WeeklyShot

You are not logged in | Login

Browse Responses
‹ Newer | Up | Older ›

Response to Negative Space (Response #185)

Uploaded 601 Days Ago by gmalandra - Featured Image - 23 comments


Photo © gmalandra (Giancarlo Malandra) - www.giancarlomalandra.it
Unauthorized reproduction not permitted.

User Comments

Soph said 601 days ago:

Amazing! Birds ??

gmalandra said 601 days ago:

@Soph: Yes, birds!!

JIMJIM said 601 days ago:

Wow, this is amazing, seems they are filing the empty sky - really well done ;-)

Ana said 601 days ago:

bugs????!!!

culberda said 601 days ago:

Great use of the extreme contrast. I bet this photo looks fantastic printed huge.

gmalandra said 601 days ago:

@Ana: it's a flock of birds
@Culberda: yes, it looks great when printed!!
You can see the entire portfolio here:
http://www.giancarlomalandra.it
then go the "portfolio" section and choose
"stormo di storni" (sorry it's in italian only!)

kadenajack said 601 days ago:

I'm sure there's debate about the relevance here. I'm coming down on the not relevant side.

DBPhotography said 601 days ago:

great photo, but I don't feel it fits the theme

gmalandra said 601 days ago:

@kadenajack and DBPhotography
Sorry, but i read on the theme introduction: "truly minimalist photos that have great impact".
Ok, it's one of my favourite shots, i love it, but IMHO this is a minimal shot with a great impact.

gmalandra said 601 days ago:

@kadenajack and DBPhotography
Sorry, but i read on the theme introduction: "truly minimalist photos that have great impact".
Ok, it's one of my favourite shots, i love it, but IMHO this is a minimal shot with a great impact.

dcreighton said 601 days ago:

I'm on the "it fits" side. Just wow.

King said 601 days ago:

Fits for me. Another great image, Giancarlo. How do you do it?

gmalandra said 601 days ago:

@King: it was shooted in the dusk, boosted ISO at 1600, 55-200 @ 200 mm, the RAW converted in B&W in Photoshop with maximum contrast and overexposition. :-)

King said 601 days ago:

Giancarlo
You misunderstand me. "How do you do it?" is a compliment in English, meaning something like, "I am very impressed with your ability to capture one beautiful image after another."

I don't care about technical details.

:>)

gmalandra said 601 days ago:

@King: Sorry!!!! Thank you for the compliments!! :-)

SeekingFocus said 601 days ago:

@kadenajack and DBPhotography

I'm not sure how the relevance of this one can be debated. There are (as far as I can tell) only two tones here. So, one would be the postive (perhaps the black) and the other negative (white) space. Or, if you prefer the comparison can easily be reversed...

@ gmalandra

Really great shot. I liked hearing about the technical details, as well.

George said 601 days ago:

Super shot Giancarlo. I imagine they're swallows...or swifts...or something like that. I used to love at sit at dusk, staring out the window of the second floor of the orchard where I lived once in Spain. As the light fell and the birds went to sleep, the bats would come out and the whole spectacle would begin again.

kadenajack said 601 days ago:

I think I'm seeing another side of the argument about relevance here. SeekingFocus sees the two tones as positive and negative space which is what Giancarlo's image gives us here.

I look at space and thus "negative space" as a contiguous area, which is why I'm having such a hard time seeing negative space in the tonal definition SeekingFocus and others have been pushing. I gather that definition of negative space is coming from art school training.

I've never been to art school. Perhaps that's why I don't get it and why I don't seem to do too well with my ratings here. I'm sorry if I'm dragging down other people's ratings with my contrarian point of view on this.

SeekingFocus said 601 days ago:

kadenajack,

As I have said before, I think a large part of WS is the sharing of ideas and (hopefully) learing a bit along the way. There's no way to tell is what I am arguing is correct or if your view of negative space is correct. There likely is no definite answer to the question.

The ratings work on a highly subjective level, hence the need for at least thirteen on each image. In this way, each image should, in theory, be given a rating more or less respective of general opinion, and not just one person's view.

So, I would have to say keep rating as you feel fit. Though, I would also have to urge you to reconsider (again) your view of positive negative space. But that's just like, my opinion man. =)

George said 601 days ago:

kadenjack, i think it's fine you've got a "contrarian" point of view because i get the feeling you're not being contrarian for contrarian's sake (which sometimes ain't a bad thing at all, depending on what the objective is); rather your POV seems to be coming from an authentic place. also, the dialogue pushes you to articulate in words what you believe or have come to learn about something, which in turn allows for continued growth/learning. ok. nuf sed. i'm getting too sappy.

gorin-images said 601 days ago:

First off, I think this is a really impressive image...one that hut me immediately with impact the minute I saw it.

I also thought it was highly relevant, because those birds are so naturally-randomly spread through the white space that they become more of a texture than any of them being really a detail. It is sort of difficult to focus on any single one of them ;)

So for me, the entire sky full of birds is the "negative space" and I find this highly relevant.

And it's just such a striking image in any case, as are many of Mr. Malandra's!

King said 601 days ago:

Jack,
Let me lend my (considerable) weight to what George and SeekingFocus have expressed. I think your participation is authentic and positive and adds a lot to any discussion of which you are a part. Don't get down on yourself.

SeekingFocus said 601 days ago:

"Let me lend my (considerable) weight..."

Was that another fat joke? You're so self-conscious, King.

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/alone/featured/98/

You could comment on this photo if you were logged in.