I left the process of setting up a tabletop photo of a head of garlic to write this post. I stopped what I was doing because, while composing the scene in the frame, I realized that
perhaps some people think at least as demonstrated by most of the photos posted in this thread, that the negative space needs to be a relatively large portion of the scene.
Just the opposite, the size of the negative space can be much smaller than the size of the subject. As an example, return to the very first post in the thread and imagine Lyndee's wonderful photo with the subject as is but displayed within the context of a square format. If she had used a square format, the size of the negative space would have been about half of its current size. Yet the function of that smaller negative space would have been equally effective, albeit in a different (not better or worse) way.