...sorry, Rusty, just being honest in expressing my opinion. Better than lurking, wouldn't you say?

Whoops – I meant *green* and yellow.

@CraigMartin - thank you!

@King - no offense taken. I appreciate constructive criticism. I orignally posted this (at my blog) with a center crop. Between the two, I like this crop better.

@duncmc - This is what's left of a California Golden Poppy after its bloom and after it has gone to seed.

Rusty,
I didn't criticize the crop. That's all in your head. :>)

@King - LOL

..but then, what do I know. Congratulations, Rusty.

Rusty,

I would never suggest that simply putting the subject in the center would improve the photo. I *may* have suggested, if driven to it, composing the photograph in "protrait" rather than "landscape", or even as a square.

<opinionated lecture>It's the influence of my background and ex-profession, I'm sure, but I've come to believe firmly that if a thing is beautiful or worth examining and you remove it from all context (i.e. a monochromatic background), then it may benefit the aesthetic qualities of the image and assist the viewer if you fill a greater proportion of the image with your subject (for example, if you photograph Frank Lloyd Wright in his studio, you may make him small relative to the space around him. If you put him on seamless paper and create a portrait, you may have his head and shoulders fill most of the frame).

In this case, your subject occupies a vertical rectangle of 102 by 489 pixels = 49,878 pixels. The total image is 750 pixels by 547 pixels = 410,259 pixels. The flower occupies 12.2 per cent of the frame. The remaining 87.8 per cent holds nothing that adds meaning to the subject or, IMHO, the photograph.

To me, this doesn't speak of minimalism or negative space and falls under the dreaded King category of "gimmick". Why not use the 750 pixel limit on height rather than width? Why not make the image 547 wide by 750 high? Did you try it? Does your subject hold up to the enlargement? It should. Does the viewer get the pleasure of closer examination? Do you lose anything of value by making the subject, say 40 per cent of the area rather than 12 per cent?</opinionated lecture>

@King - Thanks for taking the time to leave such a detailed comment (really!). Now the impetus for this Gorin Image
http://www.gorin-images.com/blog/index.php?showimage=278#
makes more sense.

No, I didn't try a portrait crop (or a square one). Yes, I think the image would hold up in either of those crops. But, then, we would be smack-dab in the middle of the subjective. I'm not claiming that the crop you see here is the only viable crop (nor necessarily the *best*). My point was that I had compared it to a landscape oriented center crop and preferred this one.

Would a tighter crop have benefited the image? Sure! Would it have been better? Depends. Would it have been the *best*? Hmmm... first tell me - how do I determine where the *best* pizza parlor is in your neighborhood? The answer will ultimately deconstruct into whatever one *likes*.

So, from a philosophical perspective, while the objective craft of photography will guide me into *better* presentations of an image, the *best* presentation of an image will many times be akin to the *best* slice of pizza. (Or, the *best* presentation of an image will be constrained by the parameters it may be objectively subject to E.g., My crop might be considered better than a tight portrait crop simply because the intended use is a double-page spread, with text.)

On the other hand, you have a point with regards to the misuse of minimalism. See here -
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008540

.it arranged have could I ways other the than way this looks sentence this way the like I that decided and over it thought I've

Or

how

about

this

arrangment?

Thanks for the link to the wry commentary on minimalism.

Note that I posted a comment about Jarrett Gorin's 99 percent negative space image in the first entry I left in my WS Google group thread on this theme. I'm surprised that he didn't enter it. Would you like to read our discussion over that image?

then intention If the is of arrangement is words important very . his the their author's understood, meaning to have

- or -

If the author's intention is to have the meaning of his words understood, then their arrangement is very important.

Yes, I'd like to read the discussion (although I won't be able to get to it till tonight).