print viewing distance

[wmchauncey]

I once had an instructor that opined that he never displayed a print that wasn't acceptable at nose-length viewing distance, an anal thing he explained.
This requirement is something to which I subscribe but, am consistency berated by trolls.  Is there a conceivable downside to that technique?

[schertz]

Consider that there is a difference between how one sharpens for landscapes versus portraits (i.e. radius and amount). If you spend a lot of time trying to get the fine details sharp, it might not be optimal for the overall sharpness of the distinct edges in the image when viewing from a further distance. Conversely, if you make the radius larger so it looks nice from further back, it might look a bit over sharpened from close up. Some output sharpening tools, like Nik, allow you to specify the viewing distance, which alters how the image is sharpened. When you select a large viewing distance the radius (halos) increase of an obvious extent which wouldn't look great up close.
(Of course I also tend to look at my pictures far too closely, and no one else that I show them to cares or comments about the sharpness and fine detail up close so YMMV... I'm also strictly an amateur photographer, so my 2c might not be worth that much to anyone, or completely wrong...)

MS

[jamgolf]

One obvious downside of adhering to this approach is comparatively smaller print sizes.

Personally, I like your instructor's and your own approach. As a viewer I do like to enjoy large prints at close distances when the subject is complex or has fine details - examples of this are Edward Burtynsky's work or some of Richard Misrach's work. I think such close distance viewing adds to the viewing experience and one can peel off the layers of the image and the eye can wander from one area to another. If the print quality, for whatever reason, does not hold up to nose-length viewing, then it certainly diminishes the experience, at least in my humble opinion.

Clearly, there are prints with subject matter where nose-length viewing distance does not add anything to the experience or may even detract from the experience. Abstractions or subjects where the colors and shapes 'carry' the photograph rather than fine detail. For such prints the "never displayed a print that wasn't acceptable at nose-length viewing distance" approach is possibly an overkill.

Bottom line, I think there is no subject matter that benefits from specifically 'not holding up to nose-length viewing' i.e. if there was enough/infinite resolution available then there wouldn't be two sides of this argument and off-course every single image would hold up to very close inspection.

[digitaldog]

I once had an instructor that opined that he never displayed a print that wasn't acceptable at nose-length viewing distance, an anal thing he explained.

The late, great Bruce Fraser would say: the distance a photographer examines a print is based on the length of his nose" 
He was kidding and correctly poking fun at photographers.

[GrahamBy]

This really depends on what you imagine a photo is trying to capture:
a) What is there in front of the camera; or
b) What a person would see from the location of the camera; or
c) What the photographer is trying to lead the viewer to seeing.

I'd suggest that only in case a) is the pursuit of ultimate sharpness of interest. In the others it can be counter-productive: images with infinite DoF constructed by focus-stacking look artificial to me.

In the first two cases, it might be interesting to get up close, although in case b), only some parts of the image will have the detail to reward that. There are many photos I'd consider "great" that absolutely do not have that sort of detail. However it may still be worth having excellent resolution at the print stage, to allow the limiting step to occur in the original film or file (ie grain, motion blur, burnt highlights etc etc).

[TonyW]

I once had an instructor that opined that he never displayed a print that wasn't acceptable at nose-length viewing distance, an anal thing he explained.
This requirement is something to which I subscribe but, am consistency berated by trolls.  Is there a conceivable downside to that technique?

Depends on your visual acuity and the length of your nose - or even how close your belly allows you to approach a print on a wall.  It is also highly subjective what one person defines as acceptable vs another's opinion

That being said it is relatively easy to calculate minimum PPI requirements for a particular viewing distance e.g. For someone with 20/20 vision that wanted to view at let's say 8" this would be around 430 PPI as minimum therefore for print you would sample to 600/720 PPI Canon/ HP

But what if you had a young person who may actually be able to focus near to the length of their nose I.e 2.5" you would probably need to be sending a minimum of 1375 PPI - what does your printer expect?

So does your native file capture contain enough pixels without resorting to software interpolation?
If not how good are the interpolation algorithms in the chosen software?
Does your image contain enough fine data to warrant a close up to reveal or perhaps fall into the category of less fine detail maybe a soft cloudscape that will not benefit from sharp edges?
Insert your own arguments here

I do not think this is easy to answer other than from  a personal view, although the idea of presenting nothing less than good is a fine aim point striving for excellence even better

Personally I don't think your instructor was anal enough 

[JRSmit]

All these calculation assume the visibility of an individual pixel. Fine but how about the context?
How come a 16x24 inch print of a 100mp phase one does look more real , more dimensional than a print made from say a 20 mp m5d2. Both printed on highest quality settings in Lightroom and epson driver. (720ppi and fine details on)
This at a viewing distance of about 2 feet ( 60cm).
I believe it is not so much about seeing the individual pixels, rather how the details, tonal or hue or saturation changes are printed (and captured in the first place).

[wmchauncey]

He was kidding and correctly poking fun at photographers.

That's akin to putting a stake thru my heart Dr Frankenstein...     

[TonyW]

All these calculation assume the visibility of an individual pixel. Fine but how about the context?
How come a 16x24 inch print of a 100mp phase one does look more real , more dimensional than a print made from say a 20 mp m5d2. Both printed on highest quality settings in Lightroom and epson driver. (720ppi and fine details on)
This at a viewing distance of about 2 feet ( 60cm).
I believe it is not so much about seeing the individual pixels, rather how the details, tonal or hue or saturation changes are printed (and captured in the first place).

No disagreement from me on this - well except that the calculations are designed to assume invisibility of pixels, cos once you see them you are in the wrong ball park  .  Sorry just being pedantic 

Although there is more to this than just pixels, image content and detail play a big role here.  But if you think about your example in terms of calculations only then it does kinda make sense.

According to the calculations for visual acuity of someone with 20/20 vision:  Viewing distance of 2 feet calls for a minimum 143 PPI.  This applies to whatever camera MP lens combination you choose to use, but as the saying goes some are more equal than others.

We require a 24x16" print and because of fine detail circles and diagonals in the image we want to print on an Epson sending the 'best data' we can if we have enough native resolution  720 PPI would seem ideal.
 
I would suggest that the best data we have is what the camera records as the native pixel resolution.  That is prior to any interpolation to reach our required print resolution in our editor of choice.

For the Canon 5D MkII the native resolution is 5,616 × 3,744 pixels.  If we send the native data to the Epson at its lowest declared PPI  of 360  we can only achieve print dimensions of  15.6" x 10.4".  Falling well short of our desired 24x16 print.  AFAIK in this case there would be no point in upsampling to Epson max 720 ?

For the Phase One the native resolution being 11,608 x 8708 pixels  sending the same 360 PPI to the printer yields a much larger print 32" x 24" so we now have more than enough native pixels to send 720 PPI, although still a little short @ 16" x 12".

Although we would need to crop to meet 24x16 exactly, the point is that much of the difference including the 3D feel may be attributed to having in this case nearly 4 times as much native data to work with for the Phase One vs the Canon

[Schewe]

Is there a conceivable downside to that technique?

Yes, there is a downside...

One one hand, I feel an image–regardless of the print size–that doesn't stand close inspection is technically weak. On the other hand, sometimes circumstances conspire to prevent technical excellence when capturing an image so if an image MUST withstand close inspection many great images will need to be tossed.

So, what is a photographer to do? Use the best possible technique to capture great images and if sometimes the technique is lacking hope that the image will carry the day.

I see this question asked a lot in then terms of "how little resolution can I get away with" and very, very rarely in the context of having too much resolution.

So, there are a lot of people who "wish" that the close inspection rule that Bruce said. Personally, I think people are often too wrapped up in technical issues and not enough aestetic issues. One the other hand, I use really high resolution cameras and usually have resolution to spare :~)

[N80]

I think some images draw you in close. In such an image resolution is important. Other images are better taken as a whole....distant trees in very early morning fog. Almost abstract. No detail to see. Resolution not as important.

As mentioned though, if you have it why not use it? I do appreciate the reply above concerning sharpening. I had not thought of that in terms of viewer distance (even though I use Nik Sharpener some).

At the same time, if I'm looking at a 44" print from two feet and it moves me from an aesthetic perspective and as a photographer, I'm not going to criticize it if things aren't quite as good with my nose against the glass. I think that type of 'appreciation' goes beyond (or beneath) the aesthetic and borders on a technical fetish. Nothing wrong with that but probably only significant for the small minority and could lead some into Adam's sharp picture of a fuzzy concept trap.

[BradSmith]

I have many of my images on the walls of my home.  Image sizes are mostly from 11x14" up to 20x30".  Guests always comment on the photos, but I've never seen one of them stick their nose right up to a print and examine the detail the way many of us would.  I don't think that non-photographers often consider photos as examples of resolution/sharpening/microcontrast wizardry or sensor/lens exquisiteness. 

They stand back and consider the image the same way they would a painting...from a distance.   

When I spend a lot of time getting the absolute best technical quality out of an image/print that I can, I'm mostly doing it for ME, not for THEM.
Brad 

[N80]

I have many of my images on the walls of my home.  Image sizes are mostly from 11x14" up to 20x30".  Guests always comment on the photos, but I've never seen one of them stick their nose right up to a print and examine the detail the way many of us would.  I don't think that non-photographers often consider photos as examples of resolution/sharpening/microcontrast wizardry or sensor/lens exquisiteness.

I admit that I do examine prints up close, as a photographer. But that is not how I judge the image as a viewer.   

When I spend a lot of time getting the absolute best technical quality out of an image/print that I can, I'm mostly doing it for ME, not for THEM.
Brad

Me too. But that might have to do with talent level as well. If I was good enough to do it for me and for them.....I probably would.

[Benny Profane]

There are expensive masterpieces hanging on museum and collectors walls that were shot with old Leicas on Tri X.

[chez]

I have many of my images on the walls of my home.  Image sizes are mostly from 11x14" up to 20x30".  Guests always comment on the photos, but I've never seen one of them stick their nose right up to a print and examine the detail the way many of us would.  I don't think that non-photographers often consider photos as examples of resolution/sharpening/microcontrast wizardry or sensor/lens exquisiteness. 

They stand back and consider the image the same way they would a painting...from a distance.   

When I spend a lot of time getting the absolute best technical quality out of an image/print that I can, I'm mostly doing it for ME, not for THEM.
Brad

I've observed many people in galleries and a lot of them do come close to view large prints. Now these prints are of detailed landscapes where you might not see the intimate details in the print standing back. I typically will look at a large print from far off to take in the entire scene, then come in closer to get a more detailed intimate view.
The same occurs with paintings as people do like to view the brush strokes in the paintings which might not be visible from far off.

[JohnHeerema]

I personally print relatively large canvasses (8 - 10 feet wide), and find that people often get very close.

Again, it's just my personal experience, but I think that it's nice to be able to experience an image at several scales - appreciating the entire image from a fair ways off, and also seeing a difference perspective, and more detail, when you get up close. Again it's just personal, but I find myself disappointed when I see a large print up close, and it's fuzzy.

Of course this means that I'm constantly bumping against the maximum size of a print spool file on the Mac (this is a limitation in CUPS - the Common Unix Print System, which has a maximum size of 2^31 bytes).