This was taken inside a gym in New Braunfels, TX. The reason why I like it was because the woman looks so lost in the midst of the floor trampeline and the surrounding equipment.
Statistics
Place: 366 out of 374 Avg (all users): 3.9786 Avg (commenters): 3.8000 Avg (participants): 3.7792 Avg (non-participants): 4.1182 Views since voting: 750 Views during voting: 266 Votes: 187 Comments: 13 Favorites: 0
Ok, I guess I should start out by trying to explain your low score. I see two main reasons for this, which are generally known as "meeting the challenge" and "technicals."
meeting the challenge This was a very controversial challenge, poorly explained and poorly understood. I think there were two main voting blocks. The first were people who thought negative space was simply empty space, perhaps with a texture or OOF background. The second group was closer to the Wikipedia definition. They were looking for shapes created in the negative space. Your image did not appeal to either group. You thought of negative space conceptually. This turned out to be a very Out Of the Box approach, whether or not you intended it that way. To put it another way, the negative space isn't in your photo, it's on the floor of the room you're taking a photo of. I enjoyed this approach and gave you a 6, but I am not a typical voter. :)
technicals The DPC crowd often likes to misuse the word "technicals" in phrases such as "this photo has good technicals." They think it is possible for a photograph to be "technically good" much like an Ikea entertainment center, with all the slots and grooves in exactly the right place. Most often, "technically good" means that lots of details can be seen, even in dark areas and highlights, and that the subject of the photo is in very sharp focus. They also like to see a full tonal range, with the darkest areas being close to pure black and the lightest areas being close to pure white. There is no reason in the world why these things would make a photograph "good" but they are easy things to look for so people do. Your photo has a sort of muddy look, not crisp at all. Dark and light areas have no detail. The subject is not sharply focused.
the point is... You described what you saw in your comments. Your photo conveys what you saw (for example your detail-free dark and light zones contribute to this "lost feeling," and so does the soft focus). Therefore, your photo is a success. What you saw is meaningful, i.e. the feeling of being lost. Therefore, your photo is meaningful. In other words, a "good photo." I'd be more interested to see your next photo than DrAchoo's next photo, for instance, or Larus's. They sometimes surprise me with a good photo, but as I said, it's a surprise.
I don't see how neg space is here much less adding wow to the shot. I'm sorry to be so blunt. As for technicals I think the windows in the back are damaging the potential of this shot. The effect of the window on the scene is okay but maybe if you were able to get above the scene a little more then you could get less of the window in the shot and crop out what is there. Or maybe an angle from the other side of the room so they're not in the shot at all? 4
interesting take on the description, where the "space around your subject" is on a plane perpindicular to your subject. this photo does have some interesting, complex negative space.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
