@lazaro - Too often in my humble opinion...
Great monotone Laz, really liking the minimal depth of field...
How about "dead space" ?
But seriously, I hear you. I think 'fill the frame' is sometimes misunderstood to simply mean fill the frame with 'stuff' and no 'space'. I think that needs to be tempered with whatever the visual equivalent of 'music is as much about the spaces between the notes, as the notes themselves'.
Masterful lazaro!
Love the shot... (and a new fave app trio that I've been drawn to lately!)Thanks. Yes. Great eye. From a purely technical side negative space is as important to making images as mass and volume. In fact, I don't think I really started to see things until I started observing the space between (or without) and it's relationship to the "subject." Often times I decide that I want the negative space to be the subject, or to at least equal the subject, especially when in Southern California, where the true nature of this place is a kind of unique human isolation, of lonesome figures in vast spaces, I've never felt in quite the same way nor as intensely anywhere else. In fact it's not just want, this loneliness of humans in space simply creeps into the work by osmosis. It's so important to me that I kind of dislike the term "negative space," as if it doesn't matter, it's just taking up room. It's all important.
Love the shot... (and a new fave app trio that I've been drawn to lately!)
This discussion is intriguing! I like the challenge posed here regarding taking photos with less "stuff" and more thoughtful space. Would you be amenable to other MobiPeeps contributing to this thread... But only shots that have a significant amount of important negative space?