Print size vs dead space

One of my favorite images has a lot of dead space. Would printing images like this, with a lot of dead space, at 24x30, be a faux pas?

IMAGE LINK: http://s329.photobucke​t.com …lets-part-deux-1.jpg.html

chauncey wrote in post #18323310
One of my favorite images has a lot of dead space. Would printing images like this, with a lot of dead space, at 24x30, be a faux pas?

Not in the least! I don't think of it as "dead" space. Rather, I think of it as "negative space". It is the proper amount of negative space to give a setting for the subject, and provides the required context. I think it's pretty much perfect, compositionally.

However, before printing I would clone out the two streaks below the bottom water droplet.

.

Dah...never noticed them.

There is a big difference between negative space and dead space. There are photographers that have used negative space as a visual element and making photographs that are about that and make that the subject in some of their work. Ralph Gibson comes to mind.

Also do not overlook art as part of a larger space.

How well in image like that works can greatly depend on the space and the other colours found in it. How well is it going to work in the room as a whole? Can you use that as an 'anchor piece' to tie a space together, or use as a focal point in a larger decorating scheme?

To me most of the good pictures I consider to be good ones have space which gives value for the objects.

Winogrand.

First, in my opinion, it's not dead space. I love shooting shallow DOF it just makes the subject pop.
Second, my opinion shouldn't matter that much. If YOU like it, print it!