RE: Re: Viewing Distance for Prints

And maybe a friend or two?

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jpptprnt@verizon.net [mailto:jpptprnt@verizon.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 4:57 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Re: Viewing Distance for Prints
>
> 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 16:04:38 2005