Viewing distance for wall prints?

[Patrik Roseen]

Being rather new to LF I'm still in the need of good advice.

When photographing 4x5" I often use a wideangle lense (90mm) also for landscape. I have found that the negative can hold lots of detailed information which ofcourse is still detailed when enlarged to say 8x10". If I view the print on the wall I need to get very close to the print to actually view these details, approx 15cm..and I am still talking about rather large objects that come out small in the photograph, not individual leaves or so. This would ofcourse be similar to using an equivalent wideangle lens on 8x10 and do a contact print.

My thoughts are that maybe these types of photographs need to be enlarged much more or I need to rethink my usage of the wideangle lens.

Now to my question: What viewing distance do you plan for your wall mounted prints and to which size do you usually need to enlarge the 4x5" negative when using a wideangle lens?

[Ron Marshall]

I usually determine print size based on subject matter, not on lens focal length. All modern large format lenses will produce detailed negatives that can be enlarged up to a maximum of about 10 times. You won't be able to see all of the available detail in an 8x10" enlargement. My preferred print size from a 4x5 negative is 16x20, since that will show off the detail well from a reasonable viewing distance, usually the diagonal of the print, and being only a four times enlargement grain will not be objectionable.

[Bruce Watson]

Print viewing distance varies with the viewer. The "average" viewer will "generally" view prints from a distance equal to the size of the print's diagonal. For a 10x8 inch print, about 12 inches away. For a 10 x 8 foot print, about 12 feet away.

That's not to say that some people won't put their nose right on the print trying to see just how much detail your print carries. For them we have the term "nose sharp."

Other than that, I'm with Ron. The image tells me how big to print it. I've got some smaller than your 10x8s, and some at 125 x 100 cm and a bit more. One of the biggest was made using an 80mm lens. Another was made with a 360mm lens. I don't see a connection between print size and focal length myself.

[Patrik Roseen]

Ron and Bruce, thanks for two consistent answers.

I was not aware of the diagonal being the same as the viewing distance, but it helps me determine the size of print.
I did not attempt to do the math on this one...but will the perception of the object size on the print be different for a large print viewed further away than a smaller print on a closer distance using this rule of thumb?

Is there a difference when you plan the photograph size for viewing in Galleries where it is possible to step up very close to the photograph...I ask because I often see prints being smaller than 16x20 in Galleries. And what about 8x10 contact prints...do they require a 'gallery-like-environment' without disturbing furnitures to allow a proper viewing distance?

Another reflection about viewing distance is that it feels much more convenient to view a small sized photograph on the computer screen compared to the same size when mounted on the wall...

(Bruce, I really enjoyed your portfolio...and your 'Answers' section is brilliant!)

[Bruce Watson]

I did not attempt to do the math on this one...but will the perception of the object size on the print be different for a large print viewed further away than a smaller print on a closer distance using this rule of thumb?

I don't know really. Perception is such a tricky thing. But, if you print it bigger, people have a choice. They can view the print from farther back and see the whole print, or they can move closer and see details.

Is there a difference when you plan the photograph size for viewing in Galleries where it is possible to step up very close to the photograph...I ask because I often see prints being smaller than 16x20 in Galleries. And what about 8x10 contact prints...do they require a 'gallery-like-environment' without disturbing furnitures to allow a proper viewing distance?

Not for me. I make the print the size it needs to be to make the image happy. I let the gallery deal with how to present it. Most of them know enough to get the height right so that most people can walk right up to them if they want. Now, if I could only get people to use better lighting....

[paulr]

if you take a few images and print them at different sizes, i suspect you'll notice that they become very different photographs in the different sizes. there's more to it than viewing distance ... it's a perceptual thing. at different sizes you'll likely see varying amounts of emphasis on overall form vs. detail. and maybe other similar phenomena. these differences can make prints from the same negative seem to be about different things.

the Bigger=Better crowd tends to ignore this kind of subtlety ... what they gain in return is the simplicity of not having to worry about this variable.

personally, i consider size to be an important part of the interpretation of an image, and i spend a lot of time deciding what size to print. once in a while i get it wrong and end up destroying an edition and reprinting at another size.

i've never found a formula based on focal length, diagonals, etc.. often a print works fine at different sizes. but it works differently, and it's up to me to decide which interpretation is the one i want to present.

[Patrik Roseen]

...personally, i consider size to be an important part of the interpretation of an image, and i spend a lot of time deciding what size to print. once in a while i get it wrong and end up destroying an edition and reprinting at another size.

i've never found a formula based on focal length, diagonals, etc.. often a print works fine at different sizes. but it works differently, and it's up to me to decide which interpretation is the one i want to present.

I guess this is one of my concerns and also why I asked the question in the first place.
Even a 'simple thing' as putting a photograph on the web actually means deciding the size of it. When I started doing this I thought I would make the picture as large as possibe, like 720x1024 pixels, but soon realized that some photographs looked better in 400x600 pixels. Now the viewing distance on a computer screen is usually quite fixed, is it not?

Photographs to be displayed in a book or placed on an 'office table' may have its given size and assumed viewing distance...but I find so many different parameters affecting a wall mounted print...and as Bruce says, lighting is also very important.

Paul, given your experience, have you come across the situation where the photograph looks best in a smaller size e.g 8x10" but it is not suited for a wall mount because you are forcing the viewer to step up to close to it?
And where do you place yourself when you decide the size of the print, i.e. do you hold the print in your hands or do you put it on the wall and step back or?

(Hope you do not think I make a too big fuzz about this...)

[paulr]

have you come across the situation where the photograph looks best in a smaller size e.g 8x10" but it is not suited for a wall mount because you are forcing the viewer to step up to close to it?

i've never found that to be an issue. one thing i like about small prints is that they do invite people to get close. it makes for a more intimate viewing experience. giant prints tend to push people back ... it's more like they're commanding you to be in awe. which can be cool, but it's a totally different effect.

i suppose if you had a specific spot on a wall in mind, then yeah, something could be too small. imagine a 4x5 contact print on the wall behind the couch

And where do you place yourself when you decide the size of the print, i.e. do you hold the print in your hands or do you put it on the wall and step back or?

all of the above, really. i'll pin it to the wall, hold it in my hand, spread different versions out on a table top, or on the floor. whatever's convenient ... i haven't found this to influence my impressions much.

[Paul Coppin]

Some thought needs to be given to where you are going to view it as well - as illustrated, smaller tends to be more up close and personal - but if the closest anybody is going to be able to get to it is 10 feet away, small likely isn't going to work. The farther away from a print you are, the more the basic graphical elements of colour, mass and space come into play for the viewer. These elements can have as much impact on the viewing distance as the actual microinformation in the shadows, say. Up close, we look past the graphical elements to see into the detail.
As you're walking about, start looking at images as graphics, not photos - see if you can deduce a relationship between image size, graphical elements and viewing distance, relative to the impact the image has on you emotionally.