-
Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
From another forum this evening I read a common statement that IME is photographers' folklore. It is stated like this more or less "with a contemporary ink jet print, you can get away with 180ppi and at viewing distance". What the heck is "viewing distance'? Is it some kind of natural law? I have spent my adult life as an active exhibiting large (and some MF early on) format photographer (90 exhibits and counting since 1970). I print 4x5 negs both traditional silver and digitally (Piezography) from around 8x10 up to 16 x20 but occasionally up to around 4x5 feet. 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. Because of that I am very conscious of how the detail holds up in my prints even at very close inspection and rarely print 4x5 negs above 16x20. There is a certain amount of tactility I want even at close inspection. That there is some kind of standard viewing distance for prints and that you can assume people will not cross and target your print resolution to that viewing distance is a myth IME. Do I ever print above that personal tactility threshold? Yes of course-mainly on commissions but I don't kid myself-I realize that I am compromising my standards somewhat.
I have never been an 8x10 shooter who won't compromise and only contact prints, but I went to 4x5 primarily because it gave me the print quality I wanted on modest size enlargements. In the many years I have been in this profession, I first started hearing about standard viewing distance with the ascendancy of digital printing. I know this is probably something akin to an old farts rant.......but personally I don't see its validity unless you provide a barrier in front of your prints to stop people from getting to close.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
I agree with your observations as well Kirk. I can only imagine that the myth is perpetuated by people whose prints don't stand up to the quality you seek in your prints. I too enjoy nose sniffing a print, it's one of the joys of a good print IMO.
Regards
Erik
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Yup, BS and I have a degree in BS.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
My BS is in Graphic Communications... But not going to assert that proves I'm right or anything, just a hunch that Offset Lithography using Halftone Screens in 4-Color Process (or Duotone) set the optimum image information required, above which there used to be no improvement in print quality. I believe it's commonly quoted as 1.5 times the screen resolution. Screens were commonly 120 line. There's your 180!
New approaches (image processing which adds edge linework) make it possible for Piezography to "consume" higher resolution original file information. So just keep going.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
"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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
This is a rather complex issue and partly dependent on image creator and viewer.
IMO, for the majority of viewers who have never been exposed or been made aware of how resolution, tonality, contrast range can affect their experience of viewing a truly "high definition" image can be surprising.
For some high definition images have value, others place little to no value on this.
Part of what can draw a view into greater involvement with images is great resolution, great contrast range, form, shape (order in what is perceived as a random world) color range, tonality and....
The degree of enlargement possible also depends on monochrome (black & white)-vs- color. Generally color images can tolerate a larger degree of enlargement then monochrome partly due to perception of grain.
Over the years of my creating monochrome images, I have put the enlargement limit at 4X, even when the image holds a far greater amount of information. This is not due to resolution in LPM, or similar metric of resolution, it has more to do with seamless tone, contrast range and total lack of grain in the image beyond simple resolution. This expectation is why I gave up on 4x5 many years ago for monochrome and move up to 5x7 to make 10x14 and 14x20 prints. There was a few years when I tried 8x10 with the belief the larger format will deliver greater image quality. What was discovered was the amount of improvement was nil due to limits in optics, film flatness, DOF, system size and weight and...
Yet, I'm not convinced high definition images are something many viewers value highly. IMO, it is only a select group that values and appreciates images at this level. Emotional content and expression appears to connect more with viewers than high definition images alone.
Bernice
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Kirk,
Absolutely right.
The problem with "average viewing distance" and "acceptable quality" are a consequence of our rapidly deteriorating
quality standards. People think cell-phone photos are fine, so they don't recognize quality when it hits their noses. :D
- Leigh
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
+1, Kirk. People will stick their noses up to a large print as long as there is detail to be seen.
(Actually, I kind of wonder if it's related to "scratch and sniff" cards. I bet they would if they could. THAT'S IT! THE NEXT WAVE IN PHOTOGRAPHY! Printers that can print scratch and sniff pictures! The print would be sold multiple times to the same customer, because enjoying the print means wearing it out.)
They'll go back and forth with the print. But if it's big and there isn't the tiny detail, then they'll go forwards once looking for it, and then back out and just view it from a distance. But when a big print has detail, people do enjoy and comment on it.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
A "standard" of anything is an average which doesn't fit anything or anybody..No such thing as standard..
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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... :p
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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."
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirk Gittings
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. :)
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BrianShaw
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
"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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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. :)
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
"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".
Nailed it!
--P
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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 !
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Christopher D. Keth
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.
And I thought I was the only one!
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Olsen
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.
Me too!
Steve.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
I'm more curious as to what prompted the OP to post this manifesto. :confused: (Who cares? Specific criticism? Do tell.)
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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?
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
In My Experience
I Don't Know
Oh yeah, High Defininition Television!:) Sounds like you already know what WTF means.
____________________________________
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Thanks. I am truly embarassed at being so "20th Century" in my communication skills. :o
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drew Wiley
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. :eek:
- Leigh
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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!"
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
David A. Goldfarb
................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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jay DeFehr
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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."
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. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John Olsen
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
So, if I put a loupe to your 20x24 print and complain that it could be sharper, it's your fault?
-
Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jay DeFehr
So, if I put a loupe to your 20x24 print and complain that it could be sharper, it's your fault?
If sharpness is an aesthetic value for that particular image, yes. I've actually considered displaying contact prints with a loupe on a string attached to the frame. I like exploring prints in this way, when the image is about the detail. Obviously, not all images are about detail.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
This discussion got me to try an experiment yesterday during a smallish get together of mostly non-photographer friends.
Rounded up some B&W prints made years ago on 11x14 Oriental graded glossy fiber paper.
Group one of these prints were made from full frame 5x7 (some included film holder borders). Lenses used were Schneider HMXL or Rodenstock Grandagon for wide angles, Kodak Ektar for normal focal length and APO Artar for longer than normal focal length.
Group two prints were made from full frame 4x5, basically the same optics, sub Schneider Super Angulon in place of the HMXL.
Group three prints were made from 6x6 Hasselblad 100mm Planar, 50mm f2.8 FLE and 150mm Sonnar. Images printed up to 11x14.
Prints were viewed from about 12" to 36" held in their hands while others looked from a short distance away.
The viewers were initially drawn to the content or subject of the print, then form (composition), then contrast range and as they mentally processed the image in hand, the resolution in group one and two prints continued to draw their interest. Many who viewed these prints took them in for several minutes as they continued to discover more and more visually interesting information within the prints made from the larger negatives.. The prints made from the 5x7 negs were more effective than the 4x5 prints as the prints had more greater definition ( similar effect found in contact prints).
On the prints made from the 6x6 negs, these prints simply did not hold their viewing interest in the same way..
This is likely the very first time this group has seen prints like this made from sheet film negatives. It appears the higher definition images from sheet film does matter once the hurdle of content, composition and all those other ingredients have been addresses. There also appears to be an awareness of how different film B&W images are from today's digital.
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.
I'm still not sure what to do with the images I have created..
Bernice
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
I want to know where you are finding these "mostly non-photographer friends" then. My non-photographer friends, and even a couple of photographers that work only digitally, never do anything like this. Even images that they proclaim they really like, in all seeming sincerity (that is, comments like "oh wow!" on first viewing etc.) never have them looking more than maybe 30 seconds to a minute, and never up close. I seriously doubt they could tell my 4x5 from medium format. While I'm sure they could tell most of the 35mm if I asked them to choose the one with the most grain, they don't seem to really care.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
This get together happens yearly for us. Been doing this for a few years now..
When I decided to take up serious photography again, this discussion gave me an idea to try this.
It seems the majority of images created today are done by smart phone or digital. This means fits well with today's electronic communications and short attention span of the public. I'm guessing it comes down to personality, age and maturity. This group is older, maybe wiser and maybe more appreciative of art and other related topics in general.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roger Cole
I want to know where you are finding these "mostly non-photographer friends" then. My non-photographer friends, and even a couple of photographers that work only digitally, never do anything like this. Even images that they proclaim they really like, in all seeming sincerity (that is, comments like "oh wow!" on first viewing etc.) never have them looking more than maybe 30 seconds to a minute, and never up close. I seriously doubt they could tell my 4x5 from medium format. While I'm sure they could tell most of the 35mm if I asked them to choose the one with the most grain, they don't seem to really care.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaughn
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.
Spoken like a true contact printer.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roger Cole
I seriously doubt they could tell my 4x5 from medium format. While I'm sure they could tell most of the 35mm if I asked them to choose the one with the most grain, they don't seem to really care.
I think that this is important. The content and emotional impact of an image is far more important to me than whether (or how much) grain it has.
I generally feel that if the grain is sharp and the focus is fine, then the photograph is ok. I have seen big prints from 35mm that look marvelous and gritty because the photographs were great.
Photographers tend to peep at details but unless there is emotive information in them, I suspect that is pandering to the technical rather than to the emotional. It is a bit like throwing Shakespeare in the bin because he made some spelling mistakes.
I am not anti-technique. I just believe that the picture comes first.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ROL
Spoken like a true contact printer.
So true! LOL!
But it does bring up the idea that print (and frame) size often must take the space that it is shown in into consideration. A 20x24 image framed 28x32 and mounted on the wall in a 4 foot wide hallway is usually not a good thing for full appreciation of the image.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
The emotional impact and content is what draws viewers to the image initially, then the other factors like contrast range, resolution can bring further involvement with the image.
"Photographers tend to peep at details"
Which could be one of the root causes for photo gear obsession, purchasing and always looking for the magic image creation widget.
Bernice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marizu
I think that this is important. The content and emotional impact of an image is far more important to me than whether (or how much) grain it has.
I generally feel that if the grain is sharp and the focus is fine, then the photograph is ok. I have seen big prints from 35mm that look marvelous and gritty because the photographs were great.
Photographers tend to peep at details but unless there is emotive information in them, I suspect that is pandering to the technical rather than to the emotional. It is a bit like throwing Shakespeare in the bin because he made some spelling mistakes.
I am not anti-technique. I just believe that the picture comes first.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernice Loui
The emotional impact and content is what draws viewers to the image initially...Bernice
Appearent sharpness can be one of the factors determining the emotional impact of an image. Grain size can also be one of the factors.
All factors are important and, IMO, should not be separated from each other. Content, print size, sharpness, grain size, contrast, process and even the color mat and frame style all must be given equal consideration -- all come together for the final piece, all determine how the viewer approaches the work.
-
Re: Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.
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.