"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.
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.
Nailed it!"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".
--P
Preston-Columbia CA
"If you want nice fresh oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you can be satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse; that comes a little cheaper."
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 !
And I thought I was the only one!Originally Posted by Christopher D. Keth
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.
Me too!
Steve.
I'm more curious as to what prompted the OP to post this manifesto.(Who cares? Specific criticism? Do tell.)
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?
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.
In My Experience
I Don't Know
Oh yeah, High Defininition Television!
____________________________________
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks