Kadenajack,

Thanks again for my single comment! At least I can count of you for some feedback...

Without the negative space here, there would be no image. The image (that of architecture and a person walking by) is actually created by the negative space of the shadows. The amount of lines really have no relevance to weather or not something can be considered negative space.

I see however, you had similar opinions about my first shot in this theme...

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/negative-space/response/4/

I feel like negative space does not have to be sparse or well contained. Rather, there is a rule of design that says there should be approximately equal amounts of negative to positive space, to create a balance. A balance which I feel this photo has. Perhaps I'm wrong, or perhaps my liberal education in the arts is just steering me wrong. =)

But to me, 'negative space' doesn't have to mean 'empty' or 'meaningless'.

Let me know what you think.

"The image (that of architecture and a person walking by) is actually created by the negative space of the shadows. The amount of lines really have no relevance to weather or not something can be considered negative space."

So are you saying this image is actually the shadows of the person and the architecture? I can't tell that from looking at it here. To me it looks like you shot a building with large windows at night. During the exposure, you happened to catch a person near one of the windows. I interpreted this as the frame work of these two things in silhouette.

If the image is supposed to be of the architecture and the person, since you filled the frame with it, I'm having a hard time understanding where the negative space is.

If you're arguing that the negative space is created by the light coming through the windows, I can kind of get your drift, but I interpret the light coming from the windows as part of the architecture of the building and thus not negative space.

If I'm interpreting your argument correctly, then just like the image here: http://painting.about.com/od/paintingforbeginners/ss/negativespace.htm
you could see the lighted parts of your image or inversely the dark parts of your image as either negative or positive space. I think that's what's giving so many people problems with the theme.

However, since I interpreted the entire image as one, I failed to consider it the way I think you intended. Am I on the right track?

Jack,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. You've raised some interesting points but I can still see our definitions of negative space are still miles apart.

This is a photograph taken in the Musee D'Orsay in Paris. This is a walkway above the main exhibition hall, made of glass where people were walking by. I waiting quite a while to get this shot composed with the single person walking by.

As I said before, the amount of lines or elements in an image is irrelevant to defining the negative space within.

I am arguing that ALL of the black lines and shadows (including the person passing through the frame) should be considered negative space, EVEN THOUGH they do comprise the fundamental compositional elements of the photograph. I see negative space not as empty or wasted space in a composition. Rather, I think it should be used as a tool. Just as positive elements in a composition can be the focal point, so too can negative elements.

In the example of the vases, I think you have interpreted it correctly. One could either define the white or the black elements as 'negative', though that definition is based solely on personal perspective.

One of the most basic exercises in negative space requires a student to fill an entire page with black charcoal. From this 'negative' canvas, he would then create positive elements by erasing portions of the black. So, space can be dealt with and composed either way...

Looking forward to your continued thoughts, and I'd be curious to know what some of the others here would think. I'm enjoying this exercise, even if my photographs haven't been getting high marks. It allows me (as I think it should everyone) to really reconsider my views on the subject and try to form some sort of positive analysis.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment. It really is appreciated.

P.S. I hope you don't mind, but I have posted this conversation to the Google Group to perhaps get some other views on the subject. I am really quite curious to see how others feel, as it seems most here on WS would tend to disagree with me, and lean toward the minimalistic approach to conquring negative space.

So you're actually defining the negative space as the opposite of what I said. You see the building and the person as the negative and the lighted areas as the positive space. I suppose that is just as valid a way to look at it as I, just opposite, like the faces.

I'm going to have to differ with you though as far as the theme goes. If I look at your picture in this way, then I could look at every picture in the same way, and thus every single picture could be considered relevant for the negative space category. If that's the case, then what's the point of even having such a category. I guess I like the more narrow interpretation of the theme for that reason.

BTW, I'm fine with you posting our conversation to the Google Group. Since no one else has commented, I guess that's the only way anyone else will see it and chime in. Though now that I'm looking several hours later, I still don't see it there.

Shoulda been featured, IMHO.

Yeah agree with you King - this one really really cool !! (I mean really ;-)

Hey, Thanks guys. As long as it's featured in your book, that's all that matters to me. =)