17:10 PM · #75 |
I never got to see the three kittens. I did see the thumbnail by going to the photographer. I have a feeling like the subject next week is going to be abstract so we might as well get that one out of the way. |
|
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: 03/14/2025 07:19:14 AM EDT.