Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.

[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.