Blizzard,
I was so hoping you would spot this! Please forgive me. I'm just wondering if others are as perceptive as you are. I should have inverted it, too, so it would be a black teardrop on a white field.

King you jokester!

So much for ratings of Relevance.
As you know, this is *exactly* the same negative space as that Featured. The fact that the negative space is inverted should have no relevance. It is also even more minimal than Blizzard's original wonderful image.

Relevance: 2.54
Impact: 2.08
Composition: 2.38
Technique: 2.31
Quality: 2.23
Overall: 2.308

and now I know. good idea.

I'm hurt.

Oh I see. Definately a different mental test. A photo turned into a graphic to see if it would be the equivalant (in terms of response or ratings) of a featured image because of the amount of negative space being the equivalant. Well I see the ratings you mentioned and see the other is featured. This goes to show it isn't the percentage of space for the negative space theme that is solely important but also the subject within that space and how a viewer reacts to that subject, or message conveyed in the image, due to the space. I think this one comes across as a "non-photo" as a first impression and that is primarily why the ratings are so low.

No I'm going to go look up a pschycologist in the phone book...

Dan
I didn't know you were quite so deep.
I wasn't going for amount of negative space so much as quality, given that Blizzard's original was one quality image, including the black space, faithfully reproduced here.

if the theme were about black space, you'd be good to go!!

Ana
It's about Negative Space and Minimalism. I think I have hit it right on the mark.

King, figured this must have been you.

I gave you a 5 for relevance BTW. Maybe that will up the ratings a bit. =)

@bioLarzen

We're here to learn, and experimentation and interpretation can never be shunned. I would be so happy for someone to manipulate one of my images (photo/painting/drawing/sculpture/writing) into something of their own. That's part of what ART is... Using other people's ideas and changing them, manipulating them into your own ideas used for your own purpose or statement.

King- This image is all about Negative Space and Minimalism. True. But for me my initial response to this was that it wasn't a photograph and that is what seperates it from the other photos presented. Of course now a deep conversation about what is or isn't a photograph will ensue... I'm looking for the shovel now.

Whoops...I think I need a good Freudian psychoanalyst. I thought this was a scanned image of one of King's actual sperm cells. Wasn't that obvious to everyone? That this image took WORK to produce. That this is ART!

Sheesh! I'm going some place positive. =)

... Although I thought it was Blizzard's... Mhhh... Too smart for me, after all.

... or how to demonstrate the difference between a bird turd and a great shot?

(negative spaceman, I love this!)

Why thank you, Blizzard and philippe! I may be a total a novice photographer, HOWEVER, I have been told I'm VERY witty! Anyway, just wanted to say, I AM tuning in to the conversation re: NS. I'm here to learn, that's why I don't comment frequently, but I will endeavor to suck up and do so more often when the mood and bravery strikes.

SeekingFocus,

I understand your point. It's just that we have a different opinion. I would never touch anyone's creation without prior consent. (If King asked for and got consent then it's a wholly different matter, of course).
But it's merely my opinion. not more, not less.

@bioLarzen,

My perspective on this is similar to that expressed by SeekingFocus. I didn't ask Blizzard's permission because
1. I wanted her to find it herself (which she did, immediately)
2. I wanted to make her laugh (Mission Accomplished--sarcasm intended)
3. I intended no harm
4. It was an obvious ripoff, but modified enough to protect me from a lawsuit.
5. I was sure she wouldn't mind

And, besides, it's sometimes easier to get forgiveness than permission.

@Blizzard

June 23, 1944