RE: Viewing Distance for Prints

From: Eric Nelson ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/01/05-11:35:28 AM Z
Message-id: <20050501173528.46128.qmail@web30312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The nature of a photograph invites close inspection by
it's nature of being able to record so much detail.
If you try that w/ a painting you only see globs of
paint. I've tried getting close to some Monets once
and the effect of the paimting was lost.

On the extreme side, bordering ridiculous, I saw a
show once where one of the photogs printed his work
REALLY small to, in his words, "draw the viewer closer
to his work". Well, it would have been nice if I
could see what was in the image and evaluate it's
content.
At any rate, I second Eric's opining in that I think
the individual decides what's their comfortable
viewing distance and that the subject will either
invite closer inspection or not as well as the
individual's interest in the subject matter.

Eric Nelson
http://www.eman-photo.com/

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: R E Redman
> [mailto:Redman@elmet15.freeserve.co.uk]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 4:43 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)
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Sun May 1 11:35:37 2005

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