RE: Viewing Distance for Prints

From: Michael Dowdall ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/01/05-06:47:52 AM Z
Message-id: <000101c54e4b$fd63d860$c6fefea9@nun>

How appropriate that this came in the mail today, since we were
discussing this same issue yesterday at the club that go to. I agree
with the writer that a print should also stand up to being examined
close up what ever the printing method. I think the restriction to
proper viewing distance helps to cover up for prints poorly made. They
can have the initial impact of a well captured image, which all good
prints should have but if it loses it's appeal on closer inspection or
repeated viewing should it still be considered a top print? Since we
allow different size prints in our competitions, should we have
different proper viewing distances for the various sizes? One assigned
viewing distance favors larger size prints; details in 8x10 that may
make up the better part of the image are lost when viewed from 8 to 10
ft away.

Well that's just my opinion

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: R E Redman [mailto:Redman@elmet15.freeserve.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 5:43 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re:Viewing Distance for Prints

The question of what is the "correct" viewing distance for prints has
been
raised recently in my local camera club. Some suggest that it is wrong
to
examine prints closely and to get a proper impression of the print it
should
be viewed from several feet away (depending on its size). I think,
particularly with alternative prints, a close examination is desirable
so
that the workmanship and technique can be fully enjoyed. Does anybody
have
any views on this ?

Bob (UK)
Received on Sun May 1 06:48:01 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 06/02/05-10:12:02 AM Z CST