Negative Space: Good or Bad?

[Spooky]

I am a big fan of negative space in an image but at a recent RPS panel meeting I was chastised for my use of it in an image. Now, I am not necessarily looking for a crit on the image but rather any thoughts on negative space as a concept / theory.


Beth-8 by Spooky 173, on Flickr

I have just started exploring the concept with my A Level Photography students and would like to give them some different points of view to discuss.

Any thoughts etc that you might have would be gratefully received.

Cheers

Spooks

 

[Photodiva]

Hi. I also like to use 'negative space' in some images, and enjoy images that make use of it. However, I think that it doesn't work in all circumstances. I guess its all about knowing the rules before you break them.

 

[specialman]

I'm a big, big fan of negative space in the right circumstances. I suppose it's been cemented in my head because I shoot for editorial where there's often the need to run copy over the negative space. For me, it's also useful when it's plain white/black because you can easily extend the canvas to play around with the position of the subject on the page.

In terms of general photography I use a lot of off-centre composition and much of that gives way to space that has little or no detail/texture in it because I just like the idea that in many instances, you can elude to something out of frame.

Negative space is as valid as tight crops, or following the rule of thirds, or whatever theory you follow in your photography. I'll be heading over to the RPS on Monday at Focus to work out whether or not I keep up my subscription, something I've yet to take an benefit from. I'll have a look at its gallery to see what 'rules' seem to be prevalent....

In the meantime, this is what I'm talking about with regard to my work:


Competition Shoot by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Shot for a competition to run across a double-page in a magazine... lots of space for copy, entry details etc...


Charlie by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

One of my little boy, a shot I love dearly. Does the negative space work? I think so but others may disagree. It's my photos so I can do what I want

 

[GHP]

The problem with your example Simon, is that because of the white background on the forum, I can't see how wide the image is, or how much negative space there is !
I am, however a big fan of negative space if the image needs it. Depends.

 

[graphilly]

The problem with your example Simon, is that because of the white background on the forum, I can't see how wide the image is, or how much negative space there is !
I am, however a big fan of negative space if the image needs it. Depends.

Good point actually. I originally thought it was a portrait format image and thought it may be a bad choice of image to go with the thread. I see the negative space on second look.

It is a tricky subject. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't, but I would go as far as to say, for me, negative space is actually when it doesn't work in an image. It's not negative space if it does work.

 

[Bristolian]

I'm also a fan of negative space but feel it has to add something to the image. In Spooky's first image (Beth-8) it doesn't really say or do anything, whereas "Charlie" above looks to be concentrating something out of shot, so the space has relevance.

Does that make sense :shrug:

 

[The23rdman]

I love negative space if it adds to the story. I use it a lot to convey loneliness or sadness.

 

[tiler65]

The problem with your example Simon, is that because of the white background on the forum, I can't see how wide the image is, or how much negative space there is !
I am, however a big fan of negative space if the image needs it. Depends.

change the forum colour to blue....... no problems then. Hardly anyone uses a bluey/grey backdrop the same as the blue theme.

 

[DemiLion]

I like using it as well:

usually as a reverse stop at the RHS of the photo ( really shouldn't get into to habits! )

Without giving too much C&C Simon, I think that yours would work better if the negative space was reversed (ie on the LHS of the subject), because that way the eye is drawn across the photo to the model. If you stick her on the LHS (as here) then the eye stops where she is and the space doesn't add much.

 

[GHP]

change the forum colour to blue....... no problems then. Hardly anyone uses a bluey/grey backdrop the same as the blue theme.

It is set to blue on my PC. This gives you a white background !
Changed it to grey and it works.
And yes, the negative space works, in fact, I might also try a bit more above the models head.

 

[Milkfloat]

I'm also a fan of negative space but feel it has to add something to the image. In Spooky's first image (Beth-8) it doesn't really say or do anything, whereas "Charlie" above looks to be concentrating something out of shot, so the space has relevance.

Does that make sense :shrug:

Agree 100% - to me (partially educated) it adds nothing to 'Beth', but the fishing rod and 'Charlie' it makes sense.

 

[Spooky]

Thanks for the comments, thoughts and examples, folks. Will respond in more detail when I get home, but in the interim, here is another that got the 'negative space is a no no' response.


Hannah-1008 by Spooky 173, on Flickr

 

[tiler65]

It is set to blue on my PC. This gives you a white background !
Changed it to grey and it works.
And yes, the negative space works, in fact, I might also try a bit more above the models head.

Are you sure your brightness isn't too bright?

 

[gramps]

I'm also a fan of negative space but feel it has to add something to the image. In Spooky's first image (Beth-8) it doesn't really say or do anything, whereas "Charlie" above looks to be concentrating something out of shot, so the space has relevance.

Does that make sense :shrug:

Entirely agree with this Steve, the first image just has a blank to the right and the girl is looking away from it, it's not only 'negative' it's isolated and removed from the subject - the little lad is 'using' the space and so it becomes a part of him and is therefore meaningful.

 

[tiler65]

Thanks for the comments, thoughts and examples, folks. Will respond in more detail when I get home, but in the interim, here is another that got the 'negative space is a no no' response.


Hannah-1008 by Spooky 173, on Flickr

Now I like that but would prefer more steps below and above if possible

 

[arclight]

I'm a big, big fan of negative space in the right circumstances. I suppose it's been cemented in my head because I shoot for editorial where there's often the need to run copy over the negative space. For me, it's also useful when it's plain white/black because you can easily extend the canvas to play around with the position of the subject on the page.

In terms of general photography I use a lot of off-centre composition and much of that gives way to space that has little or no detail/texture in it because I just like the idea that in many instances, you can elude to something out of frame.

Negative space is as valid as tight crops, or following the rule of thirds, or whatever theory you follow in your photography. I'll be heading over to the RPS on Monday at Focus to work out whether or not I keep up my subscription, something I've yet to take an benefit from. I'll have a look at its gallery to see what 'rules' seem to be prevalent....

In the meantime, this is what I'm talking about with regard to my work:


Competition Shoot by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Shot for a competition to run across a double-page in a magazine... lots of space for copy, entry details etc...


Charlie by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

One of my little boy, a shot I love dearly. Does the negative space work? I think so but others may disagree. It's my photos so I can do what I want

It does work because the little boy is looking into it. I think that can be the key with "negative space". I don't especially like that term because the space actually serves a purpose, e.g. something for the subject to look into or move into if it is going in that direction.

 

[GHP]

Are you sure your brightness isn't too bright?

No, it's not too bright, it's just that if set to blue, the page is white. As I say, it works on grey, as the page is light grey, not white.
As for the 2nd example, I think I too would prefer a bit more space above model's head.

 

[flook999]

Big fan of negative space, surprised at the panel response you got

 

[GHP]

But surely, just going from the comments on here, although mostly positive, there are also comments about how much space, direction, etc.
So it is a subjective thing, and as such the judges personal opinion comes into it, like any photo competition. (No offence intended BTW)

 

[Spooky]

Evening all

Many thanks for your responses. Having sat in traffic on the way home, I have had time to muse over some of the thoughts presented here and I am certain they will provide some discussion with my students in the morning.

I'm a big, big fan of negative space in the right circumstances... I shoot for editorial where 1. there's often the need to run copy over the negative space...

...it's also useful when it's plain white/black because you can 2. easily extend the canvas to play around with the position of the subject on the page.

In terms of general photography I use a lot of off-centre composition and much of that gives way to space that has little or no detail/texture in it because I just like the idea that in many instances, 3. you can elude to something out of frame.

1. You raise a number of really important points and I find it interesting that your background is in editorial photography. In my mind - with my Media teacher hat on - that editorial images are ripe for utilising negative space. Scan most monthly publications and there will be a number of examples of the 'theory' being practised for a practical purpose.

2. I too like the thought of neutral backgrounds and the ability to move subjects / recompose the shot.

3. This is an excellent point and echoes the reason why I have started my students thinking about negative space; their exam theme is Inside, Outside, In-between and for the next couple of weeks we will be experimenting with different compositional theories.

Really liked your two images - strong stuff and helpful to see your ideas illustrated.

I'm also a fan of negative space but feel it has to add something to the image. In Spooky's first image (Beth-8) it doesn't really say or do anything, whereas "Charlie" above looks to be concentrating something out of shot, so the space has relevance.

Does that make sense :shrug:

This makes perfect sense and is an important point; negative space for negative space sack is probably really negative! I can see what you mean when comapring the two images but is the white space in my image really contributing nothing? I would argue that it is accentuating the subject but it certainly is not as strong as Charlie where there is definately a powerful sense of 'looking room' - to use another media phrase.

I love negative space if it adds to the story. I use it a lot to convey loneliness or sadness.

Another really good point. Supports the idea that negative space needs to bring something to the image, and if it enhances the 'narrative' then all the better.

Without giving too much C&C Simon, I think that yours would work better if the negative space was reversed (ie on the LHS of the subject), because that way the eye is drawn across the photo to the model. If you stick her on the LHS (as here) then the eye stops where she is and the space doesn't add much.

Am going to give this a go; it certainly is an interesting experiment and will be interesting to see the effects. Will post it up here to see what peeps think.

Thanks for contributing your image as well - it illustrates the point you are making.

the first image just has a blank to the right and the girl is looking away from it, it's not only 'negative' it's isolated and removed from the subject - the little lad is 'using' the space and so it becomes a part of him and is therefore meaningful.

Totally agree

But surely, just going from the comments on here, although mostly positive, there are also comments about how much space, direction, etc. So it is a subjective thing, and as such... personal opinion comes into it.

Another valid point, thanks. I certainly agree that it is subjective and having looked at a number of posts on here where images have been critiqued and negative space cited, there are a number of differing opinions.

I think, from the point of view of my students, that they need to be able to articulate why and how the use of negative space enhances an image. As long as they can evidence experimentation, in camera and in PP, and evaluate the effectiveness of using said 'theory' then they will be fine. By discussing it they have already become engaged with images / composition in a way that is stretching them, which is what I need them to do to hit the A* grades.

Thanks again for your contributions; I am going to try and consolidate my thinking over a coffee.

More later

 

[Spooky]

So, the majority of thoughts expressed here suggest that negative space is a good thing.
Additionally, there seems to be agreement that the use of negative space has to 'add' something to the image, be this creating / enhancing an atmosphere or conveying a sense of space.

I would add that negative space can also be used to accentuate a subject - aspects such as shape, pattern, texture become more prominent when juxtaposed against a plain background.

In all cases, by focusing on the negative space, we (photographers) are all immediately thinking about the subject in a very different way.

Would this be a fair summary? Any other thoughts, something I am missing?

I wonder how much of this is actually conscious thought, or something more instinctive?

Cheers

Spooks

 

[Spooky]

Alternative composition

 

[Tigger.ufo]

I, personally, think this one works much better.

....and I absolutely love the girl on the steps.


Heather

 

[desantnik]

IMHO, the space has to be integral to the final composition:

1) Somewhere for something "about to happen" (this is true of more than just vast areas, but more subtle ones too.)

2) Something to do with how the image will be used (text in the space is always a good one, news/mag editors love it)

Those two are pretty much all I can think of, if not then its just a composition with no purpose - the same as I crit people often for odd shaped crops - there's nothing wrong with odd shaped crops if you can show me the context that you've designed it like that for.

Of your two images Spooky looking at my first "rule", the lingerie girl just feels contrived (and slightly out of odds with rule of thirds to boot IMHO) and pointless, whereas your girl on the step is sitting there on her own, looking out, perhaps for someone to join her in the space (and she's more correctly rule of thirds too lol).

On my "rule #2" lingerie girl I feel also fails because as a background to editorial text, there isn't anything there to overprint. It needs to have a background or the effect is somewhat wasted. Step girl would work better perhaps, still not a strong candidate for this though - unlike Demilion's vicar shot which would work.

Its all a bit touchy feely really, but then again, this is "art" supposedly isn't it

 

[DemiLion]

Do you mind? He's a bishop!

 

[desantnik]

What do i know about baby jesus and his fan club

 

[Jayst84]

at a recent RPS panel meeting

I think the RPS may as well be run by a computer programme. All the judging I've come across has been exactly the same, and it's 99% utter rubbish in my experience. They don't appear interested in any creativity, or in the art of photography, it's just a camera operators' club.

As for negative space, it works just as any other facet of design does (well sometimes, badly other times).

I shot a series a few years ago that used a lot of negative space, because it was based on ideas about isolation in large cities, amongst other things, so it fit the theme. (I'm not happy with a lot of it now, but it did OK for me at the time. You can have a look here if you're interested).

 

[Spooky]

Hi James

Many thanks for the link, and for your thoughts. I really like a lot of your images but would question whether they truly exhibit negative space. The final image in your gallery, the man pushing the wheelie bin, is the one that fits closest to my understanding of negative space. The space around him is relatively empty, the neutral grey tarmac runs to the edge and suggests an idea of limitless space, and his positioning in the top of the frame conveys a sense that he is forever sweeping up rubbish.

The others seem too cluttered and I find my eye looking at other aspects of each image. Surely one of the points of negative space is to accentuate the main subject rather than draw away from it.

Spooks

 

[specialman]

Spooky - that re-edit looks great, although I've just brought both versions up on my screen and rapidly flicked between them, and they both have their own plus points. If I were usuing it editorially then the obvious thing in both images is that the gutter doesn't run through the subject, but that aside, with the appropriate headline and stand first, both images could convey totally different messages:

Situated on the left (the girl looking 'into' the image) it would work if the piece was relating to an interview for example where the headline would invariably be linked to that person's charecter or persona. She'd be looking at thos words and the link between her and the descriptive headline would be complete.

Situated on the right (with the girl looking 'out' of the image) it could be a feature on exploitation of women, a piece about the burlesque look, tattoos, how more 'traditional' forms of lingerie are coming back into fashion.... anything where the girl isn't the focus (because she's not engaging the copy and is uninterested in the feature) and where the most important factor is the lingerie, the tattoo, the message about sexuality that she conveys.

That's my take on it anyway, but as said, i tend to think editorially and rarely as standalone images

--------

BTW, sorry for hijacking the thread with my images - just needed to explain using images

 

[Jayst84]

The others seem too cluttered and I find my eye looking at other aspects of each image. Surely one of the points of negative space is to accentuate the main subject rather than draw away from it.

Yea, most of them aren't the most negative of negative spaces. The idea was more, the space of the city surrounding them, and to think about what is going on outside of the frame.

I don't think negative space has to be completely blank, and just leave you looking at the subject - if it's 100% nothingness, then it could almost not be there anyway. In other cases, the negative space could be the subject itself.

 

[SimonH]

Hi James

Many thanks for the link, and for your thoughts. I really like a lot of your images but would question whether they truly exhibit negative space. The final image in your gallery, the man pushing the wheelie bin, is the one that fits closest to my understanding of negative space. The space around him is relatively empty, the neutral grey tarmac runs to the edge and suggests an idea of limitless space, and his positioning in the top of the frame conveys a sense that he is forever sweeping up rubbish.

The others seem too cluttered and I find my eye looking at other aspects of each image. Surely one of the points of negative space is to accentuate the main subject rather than draw away from it.

Spooks

Hmm.. interesting. For me, negative space is an area in an image given to the non-subject, but which is significant in the image specifically because of its relationship to/with the subject. Though I would agree that some objects in space can be too busy to be effective as negative space (clutter), I don't think that negative space should be equated with empty space. Empty space is more heavily compositional in functionality, whereas negative space is contextually important - the relationship/contrast between subject and object - this relationship is what drives the space negative, rather than just empty/blank/neutral [edit] and thus gives positive emphasis and relevance to the subject.

But obviously, the RPS and I disagree on negative space, because what they've identified in your first image as negative space isn't how I perceive it. And who am I to argue with the RPS??

 

[Spooky]

I don't think that negative space should be equated with empty space. Empty space is more heavily compositional in functionality, whereas negative space is contextually important - the relationship/contrast between subject and object - this relationship is what drives the space negative, rather than just empty/blank/neutral [edit] and thus gives positive emphasis and relevance to the subject.

I like this bit.

Just been reading up on this; according to Michael Freeman, negative space is defined as: areas of a photograph that do not contain any subject matter

Many thanks for the continued responses. Off to bed now in the hope that this does not keep me awake. Am teaching the students first thing in the morning so will let you know how we get on.

Spooks

 

[Spooky]

OK - throwing this one in as an example. Based on the critria summarised from this thread, does this work as an image making effective use of negative space? I would argue that it does.


Snow or Sketch? by Spooky 173, on Flickr

1. The misty bg adds to the sense that the world is covered in snow - that the landscape goes beyond the edge of the frame
2. The contrast between the tree and the snow enhances the shape and texture of the tree
3. The image adheres to other rules of composition (rule of thirds)
4. The bg is not too cluttered and so does not distract from the focal point

Any thoughts?

Spooks

 

[POAH]

I would agree with them in this instance, there is too much.

Beth-8 by Spooky 173, on Flickr

 

[Jayst84]

Any thoughts?

Spooks

Yep, now send it to the RPS and they'll tell you to make a vertical crop of the tree.

 

[SimonH]

OK - throwing this one in as an example. Based on the critria summarised from this thread, does this work as an image making effective use of negative space? I would argue that it does.

Very nearly. The proximity of the middle-distance copse, image right, under (and, significantly, behind) the subject's branches, connects the background to the subject. A few steps to the right and you'd have the separation you need for the negative space to be effective.

Lovely image but, strictly following the criteria...