Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.

[Kirk Gittings]

From another forum this evening I read a common statement that IME is photographers' folklore. It is stated like this more or less "with a contemporary ink jet print, you can get away with 180ppi and at viewing distance". What the heck is "viewing distance'? Is it some kind of natural law? I have spent my adult life as an active exhibiting large (and some MF early on) format photographer (90 exhibits and counting since 1970). I print 4x5 negs both traditional silver and digitally (Piezography) from around 8x10 up to 16 x20 but occasionally up to around 4x5 feet. I always carefully watch people looking at my prints (and I have looked at this at other people's exhibits too) and I am convinced that there is no such thing as standard viewing distance. People, if engaged with a print, will virtually stick their noses up to it looking at the fine detail. And I find that is true whether they are looking at a small Cartier Bresson or a huge Andreas Gursky. Because of that I am very conscious of how the detail holds up in my prints even at very close inspection and rarely print 4x5 negs above 16x20. There is a certain amount of tactility I want even at close inspection. That there is some kind of standard viewing distance for prints and that you can assume people will not cross and target your print resolution to that viewing distance is a myth IME. Do I ever print above that personal tactility threshold? Yes of course-mainly on commissions but I don't kid myself-I realize that I am compromising my standards somewhat.

I have never been an 8x10 shooter who won't compromise and only contact prints, but I went to 4x5 primarily because it gave me the print quality I wanted on modest size enlargements. In the many years I have been in this profession, I first started hearing about standard viewing distance with the ascendancy of digital printing. I know this is probably something akin to an old farts rant.......but personally I don't see its validity unless you provide a barrier in front of your prints to stop people from getting to close.

[Vaughn]

You hear it from old farts, too.

My standard size from 4x5's was 16x20 silver gelatin prints. I'd be disappointed if people did not 'stick their nose' up to the prints.

[Erik Larsen]

I agree with your observations as well Kirk. I can only imagine that the myth is perpetuated by people whose prints don't stand up to the quality you seek in your prints. I too enjoy nose sniffing a print, it's one of the joys of a good print IMO.
Regards
Erik

[John Olsen]

That's why I put glass on my prints, to avoid nose prints. The "standard" distance is a nice idea, but doesn't work too well in the gallery. For example, I'm near-sighted and frequently lift my glasses and press closer to artwork. That way I can appreciate the details of a painter's brushstrokes or a photographer's focus and resolution.
I think the critical difference between digital and silver printing is simply the level of personal, hands-on craftsmanship. If the customer wants a hand-crafted piece of art, then silver's the way to go. If they don't care, well, few people will be able to tell the difference. That's this old fart's opinion, anyway.

[vinny]

Yup, BS and I have a degree in BS.

[Bill Burk]

My BS is in Graphic Communications... But not going to assert that proves I'm right or anything, just a hunch that Offset Lithography using Halftone Screens in 4-Color Process (or Duotone) set the optimum image information required, above which there used to be no improvement in print quality. I believe it's commonly quoted as 1.5 times the screen resolution. Screens were commonly 120 line. There's your 180!

New approaches (image processing which adds edge linework) make it possible for Piezography to "consume" higher resolution original file information. So just keep going.

[Jay DeFehr]

"What the heck is "viewing distance'? Is it some kind of natural law?"
Kirk-

Yes, sort of. "Standard" print viewing distance is based on the normal human circle of vision, though it's not really a standard -- more like an anatomical average. CLoser than this distance, the image is not seen in its entirety.

No matter what your personal standards might be, there will always be a degradation from normal viewing distance when viewing closer, so everyone draws the line somewhere. If a photographer says he can "get away" with printing at a given ppi, it just means that he is satisfied with the result - an artistic choice - just as you're satisfied with 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives, while others are only satisfied with contact prints that hold up under viewing with a loupe. Targeting normal viewing distance for one's quality threshold makes at least as much sense to me as targeting for "close inspection", or loupe inspection, but to each his own.

[Bernice Loui]

This is a rather complex issue and partly dependent on image creator and viewer.

IMO, for the majority of viewers who have never been exposed or been made aware of how resolution, tonality, contrast range can affect their experience of viewing a truly "high definition" image can be surprising.

For some high definition images have value, others place little to no value on this.

Part of what can draw a view into greater involvement with images is great resolution, great contrast range, form, shape (order in what is perceived as a random world) color range, tonality and....

The degree of enlargement possible also depends on monochrome (black & white)-vs- color. Generally color images can tolerate a larger degree of enlargement then monochrome partly due to perception of grain.

Over the years of my creating monochrome images, I have put the enlargement limit at 4X, even when the image holds a far greater amount of information. This is not due to resolution in LPM, or similar metric of resolution, it has more to do with seamless tone, contrast range and total lack of grain in the image beyond simple resolution. This expectation is why I gave up on 4x5 many years ago for monochrome and move up to 5x7 to make 10x14 and 14x20 prints. There was a few years when I tried 8x10 with the belief the larger format will deliver greater image quality. What was discovered was the amount of improvement was nil due to limits in optics, film flatness, DOF, system size and weight and...

Yet, I'm not convinced high definition images are something many viewers value highly. IMO, it is only a select group that values and appreciates images at this level. Emotional content and expression appears to connect more with viewers than high definition images alone.


Bernice

[Leigh]

Kirk,

Absolutely right.

The problem with "average viewing distance" and "acceptable quality" are a consequence of our rapidly deteriorating
quality standards. People think cell-phone photos are fine, so they don't recognize quality when it hits their noses. :D

- Leigh

[Brian C. Miller]

+1, Kirk. People will stick their noses up to a large print as long as there is detail to be seen.

(Actually, I kind of wonder if it's related to "scratch and sniff" cards. I bet they would if they could. THAT'S IT! THE NEXT WAVE IN PHOTOGRAPHY! Printers that can print scratch and sniff pictures! The print would be sold multiple times to the same customer, because enjoying the print means wearing it out.)

They'll go back and forth with the print. But if it's big and there isn't the tiny detail, then they'll go forwards once looking for it, and then back out and just view it from a distance. But when a big print has detail, people do enjoy and comment on it.

[evan clarke]

A "standard" of anything is an average which doesn't fit anything or anybody..No such thing as standard..

[Ken Lee]

I've read of standard viewing distance in the context of perspective: the relationship between print size, shooting distance, lens choice and how they affect our impression of depth or flatness, compression or fore-shortening.

You might find it interesting to perform a web search for "optimum viewing distance" or "standard viewing distance": much of the discussion relates to television and home theatre, particularly High Definition or HDTV. For the most enjoyable viewing experience, the answer is usually a range of distance. Some sites provide online calculators.

Aside from special works like the Mona Lisa and Pieta where vandalism is an issue, galleries and museums usually give us some choice, but within a certain range that is basically related to the size of the work.

[Chuck P.]

As I understand it, it's about perspective like Ken stated, but the photographer's, not really anyone elses. . In The Print, AA writes that with a contact print, to obtain a literal view of the perspective, then view the image from a distance that is the same as the focal length of the lens that was used to take the picture. Also stated is that if the print is enlarged 2 times then also double the viewing distance to keep the same perspective.

To the viewing public, not very helpful, but to the photographer, perhaps it is helpful, IDK.

[JBelthoff]

It's really quite simple....

Standard viewing distance is the viewing distance that "ALL" photographers agree upon. I remember when I started shooting I had to sign the contract obligating me to agree.

Seriously, terms like that are great for fodder if you take them too seriously however I always thought the term, "Standard viewing distance", was a rough mental estimate so educated people could discuss print quality wihout the need to have the physical print.

Perhpas I have more to learn... :p

[Kevin Crisp]

I've also been looking at people who are looking with this same question in mind. My two main observations are:

1. If the print really engages somebody, they take in for awhile, then move in closer to explore details. A fair number then back up to look at the whole thing again.

2. Photographers are much more likely to put their noses up against it to look for grain and "sharpness."

[Jim Jones]

As Chuck reminds us, viewing a print at a distance which provides correct perspective can enhance the viewing experience, but this is only one of the many factors that should be considered. When we are constrained to standard subjects, standard image capture techniques, standard printing, and standard print presentation, then a standard print viewing distance would become more logical. The next step would be a computer controlled system of cameras and printers that would require no human intervention at all.

[rdenney]

For me, I want images to have a sense of unending detail. As one moves closer, they may not see all of the print, but they become enveloped in the subject as the print fills their peripheral vision. I want the detail to hold reality at that point. If it doesn't, the feeling of being able to step into the scene is lost. I want people to be able to reach out and touch what I've photographed, not merely a flat print of it. That means that people need to believe that the only reason there is not more detail is because they can't get closer to see it.

For me, that's about 10 inches using the bottom lenses in my trifocals, but many people can go closer than that.

Since I do a lot of color, there are some limitations built into the film itself. Black and white can have more of that crisp detail without becoming unrealistic. But I can achieve my standard for 16x20 prints using 6x7 scanned in my Nikon and 4x5 scanned in my Epson. Some of my stuff would support larger prints, but that's the biggest print I can make so that's my target.

I have lots of photographs that look fine on a computer screen but that can't be enlarged more than 8x10 or 8x12. 8x10 is the limit for my digital work--after that, it still seems sharp but it loses the sense of unending detail.

Rick "glad not to have better vision, which could be demanding" Denney

[BrianShaw]

I feel like an idiot, but why not let everyone know: What the heck is "IME"? IDK, but I H8 this text-talk. WTF? IMHO it should get 86d and real English should prevail.

[BrianShaw]

I always carefully watch people looking at my prints (and I have looked at this at other people's exhibits too) and I am convinced that there is no such thing as standard viewing distance. People, if engaged with a print, will virtually stick their noses up to it looking at the fine detail. And I find that is true whether they are looking at a small Cartier Bresson or a huge Andreas Gursky.

That is me you are describing! I can tell you that the reason I put nose-prints on the prints is largely because of the presciption in my bi-focal eyeglasses, and my eyeball's failure to naturally accomodate for close vision anymore. I seem to always be caught between the main viewing prescription and the close-up prescription... and the gap between them makes it impossible to view/enjoy anything detailed. Same is true when viewing the computer monitor, by the way. :)

[C. D. Keth]

That is me you are describing! I can tell you that the reason I put nose-prints on the prints is largely because of the presciption in my bi-focal eyeglasses, and my eyeball's failure to naturally accomodate for close vision anymore. I seem to always be caught between the main viewing prescription and the close-up prescription... and the gap between them makes it impossible to view/enjoy anything detailed. Same is true when viewing the computer monitor, by the way. :)

I don't have the vision problems but I have the same viewing habits. I'm that guy who always gets rebuked once or twice at any museum for getting too close and making them nervous.

[Drew Wiley]

"Standard viewing distance" is a shorthand expression for, "heck ... I want to make a really
big print out of a really tiny neg or digital file, so you need to back away from the damn
smudge in order to appreciate it". Normal viewing distance for a billboard, for example, is a quarter of a mile. One thing I like about LF is that people can get right smack up to
a big print and start discovering all kinds of hidden details.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Standard Viewing Distance, in my experience, is a metric for making comparisons in the same manner between different formats and media. It was an engineering thing, and never an aesthetic measure.

As mentioned above, it is useful in graphics, especially book and magazine printing where the maximum size is a strict reality. Never mind the Playboy fold-outs. :)

[Preston]

"Standard viewing distance" is a shorthand expression for, "heck ... I want to make a really
big print out of a really tiny neg or digital file, so you need to back away from the damn
smudge in order to appreciate it".

Nailed it!

--P

[Eric James]

Presbyopia, myopia, billboard ladders and velvet ropes are not insurmountable obstacles, although I honor the latter. The only limitations I observe as a rule have to do with image corruption (e.g. nose oil and the moisture of exhalation).

Or perhaps 180-DPI printers are the new pointillists.

Funny Drew !

[Graham Patterson]

I don't have the vision problems but I have the same viewing habits. I'm that guy who always gets rebuked once or twice at any museum for getting too close and making them nervous.

And I thought I was the only one!

The only thing that could be considered standard viewing distance for me is that distance that works to view the whole work comfortably. Detailed inspection does not come into it. If the picture on the wall is a 10x8, I would anticipate an arm's length initial viewing distance. With really big prints I find some galleries are not big enough and I have to scan the work to take it in.

I do think you have to trust the author will stand by the presentation. If you don't like the rendition, that is fair too.

[Steve Smith]

I'm near-sighted and frequently lift my glasses and press closer to artwork. That way I can appreciate the details of a painter's brushstrokes or a photographer's focus and resolution.

Me too!


Steve.

[ROL]

I'm more curious as to what prompted the OP to post this manifesto. :confused: (Who cares? Specific criticism? Do tell.)

[Dan Henderson]

What bothered me most about Kirk's original post was the phrase, "get away with." When I decide to make a photograph, or whether to try a new material or process, my objective is to make the best photographs that I can; everything is subservient to that goal. I know that Kirk and practically every other photographer who participates in this forum feels the same way. But, and here is this old fart's rant, it seems that elsewhere, "good enough" is all that many photographers aspire to. I wonder when doing just enough to "get away with" became acceptable. Is it the great democratization of photography that digital equipment has allowed, that anyone with the means to buy a digital camera thinks that is all that is required to produce excellent photographs? Is it the easy access to filters and other software to produce effects that emulate film photographs?

[Drew Wiley]

Nothing has changed. Tons of horrible photos have always been taken. There is a skewing
at the moment for even the "experts" to evaluate activity using the damned web, and
with it, perhaps a more conspicuous decline in what people are willing to accept in a frame
on a wall. On the other hand, more and more folks are getting into desktop color printing,
and out of this a few will catch the spark. There are other fads, like printing real real big;
but that will pass. I'm not worried. I set my own standards.

[Chuck P.]

I feel like an idiot, but why not let everyone know: What the heck is "IME"? IDK, but I H8 this text-talk. WTF? IMHO it should get 86d and real English should prevail.

In My Experience

I Don't Know

Oh yeah, High Defininition Television!:) Sounds like you already know what WTF means.

____________________________________

Now, to stay with the thread...............If I see someone sticking their nose up to one of my 11x14 prints (not yet made a 16x20), I'll let them finish and then politely provide them with my opinion that, for that size print, you're waaaaaaaaaay too close.

[BrianShaw]

Thanks. I am truly embarassed at being so "20th Century" in my communication skills. :o

[tgtaylor]

In my opinion, the “standard viewing distance” is a physical fact and not a myth. You can see it for yourself in the images posted here on the forum: some are too large (you have to scroll down to view all of it), some are too small, and others fit “perfectly” on your viewing screen to which, by the way, you automatically assume the “standard viewing position” when you sit down to your monitor. When I view prints in a gallery I first assume the “standard viewing position” which allows me to fully appreciate the image without distractions and invariably zero-in nose close to closely examine the details (and read the description if there is one).

The most successful images are those that look good at the standard viewing position and nose to glass position.

Thomas

[Vaughn]

I just change the size of the image to fit my present viewing distance/screen (but I use a mac and all I have to do is hold down the command key and hit the plus or minus key to change size). And I am always moving back and forth as I look at the screen...and changing to my reading glasses occasionally. Too variable for me to be a 'fact'.

But I admit there are few things as frustrating as seeing a bed-sheet sized print and not be able to get far enough away from it to appreciate it.

[Leigh]

Normal viewing distance for a billboard, for example, is a quarter of a mile.
Good example.

I was at a photo industry show in New York a few years ago.

They were demonstrating inkjet printers for billboard images.

The individual ink dots were about an inch in diameter. :eek:

- Leigh

[David A. Goldfarb]

Maybe we're seeing more of this language, but it's something I've always found unsatisfactory. "Standard viewing distance" is built into the value for acceptable circle of confusion used to calculate DOF tables, and I've always stopped down one or two stops from what the DOF table says, because inadequate DOF is almost always a bigger visual distraction than diffraction at small apertures, if you're not in the macro/micro range, and the standard values never look sharp enough to me. So maybe now "standard viewing distance" is a way of saying, "hey, you're not supposed to look at the dots," where before it was a way of saying, "hey, it's sharp enough if you don't stick your nose in it!"

[Chuck P.]

................where before it was a way of saying, "hey, it's sharp enough if you don't stick your nose in it!"

I settle for this version, it sounds better. My bottom line is that there is no myth about print viewing distance, I've yet to see an example where it did not have some impact on my perception of the print.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Oh, there's no myth that viewing distance has an impact on the perception of the print. The myth is that if the print isn't sharp enough or smooth enough, it's the viewer's fault for looking too closely, rather than the photographer's fault for not making it sharp/smooth enough, where sharpness or smoothness is an important aesthetic value, which isn't always the case.

[Roger Cole]

While I agree that the idea of a "standard" - that is, a distance one expects people to view their prints from regardless of the viewer or the circumstance - is a pretty silly idea, that doesn't mean there isn't some validity to the concept that larger prints are generally viewed from farther away. A print smaller than 8x10, for example, is usually held in the hand and thus apt to be viewed from closer than one larger than 8x10 that is hung on a wall. 8x10 can go either way.


"What the heck is "viewing distance'? Is it some kind of natural law?"
Kirk-

Yes, sort of. "Standard" print viewing distance is based on the normal human circle of vision, though it's not really a standard -- more like an anatomical average. CLoser than this distance, the image is not seen in its entirety.

No matter what your personal standards might be, there will always be a degradation from normal viewing distance when viewing closer, so everyone draws the line somewhere. If a photographer says he can "get away" with printing at a given ppi, it just means that he is satisfied with the result - an artistic choice - just as you're satisfied with 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives, while others are only satisfied with contact prints that hold up under viewing with a loupe. Targeting normal viewing distance for one's quality threshold makes at least as much sense to me as targeting for "close inspection", or loupe inspection, but to each his own.

This makes sense to me too.


I've also been looking at people who are looking with this same question in mind. My two main observations are:

1. If the print really engages somebody, they take in for awhile, then move in closer to explore details. A fair number then back up to look at the whole thing again.

2. Photographers are much more likely to put their noses up against it to look for grain and "sharpness."

Bingo - photographers do this. I went to see the Cartier-Bresson exhibit at the High in Atlanta, and I got very close, close enough I had to tip my glasses up to use my near vision, which puts me at about 6" for my left eye and 9" for my right. My wife and I went to the museum another time to see an exhibit by an artist she wanted to see and I lucked into a display of Ralph Gibson prints, and I did the same thing. I didn't see other people doing this, though, not even those carrying DSLRs.

I have several prints hanging on our wall at home. I have never seen anyone get closer than 1-2 feet, and rarely closer than 2', when viewing them. Two are 11x14 from 4x5, one is roughly 10" square from 6x6 and two are 8x10 from 35mm. I'm about to make another one roughly 15" square from 6x6 (on Pan F+ - I already made and had framed a print this size from this negative that I gave my wife's parents for Christmas.) We'll see if they get any closer or stay any farther away from that one. My MIL told me she's going to hang the gift print over the mantle, so no one will even be able to get closer than 2-3' without climbing up on the mantle. The foreground isn't sharp as DOF did not allow, but I like the effect as the foreground is a railing and boardwalk and the increasing sharpness tends to draw the view into the print. At least it does for me, and the people I gave the print loved it, and that's good enough for me. ;)


That's why I put glass on my prints, to avoid nose prints. The "standard" distance is a nice idea, but doesn't work too well in the gallery. For example, I'm near-sighted and frequently lift my glasses and press closer to artwork. That way I can appreciate the details of a painter's brushstrokes or a photographer's focus and resolution.
I think the critical difference between digital and silver printing is simply the level of personal, hands-on craftsmanship. If the customer wants a hand-crafted piece of art, then silver's the way to go. If they don't care, well, few people will be able to tell the difference. That's this old fart's opinion, anyway.

I do this too. Up until about age 42 I could simply see from infinity (with my glasses) down to perhaps 3-4". With middle age I lost the accomodation and had to get progressives, but I can still see tack sharp without them IF I get close enough. My sharpest viewing distance up close is what I said above, about 6" for my left eye and maybe 9" for my right. I always do this to read fine print, to do fine close up work etc. (and it often gets astonished looks from those who only started needing glasses in middle age) and for viewing prints. But again, the only people I have EVER seen do this have been other photographers. Most people simply don't think to or aren't interested in getting up that close. They want to see the photograph, not whether there might be a spec of dust somewhere.

[lenicolas]

I mostly agree with OP even though my standards aren't as high as his.

Though i think this must be said :

I have very rarely been disapointed by a print's quality (grain, pixel resolution) when sitcking my nose up to it, but I very often found pictures printed very large that weren't that sharp.
It's a sad thing when you admire a picture in a gallery and when you step right in front of it realize it isn't as sharp as it looked from a distance. This bothers me more than resolution when printing my own work.
I have found that only tack sharp photographs make good enlargements above 16x20, no matter the format or resolution of your negative/file.
I've seen 90dpi (!) inkjet prints that were flawless even under close inspection.
I've delivered 180dpi files from scans of MF to clients and they printed beautifully.
My motto is "if the photo is shaaaarp, it'll print fine to almost any size"

Another thing to consider is : is your print made for a gallery show, or to eventually be displayed in someone's home/office?
I have a 30x40 print hanging on my wall for 3 years; i look at it almost everyday, I don't think I have ever stepped closer to watch it up close nor has any of my house guests ever.
The relationship with a print that you own and hung on your wall is very different from the one with a print you see for the first time in a crowded gallery. imho.

[Jay DeFehr]

Oh, there's no myth that viewing distance has an impact on the perception of the print. The myth is that if the print isn't sharp enough or smooth enough, it's the viewer's fault for looking too closely, rather than the photographer's fault for not making it sharp/smooth enough, where sharpness or smoothness is an important aesthetic value, which isn't always the case.

So, if I put a loupe to your 20x24 print and complain that it could be sharper, it's your fault?

[David A. Goldfarb]

So, if I put a loupe to your 20x24 print and complain that it could be sharper, it's your fault?

If sharpness is an aesthetic value for that particular image, yes. I've actually considered displaying contact prints with a loupe on a string attached to the frame. I like exploring prints in this way, when the image is about the detail. Obviously, not all images are about detail.

[Bernice Loui]

This discussion got me to try an experiment yesterday during a smallish get together of mostly non-photographer friends.

Rounded up some B&W prints made years ago on 11x14 Oriental graded glossy fiber paper.

Group one of these prints were made from full frame 5x7 (some included film holder borders). Lenses used were Schneider HMXL or Rodenstock Grandagon for wide angles, Kodak Ektar for normal focal length and APO Artar for longer than normal focal length.

Group two prints were made from full frame 4x5, basically the same optics, sub Schneider Super Angulon in place of the HMXL.

Group three prints were made from 6x6 Hasselblad 100mm Planar, 50mm f2.8 FLE and 150mm Sonnar. Images printed up to 11x14.

Prints were viewed from about 12" to 36" held in their hands while others looked from a short distance away.


The viewers were initially drawn to the content or subject of the print, then form (composition), then contrast range and as they mentally processed the image in hand, the resolution in group one and two prints continued to draw their interest. Many who viewed these prints took them in for several minutes as they continued to discover more and more visually interesting information within the prints made from the larger negatives.. The prints made from the 5x7 negs were more effective than the 4x5 prints as the prints had more greater definition ( similar effect found in contact prints).

On the prints made from the 6x6 negs, these prints simply did not hold their viewing interest in the same way..

This is likely the very first time this group has seen prints like this made from sheet film negatives. It appears the higher definition images from sheet film does matter once the hurdle of content, composition and all those other ingredients have been addresses. There also appears to be an awareness of how different film B&W images are from today's digital.

Speaking of digital images, visited a local community art gallery where they had some inkjet B&W prints.. they look weird to me (first time I have seen prints like this). The contrast range and rendition seems off, the edge sharpening effects seems exaggerated and .... Guess I'm too stuck in the old ways and my visual values are too ingrained to change.

I'm still not sure what to do with the images I have created..


Bernice

[Roger Cole]

I want to know where you are finding these "mostly non-photographer friends" then. My non-photographer friends, and even a couple of photographers that work only digitally, never do anything like this. Even images that they proclaim they really like, in all seeming sincerity (that is, comments like "oh wow!" on first viewing etc.) never have them looking more than maybe 30 seconds to a minute, and never up close. I seriously doubt they could tell my 4x5 from medium format. While I'm sure they could tell most of the 35mm if I asked them to choose the one with the most grain, they don't seem to really care.

[Bernice Loui]

This get together happens yearly for us. Been doing this for a few years now..
When I decided to take up serious photography again, this discussion gave me an idea to try this.


It seems the majority of images created today are done by smart phone or digital. This means fits well with today's electronic communications and short attention span of the public. I'm guessing it comes down to personality, age and maturity. This group is older, maybe wiser and maybe more appreciative of art and other related topics in general.



Bernice




I want to know where you are finding these "mostly non-photographer friends" then. My non-photographer friends, and even a couple of photographers that work only digitally, never do anything like this. Even images that they proclaim they really like, in all seeming sincerity (that is, comments like "oh wow!" on first viewing etc.) never have them looking more than maybe 30 seconds to a minute, and never up close. I seriously doubt they could tell my 4x5 from medium format. While I'm sure they could tell most of the 35mm if I asked them to choose the one with the most grain, they don't seem to really care.

[ROL]

But I admit there are few things as frustrating as seeing a bed-sheet sized print and not be able to get far enough away from it to appreciate it.

Spoken like a true contact printer.

[Marizu]

I seriously doubt they could tell my 4x5 from medium format. While I'm sure they could tell most of the 35mm if I asked them to choose the one with the most grain, they don't seem to really care.

I think that this is important. The content and emotional impact of an image is far more important to me than whether (or how much) grain it has.
I generally feel that if the grain is sharp and the focus is fine, then the photograph is ok. I have seen big prints from 35mm that look marvelous and gritty because the photographs were great.

Photographers tend to peep at details but unless there is emotive information in them, I suspect that is pandering to the technical rather than to the emotional. It is a bit like throwing Shakespeare in the bin because he made some spelling mistakes.

I am not anti-technique. I just believe that the picture comes first.

[Vaughn]

Spoken like a true contact printer.

So true! LOL!

But it does bring up the idea that print (and frame) size often must take the space that it is shown in into consideration. A 20x24 image framed 28x32 and mounted on the wall in a 4 foot wide hallway is usually not a good thing for full appreciation of the image.

[Bernice Loui]

The emotional impact and content is what draws viewers to the image initially, then the other factors like contrast range, resolution can bring further involvement with the image.

"Photographers tend to peep at details"
Which could be one of the root causes for photo gear obsession, purchasing and always looking for the magic image creation widget.


Bernice



I think that this is important. The content and emotional impact of an image is far more important to me than whether (or how much) grain it has.
I generally feel that if the grain is sharp and the focus is fine, then the photograph is ok. I have seen big prints from 35mm that look marvelous and gritty because the photographs were great.

Photographers tend to peep at details but unless there is emotive information in them, I suspect that is pandering to the technical rather than to the emotional. It is a bit like throwing Shakespeare in the bin because he made some spelling mistakes.

I am not anti-technique. I just believe that the picture comes first.

[Vaughn]

The emotional impact and content is what draws viewers to the image initially...Bernice

Appearent sharpness can be one of the factors determining the emotional impact of an image. Grain size can also be one of the factors.

All factors are important and, IMO, should not be separated from each other. Content, print size, sharpness, grain size, contrast, process and even the color mat and frame style all must be given equal consideration -- all come together for the final piece, all determine how the viewer approaches the work.

[paulr]

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all standard distance, but based on observing myself and other people, and allowing the constraints of biology and architecture, I've found some useful generalizations.

The first is that smallish prints—say, 11x14 or below, invite people as close as their curiosity allows, down to around 10", is which as as close as most young people's eyes will focus. The smaller the print, the more likely they'll stay within the presumed "standard" range, which is around 1-1/2 to 2 feet—the distance people naturally hold a book when they're reading it.

For medium sized prints—say, 16x20 up to 36" wide or so—people will tend to step back a bit to take in the whole thing. But they are not forced back, and so may still be curious enough to get within 10".

For bigger prints, up to wall-size, people step way back. Generally the only ones sticking their noses into the grain are photographers. Even as a photogapher, when I stick my nose into such a print, my natural expectations are much lower than at the smaller sizes. I was just looking at some 80" photographic murals printed on canvas at a home decor store. The finest detail was around 1/2 lp/mm, but they looked as good as you would expect for such things. Put a couch between you and the print and it might as well be a contact print.

I find the medium size range to be the most challenging, because it represents a fairly large degree of enlargement—but we still have high expectations, and may still get close enough to be disappointed. I'm putting together a body of work of handheld camera pictures taken in low light—nothing very sharp, and a lot of noise. My original goal was to print them 30" wide, because that size would suit the images well. I don't feel that they hold up well enough at 30", so I'm going to print them larger.

[andrew gardiner]

Thank you very much Kirk for bringing up one of my favourite bugbears. I've always thought the ideal viewing distance idea to be a defensive attempt to rationalise shortcomings.
I walk back and forth when I'm looking at a photograph on a wall just as I would do a painting ( or to be honest when I'm really looking at anything at all!). Of course one wants an overall view, to see it as a whole, but then if anything in it at all interests you, naturally you want to look more closely. It's just part of the process of being engaged by something ( I also like to stand right back from it so that I can see how it interacts with the other work around it). I would stick my neck out and say people who don't go back and forth aren't really looking properly (for whatever reason, maybe they're just not interested by it enough?).
Further I don't think it's just a question of detail, though seeing beautifully rendered detail is a real pleasure. One also has to remember that a printed photograph isn't just an image of something, it's also a material object and its nice to experience it as an object; what kind of paper is it printed on?What is it's sheen like? Etc.
As to people who aren't really interested in photography, is what they think that important? If you spent your life making cheese for instance, would you really care what people who didn't really like cheese thought of your product?

[paulr]

Speaking of digital images, visited a local community art gallery where they had some inkjet B&W prints.. they look weird to me (first time I have seen prints like this). The contrast range and rendition seems off, the edge sharpening effects seems exaggerated and .... Guess I'm too stuck in the old ways and my visual values are too ingrained to change.

Sounds like you were just looking at bad prints. If you see odd tonal qualities and sharpening artifacts, the problem is the person working the tools. You have to learn how to work digital tools same as any others. My black and white inkjet prints look better than my darkroom prints, but they didn't in the beginning.

[Vaughn]

I saw some well done B&W inkjets today at a friend's show-- and have seen some made for another friend (we had a show together) that were printed by Charles Cramer that were wonderful. The inkjet printer is just a tool -- and one should know how to use one's tools.

But in both cases, they knew how to make their own silver gelatin prints...and excellent ones.

[paulr]

But in both cases, they knew how to make their own silver gelatin prints...and excellent ones.

Yes, exactly. If you can make a good silver print, then all you need to do make a good ink print is learn the tools. You don't need to relearn printing.

For the purposes of answering questions about viewing distance, digital prints are an incredibly convenient tool. They allow you to experiment with resolution and sharpening in measured ways that you really can't in the darkroom. Even if your chosen medium is silver or gravure or whatever, you can learn a ton about subjective image quality by playing with your images in software. I had many of my assumptions shaken up.

[Ken Lee]

For bigger prints, up to wall-size, people step way back. Generally the only ones sticking their noses into the grain are photographers.

Most people look through the photograph, to the subject. Only a few people look through the subject, to the photograph.

[Jim Jones]

Most people look through the photograph, to the subject. Only a few people look through the subject, to the photograph.

Yes, indeed!

[Kirk Gittings]

Sounds like you were just looking at bad prints. If you see odd tonal qualities and sharpening artifacts, the problem is the person working the tools. You have to learn how to work digital tools same as any others. My black and white inkjet prints look better than my darkroom prints, but they didn't in the beginning.

+1

I wish I kept count of how many bad silver prints I have seen in shows since I started going to them in 1970. But in those days you didn't blame the medium-you blamed the artist.

[Drew Wiley]

I've always had the public put their nose right up to my prints, not just other photographers, anytime they've been in such a venue. That's because there's something
there to warrant this. Overall composition & rich detail are not mutually exclusive, esp
with large format work. When I just want a poetic nuance without all that, I shoot 35mm.
One of the greatest assets of traditional view camera and darkroom work is that it slows
you down and forces you not only to look at things carefully, but to prioritize your options.
Perhaps this is one reason the best inkjet printers seem to be persons who have this kind of discipline under their belt to begin with, and already know what they want.

[Bernice Loui]

Could some one please point me to some places or individuals with examples of "good" inkjet B&W images located in the SF bay area?

I'm not convinced that those images at the local gallery (both B&W and color) are representative of what can be achieved with current technology.



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

+1

Which feeds the need for "more and better" photo hardware.. This is only really good for the hardware makers.


Bernice



+1

I wish I kept count of how many bad silver prints I have seen in shows since I started going to them in 1970. But in those days you didn't blame the medium-you blamed the artist.

[paulr]

Most people look through the photograph, to the subject. Only a few people look through the subject, to the photograph.

Sure. Photographers (geeky ones at that) are the only ones who obsess about this stuff. But bigger differences can influence people even when they aren't looking for them and don't care about them. It's like being at the movies ... only a real movie nut will comment on the quality of the sound design. But everyone will comment if their ears hurt of if they have trouble hearing the dialogue. There's a long continuum between the extremes.

[Michael Alpert]

Kirk,

I agree with you. I've seen many silver prints and inkjet prints that seem to fail for the same reason: the imagery demands sharpness on close inspection, but the required sharpness is lacking. Still, I am disappointed by the forum's response. I know large-format artists who work differently from the mindset that is represented here. These serious artists don't care about the qualities and values that many forum members have spent a lifetime working to accomplish. And the people that I am referring to--none of whom are forum members--know how to make straightforward sharp prints. I wish that someone would defend the practice that demands that viewers remain at a "standard" distance from prints. Like some other discussions here, this thread seems to be too single-minded and too self-satisfied.

[paulr]

Could some one please point me to some places or individuals with examples of "good" inkjet B&W images located in the SF bay area?

I'm not convinced that those images at the local gallery (both B&W and color) are representative of what can be achieved with current technology.

I don't actually know what well known artists are working with monochrome inkjet right now. One way to track down prints is to see if anyone is printing commercially with a system like Piezography in the bay area and have them show you samples. You could also order sample prints from John Cone, which show different inks on different papers, although he'll want $20 or $30.

I've got one b+w inkjet in a collection out there ... I don't know how you'd get your hands on it and I wouldn't want to hold it up as an example of what's possible!

[SpeedGraphicMan]

You hear it from old farts, too.

My standard size from 4x5's was 16x20 silver gelatin prints. I'd be disappointed if people did not 'stick their nose' up to the prints.

Agreed, but if the print is hanging over a doorway or from the ceiling... You might be able to get away with lower quality!


Sure. Photographers (geeky ones at that) are the only ones who obsess about this stuff. But bigger differences can influence people even when they aren't looking for them and don't care about them. It's like being at the movies ... only a real movie nut will comment on the quality of the sound design. But everyone will comment if their ears hurt of if they have trouble hearing the dialogue. There's a long continuum between the extremes.

I take it you have never seen "This is Cinerama" in a Cinerama theatre ;)

I do find myself nitpicking quite often, after all if I am going to go through the trouble of shooting LF for better quality, then I better be able to see some damn quality...

One of the difficulties I have with Lomo or Holga photos or the "grunge" look that is so popular today, is that it is rapidly becoming a stereotype for film as opposed to digital capture.

Many wrongly assume that because I shoot film every shot will look grainy and scratchy as if my camera had termites or something.

This has de-valued so much of my work, and the "film only can create grungy looking pictures" stigma is a hard one to fight...

[Michael Gordon]

I've always known 'ideal' print viewing distance to be 1.5 times the diagonal corner to corner dimension. In other words, a 30" diagonal print would best be viewed from about four feet away. Sure, photographers 'nose in' to see detail, but stick laypeople in front of the print and this is likely to be their comfortable viewing distance. Get any closer than this and you begin to focus on sections of detail, not the overall print. This 'ideal' viewing distance has always worked for me. Arguing 'ideal ppi' is a whole different ballgame and best reserved for pixel peepers.

[Kirk Gittings]

This 'ideal' viewing distance has always worked for me.

Meaning what exactly? You print so that the print looks good at that distance?

[paulr]

Another formula:

Ideal viewing distance = 7 viewing distance units (VDU)
1 VDU = 1/7 the distance at which the ideal viewer most enjoys the print.

(I just tried to confirm this empirically, but the Ideal Viewer was unable to come to the phone)

[Vaughn]

The Ideal Viewer is the one with the cash. And of course, the Ideal Viewer's Distance is close enough to hand it to you.

There was a fellow with a print(s) at the Yosemite Rnaissance show several years back who had a set viewing distance for his prints. He took exaggerated stereo photographs (twin Hassies about 20 or 30 feet apart). About 15"x15" prints on the wall and a 3D viewer that you held up to get the stereo effect. Could not get too close or too far -- or the viewing devise would not work.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm convinced that both the expression, "normal viewing distance" and "circle of confusion"
were coined by Mr Magoo, for whom everything was a smudge.

[Roger Cole]

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all standard distance, but based on observing myself and other people, and allowing the constraints of biology and architecture, I've found some useful generalizations.

The first is that smallish prints—say, 11x14 or below, invite people as close as their curiosity allows, down to around 10", is which as as close as most young people's eyes will focus. The smaller the print, the more likely they'll stay within the presumed "standard" range, which is around 1-1/2 to 2 feet—the distance people naturally hold a book when they're reading it.

For medium sized prints—say, 16x20 up to 36" wide or so—people will tend to step back a bit to take in the whole thing. But they are not forced back, and so may still be curious enough to get within 10".

For bigger prints, up to wall-size, people step way back. Generally the only ones sticking their noses into the grain are photographers. Even as a photogapher, when I stick my nose into such a print, my natural expectations are much lower than at the smaller sizes. I was just looking at some 80" photographic murals printed on canvas at a home decor store. The finest detail was around 1/2 lp/mm, but they looked as good as you would expect for such things. Put a couch between you and the print and it might as well be a contact print.

I find the medium size range to be the most challenging, because it represents a fairly large degree of enlargement—but we still have high expectations, and may still get close enough to be disappointed. I'm putting together a body of work of handheld camera pictures taken in low light—nothing very sharp, and a lot of noise. My original goal was to print them 30" wide, because that size would suit the images well. I don't feel that they hold up well enough at 30", so I'm going to print them larger.

It's interesting to see "smallish" prints referring to 11x14 and down. I consider 16x20, the largest size I'm set up to print, as big, 11x14 medium, or perhaps 11x14 is even big and 16x20 is "really big" ;) . 8x10 is also medium, and smaller is small. I do keep 5x7 paper and print on that too, mainly from 35mm (and so far only on RC paper.)

16x20 is aka "PITA" for me. Part of this is a function of darkroom space. For how I work and where I'm set up now, 16x20 is workable but requires contortions. Keeping 16x20 fiber paper from creasing is challenging. I can imagine larger is of course even more difficult. Just the handling "floppiness" of 16x20 sometimes tempts me to go to RC in that size, at least for prints I plan to frame and put under glass anyway.

[Bill L.]

Could some one please point me to some places or individuals with examples of "good" inkjet B&W images located in the SF bay area?

I'm not convinced that those images at the local gallery (both B&W and color) are representative of what can be achieved with current technology.



Bernice

I don't know the west coast scene, but if you are ever in Fla., check out Clyde Butcher's gallery. You can see both his inkjet and his silver prints. I was conviced enough that I have 4 of his inkjets.

Cheers!
Bill

[John NYC]

I don't know the west coast scene, but if you are ever in Fla., check out Clyde Butcher's gallery. You can see both his inkjet and his silver prints. I was conviced enough that I have 4 of his inkjets.

Cheers!
Bill

Interesting. I was at a talk at his studio just a year ago and he was completely discounting the longevity of anything but a real silver print. He must have changed his mind.

[Vaughn]

If you have the space, handling 16x20 fiber base prints gets to be routine, and at a bit over $2/sheet when I was making them, one pays attention. I have only made one 20x24, but I imagine it is much the same. Very large inkjets must be a bear to handle.

[Curt]

http://www.journalofvision.org/content/12/5/8.full

I have a Leonardo da Vinci notebook of his advice and his opinions are worthy of exploration. Is he an old fart?

[paulr]

It's interesting to see "smallish" prints referring to 11x14 and down. I consider 16x20, the largest size I'm set up to print, as big, 11x14 medium, or perhaps 11x14 is even big and 16x20 is "really big" ;) . 8x10 is also medium, and smaller is small. I do keep 5x7 paper and print on that too, mainly from 35mm (and so far only on RC paper.)

16x20 is aka "PITA" for me. Part of this is a function of darkroom space. For how I work and where I'm set up now, 16x20 is workable but requires contortions. Keeping 16x20 fiber paper from creasing is challenging. I can imagine larger is of course even more difficult. Just the handling "floppiness" of 16x20 sometimes tempts me to go to RC in that size, at least for prints I plan to frame and put under glass anyway.

Fair enough! Substitute whatever adjectives you like for smallish and bigish. I just needed to call these ranges something. The names are arbitrary—look at coffee sizes.

When I did all my printing in the darkroom, my size definitions were more like yours. 9.5x11 was my standard, and I printed down to 4x5 contacts. 16x20 was an occasional event, and a nuissance, like you said.

My work has changed, though, and so have my perceptions. It's quite possible that all the big work I see on gallery and museum walls has shifted my idea of normal over the years. And the technology has made big prints easy. I can make 17x25 inkjet prints as easily as 8x10, and if I want bigger, I give the same file to my friend, who can match the colors and tones precisely and print up to 60" wide (I haven't had him print very big for me yet, but conceptually the only barrier is money). Technology has also made it easier to control the quality of big prints. My bigest darkroom print ever is a 40x50 mural I made for fun when I worked at a lab. It was done on a $50,000 HK horizontal enlarger and vacuum easel. And the quality isn't very good by my standards today. That secondary optical system, and no reasonable options for sharpening (I'm not man enought to make an unsharp mask the old fashioned way) really limit things. I can make a better quality 50" print today from my Nikon. But like most 50" prints, the one I have is plenty good when there's a couch between you and it.

[Michael Gordon]

Meaning what exactly? You print so that the print looks good at that distance?

Meaning that standing 1.5 times away from the distance of the corner-to-corner dimension of ANY print feels (to me) like the right distance to properly view an entire image. YMMV.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh, Paul, all scanners have "secondary optical systems" too. Whatever lab and enlarger you're talking about must have had moss on the lens! I've yet to see any digital color print anywhere as crisp as the prints I routinely enlarge directly from LF negs or chromes. You must be one of those "normal viewing distance" guys yourself, if you hold that kind of ridiculous preconception!

[bob carnie]

What about Lenny Eiger, I think he prints piezo large and is in the bay area I think.

I don't actually know what well known artists are working with monochrome inkjet right now. One way to track down prints is to see if anyone is printing commercially with a system like Piezography in the bay area and have them show you samples. You could also order sample prints from John Cone, which show different inks on different papers, although he'll want $20 or $30.

I've got one b+w inkjet in a collection out there ... I don't know how you'd get your hands on it and I wouldn't want to hold it up as an example of what's possible!

[bob carnie]

Yes, exactly. If you can make a good silver print, then all you need to do make a good ink print is learn the tools. You don't need to relearn printing.

I would agree with this 100% . the hard part for me was not the principles of PS and ink printing , but rather learning how to move my fingers in synch with my thoughts around the PS program. Once I learned
a few key elements to workflow in the digital world it became very easy to make prints that could equal the look of my silver prints.(took me five years and thousands of dollars in training)




Yes, exactly. If you can make a good silver print, then all you need to do make a good ink print is learn the tools. You don't need to relearn printing.

For the purposes of answering questions about viewing distance, digital prints are an incredibly convenient tool. They allow you to experiment with resolution and sharpening in measured ways that you really can't in the darkroom. Even if your chosen medium is silver or gravure or whatever, you can learn a ton about subjective image quality by playing with your images in software. I had many of my assumptions shaken up.

[bob carnie]

I have no issues making enlargements in the darkroom that will equal ink prints. The set up use is made to do exactly this and if you are in a darkroom you are not completely familiar with I would find it hard to make large murals as well.

[ROL]

Meaning that standing 1.5 times away from the distance of the corner-to-corner dimension of ANY print feels (to me) like the right distance to properly view an entire image. YMMV.

Well, of course. That is precisely why my on-board measuring device, always accompanying me, is so useful at showings. The visual and emotional stimulation so registered keeps the "proper viewing distance" between me and any piece thus arousing my passions.






(Hmmm... I hope this isn't misinterpreted by the mods.)

[Drew Wiley]

Per Bay Area: Marty Knapp at Pt Reyes Station has done a good job of replicating his
dakroom prints (traditional cold-toned silver) with inkjet. He lost his darkroom lease and
fortunately already had a running start into a replacement technique. His little gallery space is open on weekends. The very finest monochrome digital printing in this area is
not done inkjet, but with very expensive prepress equip, and not really viewable by the
public unless some local museum gets involved. It's hired gun work sent out (mostly NYC), and far beyond the financial resources of typical photographers to enlist.

[sanking]

I don't know the west coast scene, but if you are ever in Fla., check out Clyde Butcher's gallery. You can see both his inkjet and his silver prints. I was conviced enough that I have 4 of his inkjets.

Cheers!
Bill


Do you know if Butcher still sells inkjet prints? I looked at his web site and could not find any mention of inkjet technology, or any inkjet prints for sale in his gallery. The technology is all about silver gelatin printing with enlargers, and the gallery only has silver gelatin work for sale.

There is a comment about size relevant to this thread on his site. He writes.

“I want people to view my work up close,” says Butcher about his desire to create very large prints. “When you’re in nature you’re scanning from the log to the tree to the bird to the water and your mind puts the images together to create the feeling of the scene. When you view my large prints your mind does the same thing because you cannot see the image all at once. And sharpness is the key to it. Your eyes - your brain - wants things to be clear and sharp. All of that makes the viewer relate to my images in a way that is similar to the peace felt when being out in nature. I want my images to create a positive emotion in people, with the hope that they carry that emotion out into their lives to make the world a better place in which to live.”

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Even though I'm a long, long ways from Florida, I'm pretty certain that's the case, Sandy.
Makes sense. Big rolls of silver gelatin paper are hard to handle and now sometimes hard to get. I read some blurb where Butcher described the issue. It also seems he's largely
given up shooting 11x14 for logistical inconvenience, and the huge enlarger is not longer
used. Mostly 8x10 work it seems. Butcher's intended mode of visualization is that he wants
people to feel "inside" a big print, analogous to seeing things within an interior architectural space, rather than backed off viewing it overall. Interesting. But I've never actually seen his work, so can't realistically comment.

[bob carnie]

Big rolls of silver gelatin paper are hard to handle .

Drew

No and No, sorry but easy to find and easy to handle

FWIW there is a young man that I have been discussing mural printing in NA , who is not only set up to do monster silver murals... 50 inch x 70 inch off 8x10 and 11x14 negatives.
His darkroom and work area is over 7000 sq ft and all his equipment is brand new , I'm talking brand new stainless sinks, 16 ft vacumn wall , two brand new horizontal enlargers 8x10 and 11 x14, and all
the infastructure to make these large prints, mount them and frame them.....He has purchased large mural paper with no issue in large quantity..
He is about to start launching his work soon to the gallery world.


when I grow up I want him to adopt me,,, I am very encouraged to see a young man go out on this limb and make these large silver gelatin prints. I cannot wait to see what he produces.
Now thats Defending The Darkroom.




Even though I'm a long, long ways from Florida, I'm pretty certain that's the case, Sandy.
Makes sense. Big rolls of silver gelatin paper are hard to handle and now sometimes hard to get. I read some blurb where Butcher described the issue. It also seems he's largely
given up shooting 11x14 for logistical inconvenience, and the huge enlarger is not longer
used. Mostly 8x10 work it seems. Butcher's intended mode of visualization is that he wants
people to feel "inside" a big print, analogous to seeing things within an interior architectural space, rather than backed off viewing it overall. Interesting. But I've never actually seen his work, so can't realistically comment.

[Drew Wiley]

So where are you finding big rolls of silver paper, Bob? The only thing still routinely avail
that I'm aware of is Multigrade IV. Maybe Kentmere can be special cut. All the local labs
used to use Forte paper - wonderful stuff for mural work, but no more. With inkjet printers proliferating, the commercial demand for rolls of traditional silver paper would seem to be dimimising. Maybe there's some old inventory laying around somewhere, but I'm not aware of who has it. Guess if you specialized in that kind of work, you could stockpile a big custom cut. But who am I to comment - I've got quite a stash of discontinued paper in my freezer too.

[Struan Gray]

I don't think the standard distance is a myth, but it's an aggregate measure like average height which hides more information than it gives. At most art galleries I have visited, people stand between one and two meters from the walls, moving in to look closely when they've taken in the effect of the whole.

I'm weird in that I sometimes retreat to the far side of the gallery to look at the picture from a distance. Just as with sticking your nose up to the print, you can learn some tricks of the trade that way.

I do not subscribe to the usual cant about how perspective is determined by viewing distance. My brain does not regard a wide angle photograph as a long lens image just because I am standing next to it. There is some kind of assessment of the relationship between the size of the frame and the projection of space within the image which labels a shot as wide or narrow angle irrespective of the size of the camera or the print. FWIW, this is also true of those odd renaissance paintings with exaggerated wide angle effects.

Some artists exploit the standard distance. Maria Miesenberger is a Swedish art photographer, one of whose signature series is of childhood snaps blown up large, with the children blacked out and with a fuzzy edge. I don't know if the effect is deliberate, but the fuzz is exactly the right size that if I stand at the standard distance my eyes frantically try to focus the fuzzy black shapes, and it *hurts* to look at the photos. My local Mecca for canonical modern art, Louisiana, has a backlit lightbox with fuzzy coloured rings on it which does much the same thing, if you stand at the right distance (can't remember the artist, but it's hung just round the corner from the Bridget Riley and the Calder mobile)..

My feeling is that there are psychological effects linked to the size of the image which go beyond the perception of the photograph as an object. They are linked to the physiology of perception and depend on the angular size of the image on the wall, and thus vary with your distance from the print. These are similar to the way that form becomes detail and then texture as you move away from a print, but involve how we apprehend colour and shading (and hence such things as depth and dimensionality). I would like to find ways to use such effects, either consciously through a knowledge of the physiology or intuitively via dabbling, in order either to change the character of the image as you move around a room in which it is hanging, or to find the point of balance so that a natural viewing distance rewards the viewer with a particular - and strong - resonance between the parts and the whole.

[Gary Tarbert]

Tend too agree with you Kirk , The market in Australia tend to buy bigger prints and their obsessed with Panorama so i find myself printing to the limits of what i am comfortable with on 4x5 say 40 or 50 inchs i work on a maximum of 10 times as a rule , that's why i bought my 5x8 a couple of years ago so i could do the 6foot panos our market seems obsessed with .Cheers Gary

[Drew Wiley]

That's the problem with the BIG big decor print fad - it won't hold the detail that would
otherwise bring you in tight. I don't like printing bigger than 4X, but have done respectable
30X40's from 4x5 by making enlarged 8x10 interneg or interpositives first; but I'd rather print right from 8x10 originals. But inkjet just won't hold enough detail to make much difference in this respect, as long as you've got something LF to begin with. Lightjet is a
tad better, but not much.

[Roger Cole]

So where are you finding big rolls of silver paper, Bob? The only thing still routinely avail
that I'm aware of is Multigrade IV. Maybe Kentmere can be special cut. All the local labs
used to use Forte paper - wonderful stuff for mural work, but no more. With inkjet printers proliferating, the commercial demand for rolls of traditional silver paper would seem to be dimimising. Maybe there's some old inventory laying around somewhere, but I'm not aware of who has it. Guess if you specialized in that kind of work, you could stockpile a big custom cut. But who am I to comment - I've got quite a stash of discontinued paper in my freezer too.

I've never looked for it before as I certainly don't need it, but B&H lists MGIV, MGIV WT, Kentmere, a couple of kinds of Foma and Oriental in rolls between 40" and 50" wide. The choices in 50"+ are much smaller. Let's see if a link to search results will work:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Size_40%22+-+49%22+Roll&ci=802&N=4294548441+4289268035

[Heroique]

LF forum paging Cezanne ... LF forum paging Cezanne ... Please report to the Standard “Print Viewing Distance” Myth thread. Thank you.

[Curt]

First I get as close as I can, it's a habit to check technical execution. That depends on the photographer; there is little need for photographers like W. Eugene Smith. Content trumps technical. I seem to move back to about 1 1/2 times the diagonal; try that with a 2 1/4 — 3 1/4 contact or enlargement from a half frame!

Has any one gotten their eyes right up close to a Leonardo da Vinci painting or print to inspect the sharpness? How long were you in jail? ;)

[Bill L.]

Do you know if Butcher still sells inkjet prints? I looked at his web site and could not find any mention of inkjet technology, or any inkjet prints for sale in his gallery. The technology is all about silver gelatin printing with enlargers, and the gallery only has silver gelatin work for sale.

There is a comment about size relevant to this thread on his site. He writes.

“I want people to view my work up close,” says Butcher about his desire to create very large prints. “When you’re in nature you’re scanning from the log to the tree to the bird to the water and your mind puts the images together to create the feeling of the scene. When you view my large prints your mind does the same thing because you cannot see the image all at once. And sharpness is the key to it. Your eyes - your brain - wants things to be clear and sharp. All of that makes the viewer relate to my images in a way that is similar to the peace felt when being out in nature. I want my images to create a positive emotion in people, with the hope that they carry that emotion out into their lives to make the world a better place in which to live.”

Sandy

Hi Sandy,

I was there in feb. 2011, at which point you could buy both inkjet and silver prints. The nice thing was that you could compare the same shots in both editions, and I really liked the inkjet prints. Of course, he had several wall sized silver prints there to drool over, which I'll get next time I win the lottery - not only the price of the prints, but the price of the house to display them properly.

Bill

[Bill L.]

Interesting. I was at a talk at his studio just a year ago and he was completely discounting the longevity of anything but a real silver print. He must have changed his mind.

Hi John,

IIRC, he was using epson printers with pigment inks (not sure whose inks). I have them framed behind glass and on the wall out of direct sunlight. Chances are they won't last as long as silver, but, frankly, there is every chance they will last longer than I will, so I am not particularly worried about it.

Cheers!
Bill

[paulr]

Anyone categorically dismissing the potential permanence of inkjet prints should consider that the medium is just a new way of putting ink on paper. Ink dates at least to the 23rd century BC in China, and paper as we know it was invented two thousand years ago.

In comparison, images made by suspending crystals of metal in animal gelatin are quite a more recent invention.

[Joe Forks]

yup I stick my nose right up in all the prints I view. such a rebel breaking all those rules.

[Vaughn]

...In comparison, images made by suspending crystals of metal in animal gelatin are quite a more recent invention.

Mine are made of either different thicknesses of gelatin that has burnt plant material suspended in it, or precious metal imbedded in the paper fibers...:)

[bob carnie]

I have it delivered monthly from Ilford to the distributer Amplis to me.. hasn't changed in 23 years of making silver prints for clients.
I never bought from the camera stores, other than emergency and papers not supplied from the big four.. Kodak, Agfa , Fuji and Ilford.


So where are you finding big rolls of silver paper, Bob? The only thing still routinely avail
that I'm aware of is Multigrade IV. Maybe Kentmere can be special cut. All the local labs
used to use Forte paper - wonderful stuff for mural work, but no more. With inkjet printers proliferating, the commercial demand for rolls of traditional silver paper would seem to be dimimising. Maybe there's some old inventory laying around somewhere, but I'm not aware of who has it. Guess if you specialized in that kind of work, you could stockpile a big custom cut. But who am I to comment - I've got quite a stash of discontinued paper in my freezer too.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - I think if you tried to actually buy those roll sizes of fiber paper from B&H, you'd discover that nearly all of them are available only only a special order basis with a lead
time, possibly with minimums, and some possibly not available at all, or with a long wait.
I just talked to a friend yesterday whose was shopping there in person just a few days
ago. Their actual inventories have shrunken drastically. Like I said, if this is something
someone plans on specializing in, they could potentially place a significant factory cut.
But it would take some luck finding just one roll if you're nitpicky about your choice (like
I am). And you need a big sink. But I've met my share of people who can acquire all the
gear and facilities. Getting the shots which really warrant that kind of enlargement is
a different subject!

[Bernice Loui]

Thanks Drew for the tip.

I'll plan a trip to Pt Reyes Station to visit and have a look. May as well bring the camera and make it a photo day.



Bernice


Per Bay Area: Marty Knapp at Pt Reyes Station has done a good job of replicating his
dakroom prints (traditional cold-toned silver) with inkjet. He lost his darkroom lease and
fortunately already had a running start into a replacement technique. His little gallery space is open on weekends. The very finest monochrome digital printing in this area is
not done inkjet, but with very expensive prepress equip, and not really viewable by the
public unless some local museum gets involved. It's hired gun work sent out (mostly NYC), and far beyond the financial resources of typical photographers to enlist.

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry ... I just missed you very last post, Bob. So to qualify it, hypothetically referring to
my own prefences, I'd be looking for rolls of Kentmere Fineprint or Multigrade FBWT, not
MG IV. In other words, premium stuff. Are you bagging any of that directly? Last I checked, Kentmere availability was off and on, with long lead times. Maybe Canadian
distribution is different. Color rolls from Fuji are no problem to get.

[Bernice Loui]

I'll draw an analogy with music system reproduction.

If a high definition music system offers (dependent on a specific recording):

*Proper tonal balance.

*Proper instrument/human voice timbre.

*High resolution.

*Proper reproduction of the interaction of the musicians with their instruments in the performance space.

*Extremely low levels of irritating distortion.

*Loudness dynamic range.

There can be great involvement from the listener to the reproduced musical experience. Music systems and good recordings that have these qualities significantly reduce the amount of work and energy used by the mind to re-create the musical experience and very significantly lowers the listening fatigue problem. Music systems and recordings with a very high degree of fidelity have the ability to draw the listener deeper into the musical experience.... if the music being reproduced is of interest to the listener.

This can also hold true for images with emotional/visual appeal and high resolution/definition.

The curiosity factor is very much involved for both images and reproduced music. Some individuals may want to be intimately involved with the image or music, while others take this causally. For both images and music, there is a learning curve as both are similar to being fluent in their respective language.

There should be room for both these types of experiences, casual and deep.


Bernice





“I want people to view my work up close,” says Butcher about his desire to create very large prints. “When you’re in nature you’re scanning from the log to the tree to the bird to the water and your mind puts the images together to create the feeling of the scene. When you view my large prints your mind does the same thing because you cannot see the image all at once. And sharpness is the key to it. Your eyes - your brain - wants things to be clear and sharp. All of that makes the viewer relate to my images in a way that is similar to the peace felt when being out in nature. I want my images to create a positive emotion in people, with the hope that they carry that emotion out into their lives to make the world a better place in which to live.”

Sandy

[bob carnie]

Multigrade WT is being delivered monthly , receiving a roll this friday
Sorry ... I just missed you very last post, Bob. So to qualify it, hypothetically referring to
my own prefences, I'd be looking for rolls of Kentmere Fineprint or Multigrade FBWT, not
MG IV. In other words, premium stuff. Are you bagging any of that directly? Last I checked, Kentmere availability was off and on, with long lead times. Maybe Canadian
distribution is different. Color rolls from Fuji are no problem to get.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, Bob. I do think distribution might be different there. Unfortunately, none of the
remaining commercial labs in this area seem to be filling that niche. But that's fine. None
were really tailored to "fine art" fussiness anyway; and all those storefront displays etc
have largely gone in-house with wide inkjet printers. Large optical color printing is still
a going concern locally, but on a smaller volume basis than before. I don't do any outside
work, so am in a different category - just work with my own negs and chromes.

[paulr]

Mine are made of either different thicknesses of gelatin that has burnt plant material suspended in it, or precious metal imbedded in the paper fibers...:)

This is how we should start describing our work to people.

[paulr]

Some individuals may want to be intimately involved with the image or music, while others take this causally.

I think the music reproduction analogy is right on, but it drives me some different conclusions. I used to flirt a bit with audiophilia (sounds dirty, I know) and started noticing the way people in that world conflated loving sound and loving music in ways that other people didn't.

I have friends who are more serious about music than anyone else I know, who really don't care about audio quality. One of them, a contemporary classical composer and multi-instrumentalist, was hanging out at my place listening to music. He enjoyed my stereo, but really didn't care about it much. He said, "as long as I can hear the notes and rhythms, I'm happy."

I don't think it's an either/or proposition, but I do see people getting distracted from the art by the medium in both music and photography.
So far I haven't witnessed literary people getting obsessed with type design and bookbinding ...

[Vaughn]

So far I haven't witnessed literary people getting obsessed with type design and bookbinding ...

Mis-spell their name on the cover...then you'd better duck and cover! But I think one might find many poets are quite picky about such details. And there is a whole industry that revolves around book design who might differ on what you have or have not witnessed. It is (to me) like saying painters, photographers, etc do not very concerned about mat color or type of frame. Of course, it just might be the difference of being 'concerned' and being 'obsessed'.

[Struan Gray]

Remind me now, should poetry be spoken or read?

[Vaughn]

Remind me now, should poetry be spoken or read?

As you read it, speak it...at least in one's head if not out loud. IMO, it would be the reading of plays that would be the most difficult to properly experience.

[paulr]

Remind me now, should poetry be spoken or read?

This is like the film vs. digital question for poets.

[Oren Grad]

Remind me now, should poetry be spoken or read?

Read, silently.

[Bill L.]

Anyone categorically dismissing the potential permanence of inkjet prints should consider that the medium is just a new way of putting ink on paper. Ink dates at least to the 23rd century BC in China, and paper as we know it was invented two thousand years ago.

In comparison, images made by suspending crystals of metal in animal gelatin are quite a more recent invention.

Sorry - didn't mean to open old debates. I was mainly trying to say that that both technologies, when done well, have sufficient longevity that differences are moot from my standpoint.

Cheers!
Bill

[John NYC]

Anyone categorically dismissing the potential permanence of inkjet prints should consider that the medium is just a new way of putting ink on paper. Ink dates at least to the 23rd century BC in China, and paper as we know it was invented two thousand years ago.

In comparison, images made by suspending crystals of metal in animal gelatin are quite a more recent invention.

Feel free to visit and argue with him. :) You will get no argument from me.

In fairness (but not that it matters), we were talking about all forms of printing COLOR photos (inkjet and "traditional") as compared to B&W silver gelatin. His main point was that B&W silver had proven longevity while the other forms of printing did not, and he seemed to think there was cause for real concern there.

[Drew Wiley]

Pretty naive approach to the subject of ink. The devil is in the details. There are all kinds
of inks involved, many of which contain dyes of less than ideal permanence, and endless hypothetical combinations of ink brands and paper with no proven track record. Time will
tell; and if everything goes right, that is, wrong, coming generations might get stuck with
a lot of miserable images. Maybe such prints will make good goat food.

[John Rodriguez]

I think that "viewing distance" as rationalization for the information density of a print is too simplistic. As most things I think all of this is subjective and variable.

For example, go to a Peter Lik gallery (let's not get into whether or not you like Peter Lik) and look at how he displays his prints. They're HUGE and face mounted with lights pointing on them in a dark gallery. The things are immersive and GLOW. If you get nose close (or even a foot away) you'll just see grain. However, if I stand back, the combination of image, materials and presentation is something I enjoy, even though the information density is low.

Now, look at a nice 8x10 contact print. Once again, it's an immersive experience, albiet with a slightly different feel. Better? No, just different.

Now look at a 30x40 Cramer print (I use Cramer because I like his stuff and it's in galleries near me). His images are very much about light, and look wonderful large. If you get up close they still look good, but not immersive from nose distance. Once again, better? Not really, just different.

I have images that I think look great uprezzed 80%, and others that look like shit uprezzed any more then 20%. Some of my images tend to be impressionistic when I'm done with the files, in which case I don't need the high frequency detail. Then again I have others that are the complete opposite.

In the end, it's all about what type of experience you're trying to create and what type of image you're working with.

[Bernice Loui]

"philia" = Love (Greek), or friendship.

Going a bit off topic, but will return to topic,,

Musicians/composers are usually poor in their ability to judge music systems due to their bias and inherent lack of awareness of what a really good music system is and should do. I know this from real life experience.

Similar can be applied to photographers -vs- non-photographers regarding the images they view. Each group has their bias and preferences which drives the choices they make..

Regardless, both points of view are valid in their own way.


There comes a time when all these words becomes nothing more than a fight over a difference of equally valid points of view. It may be better to simply accept what each is doing and prefers and move on..

This should not about winning, but about sharing our views of the world.


Bernice



I think the music reproduction analogy is right on, but it drives me some different conclusions. I used to flirt a bit with audiophilia (sounds dirty, I know) and started noticing the way people in that world conflated loving sound and loving music in ways that other people didn't.

I have friends who are more serious about music than anyone else I know, who really don't care about audio quality. One of them, a contemporary classical composer and multi-instrumentalist, was hanging out at my place listening to music. He enjoyed my stereo, but really didn't care about it much. He said, "as long as I can hear the notes and rhythms, I'm happy."

I don't think it's an either/or proposition, but I do see people getting distracted from the art by the medium in both music and photography.
So far I haven't witnessed literary people getting obsessed with type design and bookbinding ...

[John Rodriguez]

Musicians are terrible at judging music systems because we're all effing deaf.


"philia" = Love (Greek), or friendship.

Going a bit off topic, but will return to topic,,

Musicians/composers are usually poor in their ability to judge music systems due to their bias and inherent lack of awareness of what a really good music system is and should do. I know this from real life experience.

Similar can be applied to photographers -vs- non-photographers regarding the images they view. Each group has their bias and preferences which drives the choices they make..

Regardless, both points of view are valid in their own way.


There comes a time when all these words becomes nothing more than a fight over a difference of equally valid points of view. It may be better to simply accept what each is doing and prefers and move on..

This should not about winning, but about sharing our views of the world.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

I've accidentally stumbled into Lik galleries twice. The last time instance they had backlit
big transparencies over lightwalls (boxes), the previous time big inkjets under halogens.
They looked like aerosol street art from any distance. Wretched smudges (and I'm only
pointing out the lack of technical merit - not the esthetic abominations). Charlie Cramer
worked previous in dye transfer and now in inkjet. He's a nice fellow with a lot of experience under his belt as a printer. Persononally, I used to make Cibas and am now
gearing up for Fujigloss, another medium capable of holding truly remarkable detail worthy
of 8x10 film, that is, if it is optically printed, though some laser printers can come close.
Inkjet is a different animal and steadily improving. I haven't seen any color inkjet work
yet that warrants very close inspection. Black and white inkjet is catching up a little faster. It's a pretty damn hard trick to make color pigments pass thru all those tiny nozzles; and that's why some of the ingredients are essentially compromised. You can't just go choose any pigment. I has to factor into the gamut, and even more important,
just get through in the first place. Therefore a lot of the inks involved custom dyed lakes
or compromised permanence.

[Bernice Loui]

Not really, most do not have experience with truly high definition music systems and base their views on their perspective which is sitting with the instrument they are playing.

As for deaf ear, violinist usually have a hearing imbalance due to the very loud violin playing in one ear and not the other..

Don't pick a fight with me...

Bernice



Musicians are terrible at judging music systems because we're all effing deaf.

[John Rodriguez]

I was soooo trying to pick a fight there....

[ROL]

For example, go to a Peter Lik gallery (let's not get into whether or not you like Peter Lik) and look at how he displays his prints. They're HUGE and face mounted with lights pointing on them in a dark gallery. The things are immersive and GLOW.

Right, whatever you think of Lik, he knows how to sell prints. I encourage, cajole, and arm twist my customers to put spot lighting on whatever size they acquire from me. My prints are all printed (by me) to be viewed in strong daylight–balanced direct lighting. Proper lighting sets the stage, literally on a wall, and focuses attention on the art, which in my case is something greater both artistically and monetarily than a poster print, no matter the size. Proper lighting shows respect for any art piece.

I print (for retail) from 11x14 to 30x40, depending on the negative, subject, and my own artistic goals. The feeling of walking into the print is expressed to me often, gratifyingly so, and frankly has a lot to do with my chosen style, subject matter, and willingness to print large, when possible. Some negatives simply will not allow a fine print as large as I could otherwise make it. It almost never has anything to do with grain, per se. Given the aforementioned personal criteria, some 120 negatives enlarge well, some LF do not. Some subjects just want to "go big", while others must remain relatively intimate. My "best" prints probably center around 16x20, with sufficient ease to express oneself under the enlarger. Mural sizes are a different animal, sometimes stretching the definition (whatever that is) of a fine art print. But, as I always keep mounted "small" prints on hand, I am just as frequently stunned at the jewel–like nature of a properly presented, mounted and windowed 11x14. For me, this is the forte of enlarging.

Offering a range of sizes can also be a curse. Editioning becomes an oppressively vigilant task when all sizes must be accounted for. Often, I must convince budget minded buyers to buy smaller prints. Once they have seen the larger iteration, that is what they desire. The truth is that the reason I make smaller prints at all is to make my work available to everyone. (I learned at my first show to always have notecards available for purchase as well, as a young college coed was in tears because she could not afford to buy anything). It's all relative – to the subject, the artist, the viewer. In the end, the artist is responsible only unto himself, for the nature and breadth of his work.

[Drew Wiley]

I find the whole presentation in those tourist galleries tacky and overdone. The sales people are very skilled and probably well-commissioned; and they could probably sell refrigerators to Eskimos. My own taste is more Zen, kinda like the architecture around here, as opposed to the glitzy Vegas whore look. I really hate it when photos are put into frames intended for gaga oil sofa paintings. Gallery lighting is important, but if it is too far up the curve from what the client can achieve in their own decor circumstances, they won't end up happy. What is really annoying is how galleries sometimes use high-UV projector halogens that essentially fade anything in short time - and then want you to buy it already stressed (though chain galleries often don't sell you actual displayed work, but
ship out a warehouse somewhere). Guess I just don't believe in gilding the lily. I like quality
lighting, but if the print can't stand on its own merit, not for me...

[John NYC]

I know plenty of professional musicians (and was one myself in younger days) who can tell VERY subtle differences in audio systems... Especially those who have done a lot of mixing sessions.

Saying that all or even most photographers or musicians cannot differentiate relative quality of reproduction is simply false in all the interactions I have had... Or maybe I only just know extraordinary people.

[ROL]

I find the whole presentation in those tourist galleries tacky and overdone. The sales people are very skilled and probably well-commissioned; and they could probably sell refrigerators to Eskimos. My own taste is more Zen, kinda like the architecture around here, as opposed to the glitzy Vegas whore look. I really hate it when photos are put into frames intended for gaga oil sofa paintings. Gallery lighting is important, but if it is too far up the curve from what the client can achieve in their own decor circumstances, they won't end up happy. What is really annoying is how galleries sometimes use high-UV projector halogens that essentially fade anything in short time - and then want you to buy it already stressed (though chain galleries often don't sell you actual displayed work, but
ship out a warehouse somewhere). Guess I just don't believe in gilding the lily. I like quality
lighting, but if the print can't stand on its own merit, not for me...

Exactly. Color should not be lit at all, and kept in the darkened area beneath the stairs in an old mayonnaise at old man Woolsey's house, protected from any light intrusion and visual inspection, guarded by vicious attack felines, rumored but never seen.

[Brian C. Miller]

LF forum paging Cezanne ... LF forum paging Cezanne ... Please report to the Standard “Print Viewing Distance” Myth thread. Thank you.

"Tell me, do you think I'm going mad? I sometimes wonder, you know."
-- Paul Cezanne

"Well, the border between genius and madness is rather narrow..."
"So's the Berlin Wall!"
-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, radio version, Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent

Did Cezanne ever mention canvas size? I don't think he did.

"Talks on art are almost useless. The work which goes to bring progress in one's own subject is sufficient compensation for the incomprehension of imbeciles."
-- Paul Cezanne

Perhaps Dali mentioned it.

"Happy is he who causes a scandal."
-- Salvador Dali

There you go. Pick the canvas size that causes the biggest scandal.

Try this: Take a roll, and print a mural on it so long that people have to stand in it. So long that it is mounted in a hallway, in a spiral going down the distance of the hallway. You start looking at the wall, then up and over, then at the other wall, underneath your feet, up the wall, up, over to the other wall, underneath your feet, head goes in the vomit bag, look at the wall...

Minox contact prints. I know I can do that with my 8x10 and Wollensak 6-1/4. Oh, and mount them waist-high, or at seven feet. Maybe suspended on rubber bands, so they bounce and wave. How about transfering the emulsion to Saran wrap? And disco strobe lighting.

[paulr]

Annoyingly, it's very hard to cause a scandal with art these days.

[Vaughn]

Exactly. Color should not be lit at all, and kept in the darkened area beneath the stairs in an old mayonnaise at old man Woolsey's house, protected from any light intrusion and visual inspection, guarded by vicious attack felines, rumored but never seen.

Well, most color inkjet prints at least...

[paulr]

The main reason that huge prints are on anyones radar is the availabilty of digital c-print services and large format inkjet printers. It was rare to see wall-size prints at galleries and museums before these beasts came onto the scene.

FWIW, there's no longer any reason to keep inkjets out of the light. Today's pigment inks on good quality papers are more lightfast that any previous color photographic process, and by a very large margin.

Silver prints are exceptionally lightfast, but have had many historical problems with oxidation and sulfide staining. Some silver prints have lasted a hundred years without visible change while others have stained and deteriorated in short order. Conservation experts have been studying these phenomena for decades, and have a reasonable handle on them now. But the issues are complex ... enough so that Kodak's processing recommendations are a major simplification of what their technicians actually think you should do. There's also enough variability in the materials that you can't generalize that one paper will last x number of years because another paper did under the same circumstances. I have a long correspondence with a technician from the Image Permanence Institute at RIT on the subject. One of their surprising findings is that selenium toning does essentially nothing for improving silver print permanence, but a number of sulfide toning techniques have a great effect.

[Heroique]

“Tell me, do you think I'm going mad? I sometimes wonder, you know.” – Paul Cezanne

Never mind what Cezanne’s superb letters say, his paintings tell us a lot about the myth of “standard viewing distance.”

If he ever actually wrote about “viewing distances,” well, I imagine he might describe how one’s scanning, twitching eyeball creates composites from its multiple viewing distances, multiple viewing angles, and multiple viewing times. Enough to drive one mad, indeed!

Which reminds me, we really should start two related threads – one about standard viewing angles, another about standard viewing times. :cool:

[C. D. Keth]

Which reminds me, we really should start two related threads – one about standard viewing angles, another about standard viewing times. :cool:

I only allow viewers 8 seconds of viewing time for my pictures.

[Brian C. Miller]

Annoyingly, it's very hard to cause a scandal with art these days.

Actually, it's quite easy when you "offend" the correct special-interest groups. (Vimeo: Tyler Shields (http://vimeo.com/56062076) talk at Luminance 2012, how to stand out in photography)

And there was the elephant poo on a painting (link (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/991008/madonna.html)), live goldfish in a blender, fake website about eating a rabbit, etc. There was a local art scandal about photographs of people going through gender modification (gallery was picketed and a front window smashed).

Basically anything that goes against a societal "norm" and you're sure to attract attention, wanted or not. (Tyler Shields mentions how he figured out the author of one email, phoned the house, and got the author's mother on the phone. Interesting segment!) Of course, the photographs that Shields thought would get attention never got attention, and the photos that he thought would be ignored garnered massive attention.

Oh, yeah, and Danish cartoons of somebody or another who was twice featured on South Park. And there was "Let's All Draw" what's-his-face day, that got a local cartoonist in trouble.

So to attract attention, a flame must be built under society's collective arse. Actually, touching a sensitive spot. Such as the current pantheon of Hollywood celebrities. And that can be done with a photograph of one of them in makeup, or just eating raw food.

Now, you might be thinking about causing a "scandal" (i.e., spontaneous riot) like Stravinsky's first performance of Rite of Spring. That probably won't happen, not without riling up some special interest group first. And then of course the "scandal" isn't spontaneous at all.

So, on topic: the artist's viewing distance is far, far away. Or else close, but have an escape route. (Stravinsky did duck out the back door before the ballet performance was over.)

[bob carnie]

The main reason that huge prints are on anyones radar is the availabilty of digital c-print services and large format inkjet printers. It was rare to see wall-size prints at galleries and museums before these beasts came onto the scene.


Not sure if I agree with this, these large prints 72 inch by 10 ft have been around since the early 80's , I mural printed at Jones & Morris mural lab here in Toronto during this period.
They were common for commercial and retail display, did not see many artist's back them coming up with the scratch to afford them is more like the reason.
Artists like Gursky started using this and showing monster prints, I remember Ed Burtynsky as well making big ass ones as well.. He owned a lab and would out source to other venders if he had too. The first digital c prints he made were done by BGM and other labs in this city. From there he moved to super sized inkjet and then bought his own Chromira and is currently using that to make his prints.
It took a very well heeled artist to decide to go this route.
Today it is common because the price of these prints, scanning and finishing has drastically came down.

[Jim Jones]

I only allow viewers 8 seconds of viewing time for my pictures.

It feels wrong to dictate to the viewers how long they are permitted to view my photos, and is also unnecessary. They seem to sense the time required for the exposure (usually a fraction of a second) and limit their viewing to that.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob - I was just reminscing about the last big color print era back in the 60's, and how
8x10 contact prints suddenly became the haute norm (though what was actually happening is that the newer generation of color artists had neither the funds or equip yet
to make big prints - which dictated cheapie Ektacolor and not big dye transfers; once they got some real attention, things slowly changed). I had friends making huge Cibas,
mostly commercial use, with staggering lab investment. Now everyone want a billboard on
their Miami sun room wall. There are folks in this town making high-end digital prints forty
forty feet wide, but I have no idea where their going to displayed - some museum somewhere. Their setup fee alone is forty grand per piece. It's getting pretty silly, like
back in the cold war, seeing who could build the first 60-megaton bomb. Overkill.

[Bernice Loui]

All would not hold true. Most does.

One can be born with innate gifts like excellent hearing, musical prodigy, literature skills and others BUT, unless these in-born gifts are properly supported, cultivated and properly utilized, these in-born gifts can amount to not much of anything.

There are hundreds of thousands of recordings released on the Internet each year by garage bands, independent groups and musicians and etc, the vast majority and I mean VAST are pure dreck and do not sell in any significant numbers. Ask why?

As for studio mixed recordings, they sound like... studio mixed artificial recordings and not much more. The majority of live musical performances today have some form of electronic sound reinforcement... which usually destroys the sound and performance.

Most listeners of recorded music do not have a good point of reference to compare to and due to the excessively loud levels many music folks are subjected to today by ear buds, (their hearing could be damaged) no real idea of what musical instruments and groups sound like in an acoustical performance space, and mixed in with their individual sonic bias.

I'll share one example of what good recordings are like and I'm done. Not just with this, but likely with LLF for a host of reasons..
http://www.referencerecordings.com/


Bernice



I know plenty of professional musicians (and was one myself in younger days) who can tell VERY subtle differences in audio systems... Especially those who have done a lot of mixing sessions.

Saying that all or even most photographers or musicians cannot differentiate relative quality of reproduction is simply false in all the interactions I have had... Or maybe I only just know extraordinary people.

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh, Brian ... Offending folks has become so routine that it's positively boring at this point. When my aunt was still alive she had a hard chuckle about all these new outrageous
stunts the museums were pulling in order to generate controversy and sell tickets. She
went thru the list one by one; and nearly all of them had already been done by someone in the 1920's, at least if it was something put into a frame on the wall.

[Bernice Loui]

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-10/sharpest-image?single-page-view=true

"(visitors were given magnifying glasses to delve into the detail),"


Bernice

[paulr]

Now, you might be thinking about causing a "scandal" (i.e., spontaneous riot) like Stravinsky's first performance of Rite of Spring.

Yes, that's more what I'm getting at. Spontaneous or not. Causing a scandal within the world of art for issues that have to do with art. It's certainly easy to use art (or anything) to scandalize people with ideas that they simply find offensive. Publish a cartoon of Alah, and you will get a predictable response from millions. Publish pictures like Tyler Shields', which estheticize violence against women, and you'll get a smaller (but similarly pointed) response from people who are fed up with this kind of thing.

If someone did a video installation of kitten torture, I'd feel scandalized and would want to go after the person. I don't think my response would have much to do with art. Some of the more heated fights that break out in this forum strike me as being closer to the Rite of Spring brouhaha. Never mind that that most of the issues we fight about here were already being fought about in Stravinsky's time. Sometimes this place can feel a bit like a civil war battle reenactment ...

If you can get people up in arms by violating their beliefs about print viewing distance, then more power to you!

[John NYC]

All would not hold true. Most does.

One can be born with innate gifts like excellent hearing, musical prodigy, literature skills and others BUT, unless these in-born gifts are properly supported, cultivated and properly utilized, these in-born gifts can amount to not much of anything.

There are hundreds of thousands of recordings released on the Internet each year by garage bands, independent groups and musicians and etc, the vast majority and I mean VAST are pure dreck and do not sell in any significant numbers. Ask why?

As for studio mixed recordings, they sound like... studio mixed artificial recordings and not much more. The majority of live musical performances today have some form of electronic sound reinforcement... which usually destroys the sound and performance.

Most listeners of recorded music do not have a good point of reference to compare to and due to the excessively loud levels many music folks are subjected to today by ear buds, (their hearing could be damaged) no real idea of what musical instruments and groups sound like in an acoustical performance space, and mixed in with their individual sonic bias.

I'll share one example of what good recordings are like and I'm done. Not just with this, but likely with LLF for a host of reasons..
http://www.referencerecordings.com/


Bernice

The musicians I know are not garage bands, but composers of modern orchestral and chamber music, jazz, film music, and players in those worlds.

But even the rock and folk people I know are very particular about their sound.

Again, I guess I just know extraordinary people.

[paulr]

My musician friends can hear and appreciate differences in audio quality. They just don't care much about it.
It's really just like my feelings about tv sets. I can tell the difference between the best modern lcd screens and my crappy set inherited from my grandmother. Anyone can. I just don't care enough about it to buy a new one, or to even think about it much. This doesn't say anything about my feelings toward movies.

[Brian C. Miller]

Yes, that's more what I'm getting at. Spontaneous or not. Causing a scandal within the world of art for issues that have to do with art.

But was The Rite of Spring riot just about art? How many previous ballets touched on virgin sacrifice? And of course the jerking, nearly spasmodic dance, and the music that gave no breathing room to the audience members to relax from the dissonant compression of their senses. The dissonance was set up very early in the ballet, and was carried through to the end.

The riot only happened at the first performance, and not at any subsequent performance. The public was made aware, from reviews, that this was a very different sort of ballet. The subsequent audiences formed some mental armor to mitigate the effects of the new work.

But why the riot? Members of the audience argued amongst themselves about the merit of the work. As the arguments progressed, tempers flared. And finally fist fights broke out. The members of the audience held ideas near and dear, and were quite prepared to fight to defend them. Stravinsky had inadvertently found out what Tyler Shields also found out later. Mind you, Shields didn't think that the controversial photos would be controversial. The controversy took both Stravinsky and Shields by suprise. (But Stravinsky didn't get to talk to anybody's mother about their children's behavior.)

One of the YouTube comments was that this was a performance of the first heavy metal video.

Something similar, producing cognitive dissonance, might be done with a lenticular display (3D without the glasses). I've had some lenticular prints made, and the effect is quite interesting when it's done properly. As your perspective to the print changes, the image changes. For a 3D effect, the image changes slightly. However, it could change profoundly.

For an artistic "riot" to be made, the audience has to have their senses compressed with dissonance, and that dissonance can't let up throughout the experience. Imagine being wrapped in a tunnel, like a toroid (donut, mmm), so that the entrance is lost and the exit is not seen. No light at the end of the tunnel. What you see around you is in three dimensions, and it's skewed to unbalance the viewer. Combine with music that's meant to unsettle, and a slightly uneven floor. Of course there would be no railings.

Imagine that you were given featherweight virtual reality glasses, providing a totally wrapped vision perspective. Then place yourself inside an Escher drawing or Dali painting. Perspective would shift suddenly, weirdly, and gravity isn't quite right anymore. I presume you saw The Matrix. Remember Neo's first encounter with their VR system? Quite a bit of yanking someone around went on with that. And finally Neo barfed (actually that was some bad lunch chowder, and it made everybody on the set queasy).

Imagine that you couldn't remove those glasses.
And imagine that there wasn't any way out, not for you, not for 300 people with you.

"I don't do drugs. I am drugs."
-- Salvador Dali


If someone did a video installation of kitten torture, I'd feel scandalized and would want to go after the person. I don't think my response would have much to do with art. Some of the more heated fights that break out in this forum strike me as being closer to the Rite of Spring brouhaha. Never mind that that most of the issues we fight about here were already being fought about in Stravinsky's time. Sometimes this place can feel a bit like a civil war battle reenactment ...

If you can get people up in arms by violating their beliefs about print viewing distance, then more power to you!

Stravinsky discovered his contemporary audience's viewing distance. What he did was kitten torture, with the patrons being the kittens, in a box, the theater. When I first heard about the riot, I was suprised that such a thing could happen. But it does, and it happens again and again. Sensibilities get offended. And it starts with someone saying, "Bah, humbug!" And another person disagreeing. Or agreeing. There are many modern orchestral pieces that I turn off. I would be someone who simply walks out of the theater, and goes off to do something else. However, in 1913, perhaps people felt compelled to stay for the duration of the show. After all, the police did come in and quiet things down, and after intermission was over, the fights resumed. Why didn't the offended people just walk out at intermission? Why didn't the police throw out the offended people? ("Sir and madame, please leave the theater. You know it isn't going to get any better.")

I kind of wonder, what would have happened if the audience was full of musicians, and they all brought instruments? Would spontaneous trios and quartets have broken out to fight back Stravinsky's composition? (When I was in the army, we had stereo wars in the barracks. I had Tchaikovsky's 1812 Oveture with digitally recorded cannons and JBL 4411 studio monitors and my amp had an excellent damping factor. Bose does not compete.)

[paulr]

Brian, point taken about the Danse Sacrale ... there's scandal there that reaches outside art.

To be fair, eleven years later, a riot broke out at the premier performance of George Antheil's Ballet Mechanique, and there were no sacrifices onstage, virgin or kitten (or virginal kitten). Just noise and robots and audience members' hats getting blown off by the airplane engine on stage.

You've ascribed these riots to sensibilities getting offended, which I'm sure is right. I think the destinction we're talking in circles around is whether these are esthetic sensibilities or ethical ones. I suppose there are other big ones, also outside the insular walls of art ... existential/ontological ones, or whatever is getting offended when fundamentalists feel they need to stick up for god's honor in the face of liberal bullies.

I like the idea of the musician riots. That would be an ideological debate I'd buy tickets to.

[paulr]

Ok, here's my own rebuttal to my last point. I think I was a bit simpleminded in approaching esthetics/ethics as a distinction. I think ethical (and other) sensibilities get offended in especially pointed ways when estheticized. To beautify horror, or to submit dogma to the ambiguating spotlight of art or humor, hits much harder than simple blasphemy.

One of my favorite passages from Milan Kundera speaks to this, conveniently using Stravinsky as an example:

I have always, deeply, violently, detested those who look for a POSITION (political, philosophical, religious, whatever) in a work of art rather than searching it for an EFFORT TO KNOW, to understand, to grasp this or that aspect of reality. Until Stravinsky, music was never able to give barbaric rites a grand form. We could not imagine them musically. Which means: we could not imagine the BEAUTY of the barbaric. Without its beauty, the barbaric would remain incomprehensible. (I stress this: to know any phenomenon deeply requires understanding its beauty, actual or potential.) Saying that a bloody rite does possess some beauty--there's the scandal, unbearable, unacceptable. And yet, unless we understand this scandal, unless we get to the very bottom of it, we cannot understand much about man. Stravinski gives the barbaric rite a musical form that is powerful and convincing but does not lie: listen to the last section of the "Sacre," the "Danse Sacrale" ("Sacrificial Dance"): it does not dodge the horror. It is there. Merely shown? Not denounced? But if it were denounced--stripped of its beauty, shown in its hideousness--it would be a cheat, a simplification, a piece of "propaganda." It is BECAUSE it is beautiful that the girl's murder is horrible."

--From "Improvisation in Homage to Stravinski" in "Testaments Betrayed."

[Vaughn]

Annoyingly, it's very hard to cause a scandal with art these days.

Some hints...

http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2012/08/13/0402-larisa-presents-episode-2/

[rdenney]

My musician friends can hear and appreciate differences in audio quality. They just don't care much about it.

Yes. Musicians fill in the blanks from their own actual experience. Recordings are a roadmap to that experience more than a creation of it. (Landscape photography could probably be described similarly).

Bernice's point has a consequence, however. People are so accustomed to amplified music that acoustical performance has been getting louder and louder. The progression in instrument size and technology is remarkable, and much of aimed squarely at making a bigger sound. The times I've listened to groups performing on period instruments, the space has needed to be of intimate dimensions, filled with a disciplined audience. The effect of this on classical performance and performers has not been positive.

Rick "noise inflation" Denney

[Brian C. Miller]

Ok, here's my own rebuttal to my last point. I think I was a bit simpleminded in approaching esthetics/ethics as a distinction. I think ethical (and other) sensibilities get offended in especially pointed ways when estheticized. To beautify horror, or to submit dogma to the ambiguating spotlight of art or humor, hits much harder than simple blasphemy.

That's kind of what I thought. When something causes a negative gut reaction, a person's whole is reacting to the whole that is presented. Now, in the case of The Rite of Spring's first performance, the audience was reacting negatively almost immediately. I watched a performance on YouTube, and from my background, that had a mimicry of tribal dance, but what was negative to me was that it was machinistic. I think that the machine tempo and dance moves that looked like marionettes on strings was what upset the first audience. (YouTube: Joffrey Ballet 1987 Rite of Spring (1 of 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF1OQkHybEQ)) (After further research, I find my guess to be correct.)

The sacrifice that Stravinsky imagined was not brutal, but that a virgin danced herself to death in front of a group of tribal elders. The imagined dancer died of ecstatic exhaustion. This was performed in the second half, so this isn't what started the audience's fist cuff match. They were already into it, and resumed, even with police present, in the second half. So, it's back to the grating, repetitious music and rigid dance, and the audience going nuts, with the police trying to keep the peace, such as it wasn't.

Another thing that must be considered is that the audience was composed of two groups, the aristocrats and the "Bohemians." Imagine, for a moment, that a theater's audience normally consisted of Skin Heads and Black Panthers. Normally, they come in, watch the show, and everybody goes home in peace. The thing of it is, one group has certain expectations of a performance, and the other group will cheer anything that ticks off the other group.

Guess what happened next, with a house that was packed to standing room only.

The performance of Les Sylphides was fine, and everybody was calm. Then Rite started, and things went wrong. Yep, things got tense in the introduction, and it was all going downhill when the stamping dances started.

So, it's not only that the piece has to jolt people, the audience has to have at least two groups who basically don't like each other. If the audience consists of one homogenous group, then you only get one reaction, and the audience remains peacable. Otherwise, it's amateur fight night at the ballet! One group hisses the performance, group B heckles group A, group A heckles back, tempers flare, and the police are called. Actually, things were far calmer with the police, and over forty of the rowdier individuals were ejected from the theater.

So here's the ingredients for a Rite of Spring-style scandle: Alcohol, two abrasive groups, and a performance that will upset just one group.

Really, it isn't that much of a scandle when it's viewed that way. We still have riots brought on by sports teams winning or losing. However, we don't call them scandles, or view them as scandalous. Deplorable, and even publicly deplored by Her Majesty, but not scandalous.