Re: Viewing Distance for Prints

From: kris ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/01/05-07:20:21 AM Z
Message-id: <BAYC1-PASMTP039AAA08B87642F2BDE4B598260@cez.ice>
Message-id: <4274D795.4080402@eq-photo.com>

i'm speaking from the gut, so pardon me in advance
i've always understood there to be an 'ideal' distance from which to
view a print, which depends both upon the size and the content of the print;
i've also always understood there to be negatives that *must* be printed
one size--and one size /only/, and others that could be printed at a
variety of sizes. the former are absolute, the latter relative, so to speak.
it seems to me that people will position themselves in whatever is the
"correct" viewing distance for them: if they're interested in technique,
this will probably be very close to the print; if they're interested in
aesthetics, it will be at a comfortable viewing distance; if they're not
interested, it will be very far away indeed.
i'm not sure that it's something that can be controllable, however; i've
always thought it's something very subjective.

cheers
k

R E Redman wrote:
> 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 07:20:35 2005

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