Standard "Print Viewing Distance" Myth.

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[Vaughn]

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.

[Erik Larsen]

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

[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.

[vinny]

Yup, BS and I have a degree in BS.

[Bill Burk]

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.

[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.

[Bernice Loui]

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

[Leigh]

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.

- Leigh

[Brian C. Miller]

+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.