Posted for Becky’s October #lines&squares.
This is the fourth day I’m taking up Patti’s pilotfish challenge: Lens-Artist Photo Challenge: #66: Filling the Frame. In today’s post I’m showing how “negative” space can indeed be negative in the sense that there is no image in it, but sometimes a larger negative space can show off the subject more effectively than a “larger object/smaller negative space” would. And sometimes the two choices show off the subject equally well, but the two versions of the photo end up looking like two entirely different photographs. The differences in how much of the grey background is included shows two different ways to “Fill the Frame.”
Here are my two examples. The flower subject is not only the same in both examples, but they are, in fact, the same photo. I used my Nikon DSLR with a 105mm macro lens.
The first photo is closely cropped.
The second photo is actually the original one – no vertical cropping was done.
I happen to like both versions, but I would chose a different one depending on what I was planning to do with the photo. If I was wanting to use the flowers as a pattern for a border, I would obviously go with the top version. I would also chose the cropped version if I was wanting a long, narrow photo to hang on the wall.
But the original photo before cropping – the bottom one – has it’s own charms and tends to be my favorite. By allowing more of the soft grey background to show, this larger version has an element of serenity to it that I love.
So for me, the answer of how much negative space to include on this particular photograph depends on where and how I would be planning to hang the picture.
But I would very much like to know your opinions. So leave some comments. The more, the merrier!
This is the third day I’m taking up Patti’s pilotfish challenge: Lens-Artist Photo Challenge: #66: Filling the Frame. In today’s post I’m showing how “negative” space can become an essential element of the photo.
I had tried to capture this skylight several months ago with my DSLR and standard lens. Due to the fact that the skylight isn’t flat on the top, I found that if one part of the skylight was in focus, another part wasn’t. And since I was standing on the floor, I couldn’t simply back up to create more space between me and the object. I finally packed it in and figured that I’d come back to it another time. The skylight is in one of our local Peet’s coffee stores, so I knew it would be no problem to come back and drink more delicious coffee. However the next time I was in, I didn’t have my camera with me. So I took a chance and took the shot with my phone. I was shocked at how perfectly it turned out. The ceiling registered as a deep, smooth black, and I had purposely angled the shot a little bit. The result is that the “walls” of the skylight, and the skylight itself appear to be floating in space – a very Salvador D’alí effect that I absolute love. The black of the ceiling would normally be considered negative space. And yet if I cropped off the black area, the result of seeing only the skylight would have produced a completely unremarkable photograph. Instead, I have a photo that I want to hang on my wall.
This is my second day taking up Patti’s Lens-Artists Photo Challenge #66: Filling the Frame over at Pilotfish. She has encouraged us to include shots of before and after we filled the frame. In some cases, as I’ve mentioned before, filling the frame has to happen in post production because the photo that we have is, well, the photo that we have. When you are photographing wildlife, there’s no do-over.
This also was my first time out with my new mirrorless Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II camera, with a Zuiko 75-300mm lens. (Yes, I finally saved enough pennies! More on the new camera in a future post.)
Here is the original shot of a Snowy Egret.
The egret is too high in the frame because I didn’t have my tripod and my hands tend to wobble. And in this shot, since I was too far away from the egret even with my telephoto, the eye is drawn to the water and the reflection – not what I am trying to accomplish. The exposure is also too dark, given the sun’s position and the resulting shadows.
Here I’ve cropped it down, as well as lightening the exposure and then increasing the color saturation to compensate.
In this, the eye of the viewer is drawn as much to the reflection in the water as to the egret. Better, but not ideal. The exposure is better, but there’s still too much shadow on the egret, making the lovely detail on his face and beak difficult to see.
So I did some more cropping and further lightening of the exposure.
Now, the egret fills enough of the frame that there is no question as to the central focus of the photo. At the same time, I have kept enough small details in the shot so that your eye should linger. The curve of the shadow on the right is the curve of the underside of the egret’s neck. That should draw your eye back to the incredible coloring of his eye and beak. Now look at his body. Do you see the ruffling of his delicate feathers on the back of his head and his tail? Is the air breezy or calm? Do you see the ripples of water reflected in stripes of light on his chest? And I’ve lightened the exposure of the water just enough, but not too much, so that I haven’t lost the places where you can see through the water’s surface to the mud beneath, adding a sort of impressionistic effect to the water so it’s not just one shade of blue.
And somehow, through pure luck, the position of the sun, and the angle of my camera, you can see under the water’s surface in the egret’s shadow. Can you find his refracted black leg and orange foot? You might have noticed them in the first two photos, but now they are right there, almost, but not quite, stepping out of the photograph.
At least, that’s the effect I was aiming for.
Moon and White Flower