Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.

[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...

[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.