Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.

[andrew gardiner]

Thank you very much Kirk for bringing up one of my favourite bugbears. I've always thought the ideal viewing distance idea to be a defensive attempt to rationalise shortcomings.
I walk back and forth when I'm looking at a photograph on a wall just as I would do a painting ( or to be honest when I'm really looking at anything at all!). Of course one wants an overall view, to see it as a whole, but then if anything in it at all interests you, naturally you want to look more closely. It's just part of the process of being engaged by something ( I also like to stand right back from it so that I can see how it interacts with the other work around it). I would stick my neck out and say people who don't go back and forth aren't really looking properly (for whatever reason, maybe they're just not interested by it enough?).
Further I don't think it's just a question of detail, though seeing beautifully rendered detail is a real pleasure. One also has to remember that a printed photograph isn't just an image of something, it's also a material object and its nice to experience it as an object; what kind of paper is it printed on?What is it's sheen like? Etc.
As to people who aren't really interested in photography, is what they think that important? If you spent your life making cheese for instance, would you really care what people who didn't really like cheese thought of your product?

[paulr]

Speaking of digital images, visited a local community art gallery where they had some inkjet B&W prints.. they look weird to me (first time I have seen prints like this). The contrast range and rendition seems off, the edge sharpening effects seems exaggerated and .... Guess I'm too stuck in the old ways and my visual values are too ingrained to change.

Sounds like you were just looking at bad prints. If you see odd tonal qualities and sharpening artifacts, the problem is the person working the tools. You have to learn how to work digital tools same as any others. My black and white inkjet prints look better than my darkroom prints, but they didn't in the beginning.

[Vaughn]

I saw some well done B&W inkjets today at a friend's show-- and have seen some made for another friend (we had a show together) that were printed by Charles Cramer that were wonderful. The inkjet printer is just a tool -- and one should know how to use one's tools.

But in both cases, they knew how to make their own silver gelatin prints...and excellent ones.

[paulr]

But in both cases, they knew how to make their own silver gelatin prints...and excellent ones.

Yes, exactly. If you can make a good silver print, then all you need to do make a good ink print is learn the tools. You don't need to relearn printing.

For the purposes of answering questions about viewing distance, digital prints are an incredibly convenient tool. They allow you to experiment with resolution and sharpening in measured ways that you really can't in the darkroom. Even if your chosen medium is silver or gravure or whatever, you can learn a ton about subjective image quality by playing with your images in software. I had many of my assumptions shaken up.

[Ken Lee]

For bigger prints, up to wall-size, people step way back. Generally the only ones sticking their noses into the grain are photographers.

Most people look through the photograph, to the subject. Only a few people look through the subject, to the photograph.

[Jim Jones]

Most people look through the photograph, to the subject. Only a few people look through the subject, to the photograph.

Yes, indeed!

[Kirk Gittings]

Sounds like you were just looking at bad prints. If you see odd tonal qualities and sharpening artifacts, the problem is the person working the tools. You have to learn how to work digital tools same as any others. My black and white inkjet prints look better than my darkroom prints, but they didn't in the beginning.

+1

I wish I kept count of how many bad silver prints I have seen in shows since I started going to them in 1970. But in those days you didn't blame the medium-you blamed the artist.

[Drew Wiley]

I've always had the public put their nose right up to my prints, not just other photographers, anytime they've been in such a venue. That's because there's something
there to warrant this. Overall composition & rich detail are not mutually exclusive, esp
with large format work. When I just want a poetic nuance without all that, I shoot 35mm.
One of the greatest assets of traditional view camera and darkroom work is that it slows
you down and forces you not only to look at things carefully, but to prioritize your options.
Perhaps this is one reason the best inkjet printers seem to be persons who have this kind of discipline under their belt to begin with, and already know what they want.

[Bernice Loui]

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.



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

+1

Which feeds the need for "more and better" photo hardware.. This is only really good for the hardware makers.


Bernice

+1

I wish I kept count of how many bad silver prints I have seen in shows since I started going to them in 1970. But in those days you didn't blame the medium-you blamed the artist.