Author Topic: Using a "Negative Space"" as part of the composition (Read 5544 times)

Em5 Pete · « **on:** December 05, 2010, 01:14:46 PM »

I have following several forum discussions on using "Negative Space" as intricate part of the image.
In one way is "going against" the standard "rule of thirds", in another way it using the "rule of thirds" a bit differently.

Well, even "negative space" images have ""rules/guidelines"" that make it a bit easier to compose... and, they are totally different from the ""Normal"" rules/guidelines""

Most Neg-Space works well, if the subject in one of the corners of the ""Rule of Thirds", and with 2 subjects, placing them on the opposite perimeter corner squares, from my deductions of what I have seen, work the best. Rule of thirds image layout

The 4 center intersections are the normal guides as a starting point for basic composition, But, with "Negative Space" these guides don't work as well.. (Subject size dependent).
instead. the 4 corners are the where the subject is placed for a more effective "Negative Space Composition"

I haven't had the time to get a few samples together... but, there are a few already posted in the Industrial Thread....
Please post and share your thoughts here on this topic...

Let's see if we can do a better job then the "mu-43" site with great samples and great discussions

mikmas101 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 05, 2010, 01:40:42 PM »

great discussion topic M5 - composition is a huge part of what it's about....

I think one of mine from the gallery follows your model....the main body of the subject is pretty well confined to the bottom right 9th of your diagram:

Details

Ian Tindale · « **Reply #2 on:** December 05, 2010, 02:15:38 PM »

Is there such a thing as negative space? I had this all the way through art college back in the 80s. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s space. It might as well be positive space, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s still space.

To say Ã¢â‚¬Å“negative spaceÃ¢â‚¬Â implies that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s somehow the opposite of space.

Two planes were involved in a near-missÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
Aha, you mean they hit?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #3 on:** December 05, 2010, 02:40:56 PM »

Quote from: Ian Tindale on December 05, 2010, 02:15:38 PM

Is there such a thing as negative space? I had this all the way through art college back in the 80s. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s space. It might as well be positive space, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s still space.

To say Ã¢â‚¬Å“negative spaceÃ¢â‚¬Â implies that itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s somehow the opposite of space.

Two planes were involved in a near-missÃ¢â‚¬Â¦
Aha, you mean they hit?

Always love a bit humor...

It is not "Literally" negative space, but, the subject is well off center, and the balance of the space has very little subject matter. Just enough to keep the whole image interesting

mikmasa101 example is very good in this regard, The clouds are making the building more interesting, but, does not draw the attention away from the building for too long. The eye goes back to the building.

mikmas101 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 05, 2010, 05:08:01 PM »

Quote from: Ian Tindale on December 05, 2010, 02:15:38 PM

I had this all the way through art college back in the 80s.

Good to hear that some traditions persist - it was quite the thing when I did Pre-DipAD in 1966....

mikmas101 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2010, 05:10:23 PM »

Quote from: M5-User on December 05, 2010, 02:40:56 PM

mikmasa101 example is very good in this regard,

I think Lisandra's pic from Industrial Magic even better to pursue the point - perhaps she could repost it here?

lisandra · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2010, 05:31:51 PM »

Not really following the rule of 3rds but as long we're breaking the rules anyway...

Cirrus1 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2010, 05:55:09 PM »

I have also been trying to use "negative space" to enhance my images. Reading George DeWolfe's books he talks a lot about it.
I tried to make the "open" space in the center of this image as strong as the leaves.

Homage to Barry Thornton by Gran Pre, on Flickr

mikmas101 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2010, 05:55:17 PM »

Thanks lisandra...this does indeed discard the rule of thirds but does follow other paths to lead the viewer to the subject (i.e. the industrial plant)

Firstly - the plant is clearly the brightest area in the frame, no chance of missing it; the painter Vermeer (and many others) used a similar technique to foreground the main subject.

Secondly - whether you enter the image from the left or the right there are strong diagonals that will lead you to where the action is or take you back to it (the clouds from the left lead to the skyline from the right which leads you to the plant). the 'Old Masters' used converging perspective to do something similar but landscape painters could also do this without the aid of architectural orthagonals.

To me your picture shows more influence from Japanese composition than notions of 'negative space' but (like Ian) I've never really understood what all the fuss was abut.

mikmas101 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 05, 2010, 06:01:26 PM »

Nice image Cirrus...

I think this illustrates some confusion between 'dead space' and 'negative space' but perhaps M5 (or someone else) could be clearer about what the 'negative space' thing is all about.

voyager · « **Reply #10 on:** December 05, 2010, 06:15:15 PM »

How does the leaves photo (which is excellent) show negative space? The darker leaves? I'm not sure I understand that one.

Cirrus1 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 05, 2010, 07:20:52 PM »

The warped rectangle in the middle. The interest is in the detail on the leaves, but they are on the edge's. The "negative" space in the middle holds less detail but still carries the eye around the image and holds the interest.... at least that was what I was thinking when I made it!

lisandra · « **Reply #12 on:** December 05, 2010, 08:04:35 PM »

Quote from: mikmas101 on December 05, 2010, 06:01:26 PM

Nice image Cirrus...

I think this illustrates some confusion between 'dead space' and 'negative space' but perhaps M5 (or someone else) could be clearer about what the 'negative space' thing is all about.

I agree, nothing wrong with the leaves image, but it doesnt really show negative space.

voyager · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2010, 12:52:11 AM »

Doesn't negative space denote a place that adds nothing to the image though, like the sky in the one above in the thread? I am honestly asking, I don't usually think about this.

Ian Tindale · « **Reply #14 on:** December 06, 2010, 01:49:59 AM »

Ordinary space or even positive space won’t do that also?

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #15 on:** December 06, 2010, 05:09:47 AM »

Quote from: mikmas101 on December 05, 2010, 05:08:01 PM

Quote from: Ian Tindale on December 05, 2010, 02:15:38 PM
I had this all the way through art college back in the 80s.

Good to hear that some traditions persist - it was quite the thing when I did Pre-DipAD in 1966....

Not had any schooling in conceptual teachings, only the commercial side (hands own) at a 1 year Art Institute.

so calling it space is OK, as long as it communicates the concept.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #16 on:** December 06, 2010, 05:24:21 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on December 05, 2010, 08:04:35 PM

Quote from: mikmas101 on December 05, 2010, 06:01:26 PM
Nice image Cirrus...

I think this illustrates some confusion between 'dead space' and 'negative space' but perhaps M5 (or someone else) could be clearer about what the 'negative space' thing is all about.
I agree, nothing wrong with the leaves image, but it doesnt really show negative space.

I also agree
the concept is to use over 70% or some large percentage of "un-occupied" space is used as an part of the image. Ian seems to have some teaching in this, and has added a clarity to my 1st post

The center part is more "dead space", and a very good image btw, but shows a different compositional technique.
This would make another great discussion in this forum for technique used. Perhaps Cirrus1 will start one?

lisandra · « **Reply #17 on:** December 06, 2010, 09:36:07 AM »

Quote from: voyager on December 06, 2010, 12:52:11 AM

Doesn't negative space denote a place that adds nothing to the image though, like the sky in the one above in the thread? I am honestly asking, I don't usually think about this.

It adds nothing to the subject, but the eye needs to be drawn to the subject itself regardless.

bstv · « **Reply #18 on:** December 06, 2010, 10:43:00 AM »

DEEP SPACE DEPT: Leggy scout Stomoxys XXX touches down on illuminated drifting Terran artefact.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #19 on:** December 07, 2010, 06:02:25 PM »

negative space and its use in the fine arts as part of what artists consider when organizing space or choosing elements to render is as old as art itself

it exists in the cave paintings of 30 000 yrs ago and in the photo shot yesterday, the formal aspect photography has at its heart an intigration of the shapes of negative and positive giving each other existance.... reference the forms in a frieze on intelligent pottery or the space between a dancers arm and her body in ballet............in music, the silence between notes is as important as the notes themselves..... and of course a good photo is only as good as the negative space and the "subjects"and elements that give them form

nice thread

adash · « **Reply #20 on:** December 08, 2010, 07:38:03 AM »

I soon read a text book about composition in photography and really I did not see anything similar to that term, nor any word even distantly meaning that approach for composing a picture. I guess I just picked up a crappy textbook.

mikmas101 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 08, 2010, 10:10:39 AM »

Quote from: cosinaphile on December 07, 2010, 06:02:25 PM

or the space between a dancers arm and her body in ballet.......

Personally I would call them 'space' and 'arm' and 'body' (which is actually what you've called them) - can't really see where 'positive' and 'negative' come into this.

The only time I have come across this concept used coherently and with some logical consequence is when I did basic typography many, many years ago. Because letters aren't actually objects (unlike dancers or characters in a frieze) they can be defined by the area they enclose on the flat plane (positive space) or the area that surrounds them (negative space). A good typographer has learnt how to use both areas to create balance and harmony but also can create the letters themselves by using either the positive letter space or the negative space around them - what people erroneously call 'the background'. Generally in photography we are dealing with recording actual 3D relationships but rendered on a 2D surface - it still makes sense to talk of 'foreground' and 'background'; in typography this distinction is meaningless and defining space in other ways makes much more sense.

Here's an artist (Robert Indiana) who used this typographical concept in his work:

lisandra · « **Reply #22 on:** December 08, 2010, 11:11:04 AM »

This is creating to much controversy...here is an example of the stonehenge and negative space instead of the more conventional shots you see of them.

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #23 on:** December 08, 2010, 12:52:59 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on December 08, 2010, 11:11:04 AM

This is creating to much controversy...here is an example of the stonehenge and negative space instead of the more conventional shots you see of them.

I should change the Title to: "Using ""A LARGE NON MAIN SUBJECT SPACE"" as part of the composition." Apparently different terms has been used in past teachings of other replies.....
The Term "Negative" is not literal.... it is used figuratively....That is: "A space where there is No Main Subject, and is basically a filler for [said] un-used space.

Your examples have shown this quite plainly.

Deleted rant:

A very spirited discussion is always interesting...
let's keep posting pictures with your thoughts....
I'm going to try a few this weekend....

corgifan · « **Reply #24 on:** December 08, 2010, 09:37:39 PM »

It's a bit simplistic but since it comes from the master I'll add this quote: "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams

As for me, I've played with negative space in images and generally like the concept just because it breaks "the rules."

Doug

Author Topic: Using a "Negative Space"" as part of the composition (Read 5544 times)

Ian Tindale

Ian Tindale

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery