Re: Re: Viewing Distance for Prints

From: [email protected]
Date: 05/01/05-03:56:43 PM Z
Message-id: <21516260.1114984603313.JavaMail.root@vms061.mailsrvcs.net>

Robert,

Viewing distance for print is having a stack of 4x5 or 5x7 platinum/palladiums
or some Polaroids. A glass of white wine or some port a nice chair good light
and fire in the fireplace. Ok some music too. And spend a few hours looking.

Jan Pietrzak

From: R E Redman <Redman@elmet15.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun May 01 15:18:47 CDT 2005
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Viewing Distance for Prints

Thank you all for your opinions on the 'correct' viewing distance. I have
printed them all off and I am going to read through them all again
carefully. I tend to agree with Eric that the distance depends on the viewer
and his/her reasons for viewing.

Bob (UK)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 6:15 PM
Subject: RE: Viewing Distance for Prints

> I find it absurd to assign a proper distance even with criteria to use for
> your club. One can certainly craft a print to meet certain criteria. But
> does that print cess to exist out side the club doors? The correct
viewing
> distance can only be determined by the viewer. Additional viewers will use
> different criteria to determine their best distance based in part on
> technical quality or aesthetical qualities. It is ultimately up to the
> crafts person to determine acceptable print quality. If that person is
> driven by sales, or perhaps even driven by the buyer the prints will
reflect
> it.
>
> I understand that you are looking for a method to evaluate characteristics
> in judging print quality but to what end? Are you going to break up your
> prints into light through lens to film/emulsion/paper and also add the
> digital workflow? Do you limit the camera and lenses used?
>
> A print either works or it doesn't and it doesn't really matter if the
> detail is there or not. Bad printing is bad printing. To define a proper
> viewing distance, you need to standardize the receptor; the human eye and
> brain. I don't see that happening today. So I suggest that you rely on
print
> appeal.
>
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 4101 Commerce Street
> Suite 9
> Dallas, TX 75226
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> http://ericneilsenphotography.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)
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun May 1 15:56:51 2005

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