Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.

[BrianShaw]

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

[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.

- 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?