Introduction
Over the years I’ve encountered many discussions on architectural photography in the context of fine art. Especially when it comes to the use of spaces in architectural photography. Most heard remark: the building needs a bit of ‘breathing room’. It needs some negative space. But no one can articulate why. I will state that negative space is secondary to other principles in architectural photography that I will highlight in this article.
Use of negative space in visual arts
First of all I think that a building doesn’t breathe, it doesn’t live, it’s just a building, so it needs no breathing room. But I get the point. It needs some ‘negative space’.
What is the purpose of negative space? There may be several reasons for that. One reason is to draw more attention to a single object in an otherwise largely empty frame. Another one is to create a sense of calmth, of quietness, of solitude. Then there’s a need to get rid of the clutter, the busy-ness to create emptiness and ‘nothingness’, that can evoke quietness. Evoking quietness is a good reason to include negative space and that plays an important role in so called minimalism or minimalistic photography. Ask any photographer why they create minimalistic seascapes or landscapes and nearly all of them would answer, to create a sense of calmth.
Nothing wrong with that of course.
Vanishing – The Zeeland bridge. An example of minimalism in photography to evoke a sense of quietness
Architectural Photography is About Celebrating the Design
But I create architectural photographs and I call it architectural photographs because it is about architecture and I want to celebrate the design of the structure and with that often also the architect.
I do not want to evoke a sense of calm or quietness. It is anathema for what I intend to evoke: a sense of awe for the magnificent design, for the way it reflects light, for the way it interacts with its environment, for the way they represent a culture or a belief system, and so on and so forth.
When they’re gigantic structures they should evoke a sense of size. When they’re dynamic in shape, they should evoke that dynamism and when they are made of a bold material then they should reflect that boldness.
But not calm or quietness. No, often I want the exact opposite of quietness. In all those cases negative space is at best inevitable but not something that’s of any functional use. I need more dynamism, visual tension, energy and weight, More awe for design, size, and light-shadow play of the structure.
The way I like to achieve that is by creating visual energy, by using specific shapes with a specific direction for example. And by creating visual tension, by putting objects close to the edge or even over the edge of the frame. There are various ways of creating the dynamism, tension and energy I find important in architectural photography of the fine art kind.
[...] often I want the exact opposite of quietness. In all those cases negative space is at best inevitable but not something that’s of any functional use[...]
Maximum Point of Perspective
Another way that I like to utilise is by using what I call the maximum point of perspective.
The maximum point of perspective is a perspective that’s at the maximum of the field of view of the lens and camera and only visible through mechanical devices or when presented within an image frame.
It’s a view that’s not technically distorted since all lines are correct horizontals and verticals, but the view and perspective is exaggerated.
This can be obtained by getting as close as possible to a large object such as a building. The closer you get, the more dramatic the angles, the lines and the perspective. The more visual energy and dynamism you create. And the more you need to place the architectural objects to the edges of the frame or even crossing the edge and cutting off the object, which leads to visual tension.
Hence, by using the maximum point of perspective I add to all that I find important by exaggerating the perspective in a technical correct way. And I’m adding a view that the architect most likely couldn’t anticipate.
The maximum point of perspective is a perspective that’s at the maximum of the field of view of the lens and camera and only visible through mechanical devices or when presented within an image frame.
In both examples above I went as close as possible to show a more dramatic view of the building, standing on a point where I could not go any closer without losing a part of the building. The photos are not cropped. With the example of the Porthouse in Antwerp above, I almost stood underneath the far end of the building. I used a wide angle tilt-shift lens, shifted all the way up to its maximum position.
The proximity to the building can be increased by using a wide-angle lens and preferably by using a tilt-shift lens to approach the ‘maximum point of perspective’.
Backing up a few meters would already result in a loss of this ‘maximum point of perspective’ and would decrease the angle, the dynamics and the drama.
It’s a view that the central vision of the human eye can’t see in one view but only when looking up, down, left and right. In other words by changing the point of view.
The camera with such a lens that exceeds the human perspective (I’m only referring to the human eye’s central vision, not the peripheral vision here), will capture it in one frame and can be viewed without changing the point of view.
This may all seems logical and it is, but too often photographers take this view for granted and aren’t always aware of the impact of such a photograph that presents a super-perspective.
It is a distortion and exaggeration of reality. When doing this, one should be aware that getting as close as possible with mechanical devices such as with a tilt-shift lens, shifted to its maximum position, with the goal of obtaining the maximum point of perspective, will at some point result in a compromise.
What I mean with this is that you have to sacrifice negative space around the building, in favour of the maximum point of perspective, or else sacrifice the maximum point of perspective so to leave some breathing space around the building.
But as I pointed out at the start of this article, I don’t need negative space in architectural photography and therefore I will sacrifice negative space to obtain the maximum point of perspective and frame the object very tightly and evoke what I find important in architectural photography.
So if you’re a photographer who likes to shoot architecture, and you want the building to be the hero and are considering to add negative space, then think again what you will achieve with that.
