Print viewing distance

[chauncey]

I am quite anal about subject sharpness in my images and am not above PP'ing them at
200-400% to satisfy that personality quirk.
My goal is to allow nose-length viewing distance on my prints. Yes, I get a lot of grief
because of this habit but consider this...when you visit an Art Show, do you not evaluate
that photograph at a distance, and then...put your nose up close. I do!

IMHO, the old-school, proper viewing distance scenario, was left over from paintings that
looked hideous up close. Am I the only one that holds this opinion?

[Donald]

IMHO, the old-school, proper viewing distance scenario, was left over from paintings that
looked hideous up close. Am I the only one that holds this opinion?

I've never heard that view expressed before, but am quite sure you're not the only one that holds it.

do you not evaluate that photograph at a distance, and then...put your nose up close. I do!

No, I don't feel I will gain any better appreciation of the work if I do that. But if people want to do that and so long as they don't stand in front of me when I'm trying to view the print, then fine.

[Dave Humphries]

IMHO, the old-school, proper viewing distance scenario, was left over from paintings that
looked hideous up close. Am I the only one that holds this opinion?

I can't say I had given it much thought, mainly because I 'never' print my shots.

I can appreciate what you mean though, having (by chance) seen a 3 minute story on an artist on the news here this morning. The shots of her actually painting, taken at close to your 'nose length' distance, showed the texture of the canvas, but viewed in the WA shots, at the proper viewing distance, I was quite impressed by her work. I guess that's partly what makes a good artist, being able to visualise it from several feet away while only being 18", or 0.5m away - in other words; at arm's length.

[xpatUSA]

Since I don't print, my personal viewing size is about 15x12" and my viewing distance is about 20". However, I also love sharpness and I, too, peep at 100, 200, 400 or even 800% zoom. Since my visual acuity is a lot less than average, maybe 20 cycles/deg, the screen dot pitch of about 0.3mm doesn't much affect how it looks to me, even at 100%

chacun à son goûte . . .

[rpcrowe]

I was not absolutely sure regarding the definitive viewing distance for photographic prints except that traditionally 8x10 inch and smaller size prints were to be viewed at approximately arms length with larger prints viewed at progressively longer distances...

Since I was not sure of how far these viewing distances should be, I did what I always do to find out an answer, I Googled it using the search parameters "viewing distance for photo print size"

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...oto+print+size

I am sure that we could find an answer that we agree with in one of these hits and possibly answers that we do not agree with in other hits... It seems like the general consensus is that the viewing distance should be approximately 1.5x to 2x the diagonal length.

This seems like a pretty good choice:

http://photo.stackexchange.com/quest...r-a-print-size

"The viewing distance of an image is based on two factors; first is the diagonal image size and second are the pixels per inch required at that distance to give a sharp image.

Firstly the rough rule of thumb is that the viewing distance should be 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal length. This will give you an optimal viewing distance for the overall printed size based on the human eye's ideal viewing angle. You have to understand, however, that for a landscape this may not be optimal as you may actually want the viewer to pan around the image, and you may want the size of features within the image to be the basis of this calculation. This is an artistic decision though, based on the composition of your image.

Secondly for the image to look good at the distance you choose, there need to be sufficient pixels per inch (ppi) to fool the eye into seeing a smooth image that isn't pixelated. The minimum ppi needed for a print with acceptable quality is calculated by dividing the value 3438 by the viewing distance. Anything above this ppi will look good at the distance chosen.

So: minimum ppi = 3438/Viewing Distance (in inches)

where 3438, a constant for human vision, was derived as follows:

1/ppi = 2 x Viewing Distance x tan(0.000290888/2)

1/ppi = Viewing Distance x tan(0.000290888)

ppi = 3438/Viewing Distance

where 0.000290888 radians (1 arc minute) is known as the 'visual acuity angle' and represents how much resolution a human can see."

[Shadowman]

It depends on how it's displayed and how well lit the image is displayed. If lighting is dim and perhaps there is some type of backlighting I probably would view from arms length. At smaller shows you have better accessibility to the print but I don't think I'd get that close. If it is a large print I'd view from a distance. The only time I've viewed any art up close were oil paintings and that was to study the brush strokes that went into creating fine lace; quite an eye opener.

[Dave Humphries]

Leaving aside the pixel dimensions, screen ppi or print dpi, etc., whether photo or artwork ...

Looking empirically at the tables of sizes and viewing distances from one of the google links Richard suggested, a simpler formula might be L + W, so 8 x 10 inches = 18 inches - the table says 19, but who's counting

Obviously this may be less accurate, but it's all a 'bit of an average' anyway.

Don't know whether 'unusual' aspect ratios would 'break' the formula.

Another thought that may have relevance, for art or photography, is the angle of view (and perspective) depicted in the picture. More extreme telephoto and ultra wide angle shots have more impact because they allow us to see what would usually be impossible for the distance we are actually viewing them from.

[Mike Buckley]

This has been an interesting discussion. It just now motivated me to walk around my small home reviewing pieces. They include lithographs printed on paper, lithographs printed on canvas, oil painted on a lithograph printed on canvas and photos printed on paper. All of the pieces are well lit. The smallest diagonal size is 13" (33cm) and the largest is 48" (1.2 meters). There are no extreme aspect ratios; all of them are within a range of 1:1 to about 3:2.

Regardless of the medium, if the diagonal size is about 30" (0.75 meters) or less, I'm uncomfortable if my viewing distance is less than twice the diagonal size. For larger diagonal sizes, I'm uncomfortable if my viewing distance is less than 1.5 times the diagonal size. That is mostly because I found that at shorter viewing distances, I had to noticeably move my head and/or roll my eyes to take in all corners of the piece sort of at the same.

Even so, my ideal viewing distance is at least 3 times the diagonal size when the diagonal size is about 30" (0.75 meters) or less. For larger diagonal sizes, my ideal viewing distance is at least 2 times the diagonal size.

[xpatUSA]

I've been working on a DOF spreadsheet which has necessitated much research into related stuff, including the dreaded 'viewing distance'. The consensus in the literature, especially older literature, seems to be a horizontal viewing angle of 60 degs or 1 radian (they're close). And that is why the 'standard' viewing distance is 250mm, of course without even mentioning that that is the width of a 10x8" print.

Doesn't work for me at my monitor's 15"-wide screen, I tend to sit about 20" away. Tunnel vision, probably

[chauncey]

There is no question that "proper viewing distance", whatever that might be, "looks" better hanging
on a wall but, consider this...wouldn't you, as a photographer, buying a print/or even printing your own,
get up close and personal with that print before hanging it on your wall?

[Shadowman]

There is no question that "proper viewing distance", whatever that might be, "looks" better hanging
on a wall but, consider this...wouldn't you, as a photographer, buying a print/or even printing your own,
get up close and personal with that print before hanging it on your wall?

If the print really catches your eye, you've viewed it from say 10, 5, 3 feet and it still holds your interest, what would deter you from buying the image if you were to detect some flaw at 1 foot or six inches?

[IzzieK]

There is no question that "proper viewing distance", whatever that might be, "looks" better hanging
on a wall but, consider this...wouldn't you, as a photographer, buying a print/or even printing your own,
get up close and personal with that print before hanging it on your wall?

Not that too personal that I'd have to stick my nose to it that close, mate...if it is someone else's work, can you imagine how many of you had had that nose that close that would scare the living daylights of a germ that decided to populate the same area? I am not germ-o-phobic but I like to live longer than most...to annoy my kids.

[Inkanyezi]

I really cannot come to terms with pixel peeping as a measure of image quality. Of course I often pixel-peep my pictures, but I am not quite sure why. Among my own images, there is one that I really love, and that is both thumbs down at pixel peeping. It isn't particularly sharp, and I am not even sure that the lens was properly focused or if I held the camera reasonably steady.

The crucial point in the photo isn't even immediately evident, when looked at from a distance, but at "proper viewing distance" it becomes obvious once it is discerned.

What strikes me in that image is its colours. Most of it holds a subdued greenish colour scale, and there are highligts where blue sky is reflected.

I contrast this image against one that hangs on my wall. From my early days of serious photography, I have been idolising Ansel Adams, and when I once got a chance to buy a print, I did so, not really thinking of how much, or how little, I would value that particular image. It is "Sierra Nevada Winter Evening from Owens Valley, California". It's printed from the original plate, but after his death, as a promotional item for Varian Associates in 1987, for the fiftieth anniversary of the invention of the klystron tube. The Varians were personal friends of Ansel Adams.

Mostly I look at that image from about 2 m distance, and from that distance, it is a striking image, the bold shapes of the clouds feathering out from the horizon. Looking closely, it is disappointing if you'd be looking for the silver halide equivalents of pixel peeping and sharpness. It is sharp enough, just as my snake image, but close up, there are no features that I would describe as neither particularly sharp, nor stand out compositionally. Even the grayscale lacks the deep black tones that I was so keen on getting when I worked in the darkroom. For comparison, I once had the chance to see an original print, and even though I couldn't place them beside each other at the time, I saw the same "evident flaws" when looking close.

It still hangs on my wall, and I do like it there. It has a history, and I am glad that I got that picture. It is a humble picture, a well composed image of a few clouds over a nearby expanse of water. It has a "proper viewing distance", just as my snake has one.

[rpcrowe]

I have just thought about another parameter what I don't think has been discussed (If it was, I missed it). That is the content of the image. IMO, if it is large bold content without a lot of fine detail, then the viewing distance might comfortably be longer. However if it is an image which is made up of fine details, we might want to view those details from a closer distance.

I have not seem references to the image content vs viewing distance in any research. I wonder if the members agree with my hypothesis?

Example of an image that doesn't contain a great amount of fine detail, my daughter's Labrador, Shadow"



Example of an image with detail is this view from the City Walls of Xi'an, China...

[Mike Buckley]

Fascinating discussion!

wouldn't you, as a photographer, buying a print/or even printing your own,
get up close and personal with that print before hanging it on your wall?

Not I. I even have an 18" x 18" (0.5 meter x 0.5 meter) print of this photo that I purchased sight unseen based solely on the description of a valued dealer. It's one of my all-time favorite photos. I don't remember ever looking at it "up close" and I have no desire to do so.

For me, viewing a print "up close and personal" has no value other than the educational value of improving one's photography skills. It has no value in my process of determining whether I like a particular photo. "Liking it" means by definition for me that it's enjoyable at a reasonable viewing distance; viewing it at any other distance has absolutely no influence on whether I like it.

[Mike Buckley]

image content vs viewing distance

The reasonable viewing distance for me is based on image size, not content.

There are times that I will review an image closer than usual to satisfy my intellectual curiosity pertaining to something about the image that is revealed only in details that are so small that they can't be seen from an otherwise reasonable viewing distance. As an example, I have a print made in 1858 that has some small blemishes, probably caused by the coating having become too hot that made the glass plate more light-sensitive. That sort of background information about an image is enjoyable to me but it doesn't help me like or dislike the image.

[chauncey]

I can appreciate you guys points of view, but...do you PP and hang your own work
without really zooming in to correct any perceived imperfections, regardless of how
it might look from 10 feet away. Are you saying that you would hang/sell a piece that
you knew had minute imperfections. Doing so boggles my mind.

[Mike Buckley]

do you PP and hang your own work without really zooming in to correct any perceived imperfections, regardless of how it might look from 10 feet away.

All of my post-processing fine-tuning has to do with the size the image will be displayed. As an example, if I can't detect noise when viewing the image at 30% on my monitor, I don't blow it up any larger to detect if the noise is visible at larger sizes. If I have a need to make a print that is larger than 30%, I'll then review the image at the pertinent size to determine whether noise is detected.

My guideline pertaining to post-processing is to attend to the highly detailed stuff that can be seen when viewing an image on my large television, which has a 50" diagonal and a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels. That's because my wife and I view all of our keepers on that television. I don't attend to any details that can't be seen when viewing the image at that size and resolution until I have plans to display the image when they can be seen.

[Shadowman]

I can appreciate you guys points of view, but...do you PP and hang your own work
without really zooming in to correct any perceived imperfections, regardless of how
it might look from 10 feet away. Are you saying that you would hang/sell a piece that
you knew had minute imperfections. Doing so boggles my mind.

I can see inspecting the print, one you did yourself or had a lab do, but that would be for ink specks, bad paper (creases, pinholes, etc.), if it's your own work you can do the close inspection through the computer.

[James G]

Interesting discussion!
I'm in the 'William' camp when it come to being over absorbed with subject sharpness.
I'm of an age that for me the true 'test' rests in the printed result, rather than the screen version.

I struggle to control my desire for more and more image sharpness, usually berating myself and being over critical of the end result because I have not achieved the print sharpness/detail I think I should have when inspecting with a loupe at 3 inches......despite the fact it is A3 and I should be satisfied with the 'arms length' impact.

What is even more obsessive-compulsive behaviour, (on my part), is the need to confess my dissatisfaction regarding the end result to friends and family when they all being complimentary about the print and probably cannot fathom what it is I'm gibbering about.:-)

Seriously though, I think Richard has a point. We are kind of 'hard wired' to look for detail in certain subjects..... I do quite a bit of insect macro images. I much prefer to print them A3 and would never size at less than A4. If I cannot then hold the print and see fine detail at about 12 inches I'll not be satisfied.

Conversely when I print a landscape, again at A3, I do not expect comparable fine detail in the image as I would for the insect subject, but, I will still tend to 'explore' the image quite close up.

What I definitely know about my own viewing behaviour is that if it is a landscape, I will use a classic viewing distance, and then maybe look closer for detail. But if it is the macro shot, I'm not interested in classic viewing distances, only in getting closer to the detail!

If it is a B&W image I think I always end up looking for some fine detail, even when obviously processed for mood.

The really perverse behaviour is that I do not apply quite so much 'forensic' inspection to images I have not produced myself.....