What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
SonyOB Contributing Member • Posts: 808
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? Meet MA
1

Thirty spokes meet in the hub, though the space between them is the essence of the wheel;

Pots are formed from clay, though the space inside them is the essence of the pot;

Walls with windows and doors form the house, though the space within them is the essence of the house.

The Japanese call it MA.

-- hide signature --

"If your pictures are not good enough, you need to buy some more stuff from Amazon"
(Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon)

 SonyOB's gear list:SonyOB's gear list
Sony RX100 V Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +13 more
Just Tim 4
Just Tim 4 Contributing Member • Posts: 706
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)
1

Pretty much. We always try to understand what we see and that understanding is drawn from our memory and experience. I could photograph a house and we would all recognise the reality of the object because nearly all of us have experience and memory of houses. But our feelings or impressions of the house, big/small etc, come from our own bias.

But we all recognise the house as an object, as the *shape* in the image.

If I drew a house as a simple outline then I could just as easily be drawing the background and where it ends, but you will still see and interpret a house as see it as the object and the *not house* as the negative space. It is a perceptual distinction because we are trying to form an understanding of what we see. But it is important in drawing 2D representations of a scene that you understand that you are also drawing the shape of where the background ends as well, even though you are drawing it with the understanding that it continues behind the object as it does in 3D space. This is the reality of 2D imaging, you are drawing a representation of the half of an object facing towards you and communicating an understanding of the full 3D object whilst also drawing the shape of the background to fit against it with an understanding that it actually continues behind the object...

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

Just Tim 4 wrote:

Pretty much. We always try to understand what we see and that understanding is drawn from our memory and experience. I could photograph a house and we would all recognise the reality of the object because nearly all of us have experience and memory of houses. But our feelings or impressions of the house, big/small etc, come from our own bias.

But we all recognise the house as an object, as the *shape* in the image.

If I drew a house as a simple outline then I could just as easily be drawing the background and where it ends, but you will still see and interpret a house as see it as the object and the *not house* as the negative space.

I don't think that's the "negative space" people have in mind here. You seem to be using it as the "not something" of an image. I don't think people are typically thinking of that when they say "negative space".

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,376
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

stevo23 wrote:

Just Tim 4 wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

So then there isn't really "negative space" as an actual or useful concept, just figure to ground or greatest contrast.

This is the part I don't understand, (or is it because I fail to communicate the idea properly?), that on forums we don't question our base assumptions or the way in which we see. We generally assume that because we see something in an image that it is an intrinsic property of an image and is therefore contained within an image and can be categorised and labelled. We also view the opinions of others and instinctively try to fit them within our own base assumptions. We try to fit new ideas into our current understanding rather then see that the concepts are actually about changing and questioning that viewpoint and understanding.

It doesn't seem to occur to some that the concept of negative space is perceptual and that it may in fact be the act of looking and seeking to apply an order to gain an understanding of what we see that creates it.

It also has nothing to do with contrast as I can just as easily use an outline drawing.

That you can't see past the object and it's reality is your shortcoming, and a common one. You see and recognise the object without questioning why you see and recognise the reality of the object in a 2D representation.

I understand that when I draw a shape I am actually creating two shapes, a positive and a negative form, even though the viewer generally only sees the one. That the relationship between the positive and negative forms reveals the shape and can be a powerful tool. I find it an incredibly useful concept in understanding the true nature of 2D representation and how people see and interpret images.

Not sure I get what you're saying in all this. Nice photos here - negative space? They seem to stray from that idea a good bit. Now you're showing a lot of other techniques.

No image must be one technique or idea.

What I'm advocating here is that negative space isn't a "thing". Rather, design techniques are and they are sometimes interpreted as "he's using negative space to do xyz" when in reality, something else is going on.

The artworld accepts negative space as a thing. Why do you think it isn't and what else do you think is going on?

And then students think that negative space is a thing and they create a lot of schlock because they don't get what's really happening from a symmetry/design/story standpoint.

Art students create a lot of schlock due to inexperience.

Let's walk through the example photos in this post.

The banks of the river are negative space. Why? Because the relative lack of detail and the contrasting value allow the river to stand out and be a greater focus.

In this one, the sky is negative space for the same reasons the banks were in the above image. The bright, featureless nature of the sky brings the tree trees into prominence.

This last one doesn't have negative space. Both the foreground structure and the background vista have too much of interest to recede enough to be considered negative space.

It is simple. The positive space is that which the eye is drawn tow and the negative is that which, by its uniformity and contrast, pushes the eye away.

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: Negative space is everything but the subject's form.

tex wrote:

It's a visual art term/concept. It's easiest seen in photography in shallow dof images where the background is a complete blur, or in BIF images when the bird is against a blank sky, or "Rembrandt" style portraits, or Avedon style ones against a blank background, & etc.

I usually see it used and defined as empty or low detailed space around the subject that helps define the subject's form. And if that's what it is, then it's really just a way of accomplishing figure to ground relationship.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,376
Re: Negative space is everything but the subject's form.

stevo23 wrote:

tex wrote:

It's a visual art term/concept. It's easiest seen in photography in shallow dof images where the background is a complete blur, or in BIF images when the bird is against a blank sky, or "Rembrandt" style portraits, or Avedon style ones against a blank background, & etc.

I usually see it used and defined as empty or low detailed space around the subject that helps define the subject's form.

Yeah, empty as in negative.

And if that's what it is, then it's really just a way of accomplishing figure to ground relationship.

What does "figure to ground" relationship mean?

Just Tim 4
Just Tim 4 Contributing Member • Posts: 706
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

stevo23 wrote:

...What I'm advocating here is that negative space isn't a "thing".

No, it's a concept that helps you organise marks and shapes on a 2D surface with an understanding of how they will be interpreted.

Rather, design techniques are and they are sometimes interpreted as "he's using negative space to do xyz"

Yet you still try and talk about it as a *thing*, he's not using negative space but organising shapes and tones with an understanding of how you will interpret what is the *object* and what is the *background*.

when in reality, something else is going on. And then students think that negative space is a thing and they create a lot of schlock because they don't get what's really happening from a symmetry/design/story standpoint.

Negative space is an understanding that in 2D images your audience will make some base assumptions when they view. One of those assumptions is that we separate *subject* or *object* from the *background*. It's about how we organise elements in an image to form a logical understanding that's consistent with our memory. You can play with these ideas and your audience's assumptions as demonstrated in the link in this post here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62913106

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

lilBuddha wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Just Tim 4 wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

So then there isn't really "negative space" as an actual or useful concept, just figure to ground or greatest contrast.

This is the part I don't understand, (or is it because I fail to communicate the idea properly?), that on forums we don't question our base assumptions or the way in which we see. We generally assume that because we see something in an image that it is an intrinsic property of an image and is therefore contained within an image and can be categorised and labelled. We also view the opinions of others and instinctively try to fit them within our own base assumptions. We try to fit new ideas into our current understanding rather then see that the concepts are actually about changing and questioning that viewpoint and understanding.

It doesn't seem to occur to some that the concept of negative space is perceptual and that it may in fact be the act of looking and seeking to apply an order to gain an understanding of what we see that creates it.

It also has nothing to do with contrast as I can just as easily use an outline drawing.

That you can't see past the object and it's reality is your shortcoming, and a common one. You see and recognise the object without questioning why you see and recognise the reality of the object in a 2D representation.

I understand that when I draw a shape I am actually creating two shapes, a positive and a negative form, even though the viewer generally only sees the one. That the relationship between the positive and negative forms reveals the shape and can be a powerful tool. I find it an incredibly useful concept in understanding the true nature of 2D representation and how people see and interpret images.

Not sure I get what you're saying in all this. Nice photos here - negative space? They seem to stray from that idea a good bit. Now you're showing a lot of other techniques.

No image must be one technique or idea.

Not advocating that.

What I'm advocating here is that negative space isn't a "thing". Rather, design techniques are and they are sometimes interpreted as "he's using negative space to do xyz" when in reality, something else is going on.

The artworld accepts negative space as a thing. Why do you think it isn't and what else do you think is going on?

I think what I mean is that focusing on the concept of negative space is misleading and doesn't really uncover what is or should be going on for the artist.

And then students think that negative space is a thing and they create a lot of schlock because they don't get what's really happening from a symmetry/design/story standpoint.

Art students create a lot of schlock due to inexperience.

Let's walk through the example photos in this post.

The banks of the river are negative space. Why? Because the relative lack of detail and the contrasting value allow the river to stand out and be a greater focus.

Depends on how you define "negative space" - I'm not certain it's always the same definition. I see a well accomplished figure to ground relationship by having detailed and interesting subject matter up against formless/void/darker subject matter. Not just that it's formless/void space but also the different tonal value.

In this one, the sky is negative space for the same reasons the banks were in the above image. The bright, featureless nature of the sky brings the tree trees into prominence.

Not all would say that negative space is formless/featureless Some teach that it's any space that is not the subject. So that is already one problem.

But here, I see a strong area of contrast being used along with a formless background to accomplish a strong figure to ground relationship. That it is "negative space" isn't the point. It could be dark grey and it would still be negative pace. In this case also, the eye actually travels to the foreground where there is more detail and a perhaps higher amount of contrast but also some leading curves/lines that take us back to the trees. And what ties the foreground to the midfield and keeps us in the image is the same relationship of detail/flat between the two as well as the diagonals. So in my mind, "negative space" doesn't really define or drive what's happening. Contrast mostly does the talking here.

This last one doesn't have negative space. Both the foreground structure and the background vista have too much of interest to recede enough to be considered negative space.

It is simple. The positive space is that which the eye is drawn tow and the negative is that which, by its uniformity and contrast, pushes the eye away.

Disagree there - the eye is typically drawn first to the area of greatest contrast. And if you've designed an image well, the eye will go to where you want it to go and that also happens through various means.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

Just Tim 4 wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

...What I'm advocating here is that negative space isn't a "thing".

No, it's a concept that helps you organise marks and shapes on a 2D surface with an understanding of how they will be interpreted.

Not sure what you mean here. Why would you not organize around a grid and the primary concepts of composition?

Rather, design techniques are and they are sometimes interpreted as "he's using negative space to do xyz"

Yet you still try and talk about it as a *thing*, he's not using negative space but organising shapes and tones with an understanding of how you will interpret what is the *object* and what is the *background*.

I think something is being missed when you put it that way. There has to be more going on or you can end up with mud.

when in reality, something else is going on. And then students think that negative space is a thing and they create a lot of schlock because they don't get what's really happening from a symmetry/design/story standpoint.

Negative space is an understanding that in 2D images your audience will make some base assumptions when they view. One of those assumptions is that we separate *subject* or *object* from the *background*. It's about how we organise elements in an image to form a logical understanding that's consistent with our memory. You can play with these ideas and your audience's assumptions as demonstrated in the link in this post here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62913106

You're elevating negative space more than I would and I don't think it works that way.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
SonyOB Contributing Member • Posts: 808
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

From how I see things, nobody has a monopoly on the concept of 'negative space'.
The way Just Tim 4 sees is just as valid as yours. Of course, for communication to occur, agreeing on the word meanings is essential.
Your point of view is valid but not the only valid one there is.

To me, the Japanese idea of 'ma' is fascinating as it likens the 'negative space' to a pause in music or speech as well as a space left without visual clues in a painting that you need to fill (or otherwise relate) to the painting as a whole. 'Ma' also refers to the short pause in a bow, which adds the feeling of respect and appreciation.

I need to read more into 'ma'.

-- hide signature --

"If your pictures are not good enough, you just might not be cut up for photography".

 SonyOB's gear list:SonyOB's gear list
Sony RX100 V Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +13 more
lilBuddha Veteran Member • Posts: 4,376
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)
1

stevo23 wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Just Tim 4 wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

So then there isn't really "negative space" as an actual or useful concept, just figure to ground or greatest contrast.

This is the part I don't understand, (or is it because I fail to communicate the idea properly?), that on forums we don't question our base assumptions or the way in which we see. We generally assume that because we see something in an image that it is an intrinsic property of an image and is therefore contained within an image and can be categorised and labelled. We also view the opinions of others and instinctively try to fit them within our own base assumptions. We try to fit new ideas into our current understanding rather then see that the concepts are actually about changing and questioning that viewpoint and understanding.

It doesn't seem to occur to some that the concept of negative space is perceptual and that it may in fact be the act of looking and seeking to apply an order to gain an understanding of what we see that creates it.

It also has nothing to do with contrast as I can just as easily use an outline drawing.

That you can't see past the object and it's reality is your shortcoming, and a common one. You see and recognise the object without questioning why you see and recognise the reality of the object in a 2D representation.

I understand that when I draw a shape I am actually creating two shapes, a positive and a negative form, even though the viewer generally only sees the one. That the relationship between the positive and negative forms reveals the shape and can be a powerful tool. I find it an incredibly useful concept in understanding the true nature of 2D representation and how people see and interpret images.

Not sure I get what you're saying in all this. Nice photos here - negative space? They seem to stray from that idea a good bit. Now you're showing a lot of other techniques.

No image must be one technique or idea.

Not advocating that.

What I'm advocating here is that negative space isn't a "thing". Rather, design techniques are and they are sometimes interpreted as "he's using negative space to do xyz" when in reality, something else is going on.

The artworld accepts negative space as a thing. Why do you think it isn't and what else do you think is going on?

I think what I mean is that focusing on the concept of negative space is misleading and doesn't really uncover what is or should be going on for the artist.

The concept is not misleading. Some people's use of the term might be, but the concept is solid. It is a tool used for composition, just as leading lines are. If you thing leading lines are misleading, then we really can't communicate on this.

And then students think that negative space is a thing and they create a lot of schlock because they don't get what's really happening from a symmetry/design/story standpoint.

Art students create a lot of schlock due to inexperience.

Let's walk through the example photos in this post.

The banks of the river are negative space. Why? Because the relative lack of detail and the contrasting value allow the river to stand out and be a greater focus.

Depends on how you define "negative space" - I'm not certain it's always the same definition. I see a well accomplished figure to ground relationship by having detailed and interesting subject matter up against formless/void/darker subject matter. Not just that it's formless/void space but also the different tonal value.

You've just described negative space, but called it figure to ground.

In this one, the sky is negative space for the same reasons the banks were in the above image. The bright, featureless nature of the sky brings the tree trees into prominence.

Not all would say that negative space is formless/featureless Some teach that it's any space that is not the subject. So that is already one problem.

Negative space is not necessarily formless. It is in this image, but it is not always. Granted that negative space has no distinct border between what is and what isnt. There are images that definitely use it, those that definitely do not. But, like all concepts, there will be disputes on the border.

But here, I see a strong area of contrast being used along with a formless background to accomplish a strong figure to ground relationship. That it is "negative space" isn't the point. It could be dark grey and it would still be negative pace.

The contrast between the negative space and the subject needn't be one of value. It can be colour or texture or sharpness, anything which sets a distinction of significant mass.

In this case also, the eye actually travels to the foreground where there is more detail and a perhaps higher amount of contrast but also some leading curves/lines that take us back to the trees. And what ties the foreground to the midfield and keeps us in the image is the same relationship of detail/flat between the two as well as the diagonals. So in my mind, "negative space" doesn't really define or drive what's happening. Contrast mostly does the talking here.

I think you are thinking too rigidly. Negative space can be a formless mass, as in this image, of its shapes can be more dynamically compositional as in the first photo.

This last one doesn't have negative space. Both the foreground structure and the background vista have too much of interest to recede enough to be considered negative space.

It is simple. The positive space is that which the eye is drawn tow and the negative is that which, by its uniformity and contrast, pushes the eye away.

Disagree there - the eye is typically drawn first to the area of greatest contrast. And if you've designed an image well, the eye will go to where you want it to go and that also happens through various means.

They eye can be drawn by many elements. Greatest contrast exists at every point of the riverbank in the first image, is the eye drawn to every point then? No, The eye follows the line of the river which the negative space helps define.

stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

SonyOB wrote:

From how I see things, nobody has a monopoly on the concept of 'negative space'.
The way Just Tim 4 sees is just as valid as yours. Of course, for communication to occur, agreeing on the word meanings is essential.
Your point of view is valid but not the only valid one there is.

To me, the Japanese idea of 'ma' is fascinating as it likens the 'negative space' to a pause in music or speech as well as a space left without visual clues in a painting that you need to fill (or otherwise relate) to the painting as a whole. 'Ma' also refers to the short pause in a bow, which adds the feeling of respect and appreciation.

I need to read more into 'ma'.

I like that you brought that in - it's wholly different place that it comes from. I too will read more into it.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

lilBuddha wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

lilBuddha wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

Just Tim 4 wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

So then there isn't really "negative space" as an actual or useful concept, just figure to ground or greatest contrast.

This is the part I don't understand, (or is it because I fail to communicate the idea properly?), that on forums we don't question our base assumptions or the way in which we see. We generally assume that because we see something in an image that it is an intrinsic property of an image and is therefore contained within an image and can be categorised and labelled. We also view the opinions of others and instinctively try to fit them within our own base assumptions. We try to fit new ideas into our current understanding rather then see that the concepts are actually about changing and questioning that viewpoint and understanding.

It doesn't seem to occur to some that the concept of negative space is perceptual and that it may in fact be the act of looking and seeking to apply an order to gain an understanding of what we see that creates it.

It also has nothing to do with contrast as I can just as easily use an outline drawing.

That you can't see past the object and it's reality is your shortcoming, and a common one. You see and recognise the object without questioning why you see and recognise the reality of the object in a 2D representation.

I understand that when I draw a shape I am actually creating two shapes, a positive and a negative form, even though the viewer generally only sees the one. That the relationship between the positive and negative forms reveals the shape and can be a powerful tool. I find it an incredibly useful concept in understanding the true nature of 2D representation and how people see and interpret images.

Not sure I get what you're saying in all this. Nice photos here - negative space? They seem to stray from that idea a good bit. Now you're showing a lot of other techniques.

No image must be one technique or idea.

Not advocating that.

What I'm advocating here is that negative space isn't a "thing". Rather, design techniques are and they are sometimes interpreted as "he's using negative space to do xyz" when in reality, something else is going on.

The artworld accepts negative space as a thing. Why do you think it isn't and what else do you think is going on?

I think what I mean is that focusing on the concept of negative space is misleading and doesn't really uncover what is or should be going on for the artist.

The concept is not misleading. Some people's use of the term might be, but the concept is solid. It is a tool used for composition, just as leading lines are. If you thing leading lines are misleading, then we really can't communicate on this.

I used leading lines to refer to arabesques. There are also diagonals from root grid lines that can be considered leading lines although they're not as "leading" as arabesques.

And then students think that negative space is a thing and they create a lot of schlock because they don't get what's really happening from a symmetry/design/story standpoint.

Art students create a lot of schlock due to inexperience.

Let's walk through the example photos in this post.

The banks of the river are negative space. Why? Because the relative lack of detail and the contrasting value allow the river to stand out and be a greater focus.

Depends on how you define "negative space" - I'm not certain it's always the same definition. I see a well accomplished figure to ground relationship by having detailed and interesting subject matter up against formless/void/darker subject matter. Not just that it's formless/void space but also the different tonal value.

You've just described negative space, but called it figure to ground.

I would say that it's not necessarily the same. Figure to ground relationship doesn't suggest that the space around the subject be formless and/or void.

In this one, the sky is negative space for the same reasons the banks were in the above image. The bright, featureless nature of the sky brings the tree trees into prominence.

Not all would say that negative space is formless/featureless Some teach that it's any space that is not the subject. So that is already one problem.

Negative space is not necessarily formless. It is in this image, but it is not always. Granted that negative space has no distinct border between what is and what isnt.

How/why no distinct border?

There are images that definitely use it, those that definitely do not. But, like all concepts, there will be disputes on the border.

But here, I see a strong area of contrast being used along with a formless background to accomplish a strong figure to ground relationship. That it is "negative space" isn't the point. It could be dark grey and it would still be negative pace.

The contrast between the negative space and the subject needn't be one of value. It can be colour or texture or sharpness, anything which sets a distinction of significant mass.

That's where there seems to be dispute over the definition.

In this case also, the eye actually travels to the foreground where there is more detail and a perhaps higher amount of contrast but also some leading curves/lines that take us back to the trees. And what ties the foreground to the midfield and keeps us in the image is the same relationship of detail/flat between the two as well as the diagonals. So in my mind, "negative space" doesn't really define or drive what's happening. Contrast mostly does the talking here.

I think you are thinking too rigidly. Negative space can be a formless mass, as in this image, of its shapes can be more dynamically compositional as in the first photo.

By formless, I meant more or less flat. Didn't mean to imply shapeless.

This last one doesn't have negative space. Both the foreground structure and the background vista have too much of interest to recede enough to be considered negative space.

It is simple. The positive space is that which the eye is drawn tow and the negative is that which, by its uniformity and contrast, pushes the eye away.

Disagree there - the eye is typically drawn first to the area of greatest contrast. And if you've designed an image well, the eye will go to where you want it to go and that also happens through various means.

They eye can be drawn by many elements. Greatest contrast exists at every point of the riverbank in the first image, is the eye drawn to every point then? No, The eye follows the line of the river which the negative space helps define.

You're missing the point of GAC.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
SonyOB Contributing Member • Posts: 808
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

Negative space is not necessarily formless. It is in this image, but it is not always. Granted that negative space has no distinct border between what is and what isnt.

How/why no distinct border?

===

...What I think it means is that the void (negative space) yearns to be filled which is a job for the viewer's imagination. What he/she fills it with, might or might not be.

This is my interpretation of the idea. Negative space in graphic art seems to mean one specific thing where light and shadow or color contrast are used to produce two different interpretations of the same image. This is not the case in 'ma' where you just silently 'know' what the empty space contains, it is not thrown at your face like in this brilliant example below:

-- hide signature --

"If your pictures are not good enough, you need to buy some more stuff from Amazon"
(Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon)

 SonyOB's gear list:SonyOB's gear list
Sony RX100 V Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +13 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

SonyOB wrote:

Negative space is not necessarily formless. It is in this image, but it is not always. Granted that negative space has no distinct border between what is and what isnt.

How/why no distinct border?

That wasn't my statement...

===

...What I think it means is that the void (negative space) yearns to be filled which is a job for the viewer's imagination. What he/she fills it with, might or might not be.

This is my interpretation of the idea. Negative space in graphic art seems to mean one specific thing where light and shadow or color contrast are used to produce two different interpretations of the same image. This is not the case in 'ma' where you just silently 'know' what the empty space contains, it is not thrown at your face like in this brilliant example below:

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: Negative space is everything but the subject's form.

lilBuddha wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

tex wrote:

It's a visual art term/concept. It's easiest seen in photography in shallow dof images where the background is a complete blur, or in BIF images when the bird is against a blank sky, or "Rembrandt" style portraits, or Avedon style ones against a blank background, & etc.

I usually see it used and defined as empty or low detailed space around the subject that helps define the subject's form.

Yeah, empty as in negative.

And if that's what it is, then it's really just a way of accomplishing figure to ground relationship.

What does "figure to ground" relationship mean?

Did I already answer this in our below discussion?

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Peter Del Veteran Member • Posts: 5,681
Reminiscing
3

Here, I'm using the negative space to represent the old chap's impossible to photograph memories.

Peter Del

 Peter Del's gear list:Peter Del's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
SonyOB Contributing Member • Posts: 808
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

I thought you asked "why no distinct border" and I answered with what I thought what his idea might be.

Obviously, I think too much. Got to log out now and read up on some stuff.
Very dark, very rainy here.

-- hide signature --

"If your pictures are not good enough, you need to buy some more stuff from Amazon"
(Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon)

 SonyOB's gear list:SonyOB's gear list
Sony RX100 V Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +13 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: What is (and is not) "Negative Space"? (And how do you use it.)

SonyOB wrote:

I thought you asked "why no distinct border" and I answered with what I thought what his idea might be.

Oh, I see. I'll re-read.

Obviously, I think too much. Got to log out now and read up on some stuff.
Very dark, very rainy here.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,692
Re: Reminiscing

Peter Del wrote:

Here, I'm using the negative space to represent the old chap's impossible to photograph memories.

Peter Del

I like it - you have a big black space that helps define him well and makes us contemplate what he's looking at. The lighting is fantastic.

What do you think happens if some of the black space on the left get's cropped off? IE, is there something visually for you that makes the black space size ideal? (Just interested in discussing.)

And i think the interpretation is up to the viewer - it could be that he's going blind and will soon see nothing but blackness. Or it could be that he has Alzheimer's and has no memory left. I find it to be a somewhat jarring actually. The possibilities of what is going on here are all somewhat dark for me. No pun intended.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads