![]() Of course, in Doug’s case, he was printing many images and hanging them as a set. If we use 1.5X the diagonal length, it needs to be around 32 inches, so the print would need to be around 18 x 24 inches, which is a standard frame size. For my preferred viewing distance using the diagonal length as the viewing distance, at 49 inches, you’d need a print of around 28 x 42 inches, using the standard 3:2 aspect ratio for the sizes. Of course, if we decide on our viewing distance first, we can use this to calculate the print size that we need for any given image. Calculating Print Size from Viewing Distance ![]() Both still much shorter than Doug’s viewing distance, so the answer really is that the prints needed to be much larger to really appreciate at the viewing distance. The diagonal length of the 11 x 16 inch print is 19.5 inches, which would give a viewing distance of just over 29 inches at 1.5X or the same 19.5 inches at my preferred viewing distance. If we use my personal preferred viewing distance, this means that the viewer would need to be able to view the image at a distance of 17 inches to be able to appreciate it.Įven if we go with 1.5X the diagonal length, we need a distance of 25.5 inches, but that for me is too far. Doug tells us that his viewing distance was around 1.25 meters, which is 49 inches, and that is obviously much too far away to view an image of this size. A 12 x 12 inch print has a diagonal length of 17 inches. If we consider the print sizes that Doug quote in his question, we can calculate the minimum viewing distances for these as well. We’ll look at this enlargement process briefly a little later. Of course, I’m increasing the resolution from an image of much lower resolution, but the result is an image that you can also view very closely and appreciate the details, as well as from a distance, to appreciate the image as a whole. This enables me to appreciate the entire image, and also appreciate the details.īefore sending this image to the printing company, I enlarged it using ON1’s Perfect Resize, so that I had a resolution of 300 ppi at the print size of 32 x 48 inches. When I’m sitting at our dining table, I’m about 100 inches from the print, right between the 1.5 and 2X multiplier.Īt this distance, I can appreciate the print, but when I stand at the distance that I feel I naturally want to view the print from, I actually stand at around 57 inches, the same distance as the diagonal length of the print. If we use this method to calculate the optimal viewing distance, we get a distance of between 85.5 and 114 inches. I chose this size print to go on a large wall in our living/dining room. The diagonal length of the print is just over 57 inches. Common theory dictates that the optimal viewing distance for a print is between 1.5 and 2 times the diagonal length of the print. For example, the largest print of my work that I own is a 32 x 48 inch gallery wrap of the below photograph. The viewing distance of a print is somewhat subjective. For an image containing fine details though, there are some calculations that can be used to find the optimal viewing distance. Doug went on to mention that the images which were printed at 12 x 12 inches and 11 x 16 inches could not be viewed at closer than around 1.25 meters (which is about 49 inches) because of furniture.įor a relatively abstract image with simple shapes and texture, we don’t necessarily need to see into every detail, because there really is none to appreciate. ![]() ![]() Without doubt, an image that contains a lot of detail has to be printed large enough to view that detail at a reasonable size from any given distance. OK, so let’s consider the various aspects at play when we think about how large an image needs to be printed for optimal impact. As printing is a real investment, can you offer any rules of thumb as to the best size to print a given photo? Then I heard Joe Brady in a TWIP “Your Itinerary” podcast, and he mentioned that detailed landscapes need to be printed really big in order to look good. A relatively simple color-block style composition looked pretty good at 12″ X 12″, but a photo of a wooded glade looked positively boring at 11″ X 16″. Would you at some point comment on the relationship between the size of a print and it’s complexity? I was disappointed last year when I printed my top ten photos, and most were not impactful on the wall. Thanks for your questions Doug! I can give you some pointers, based on my own experience, which I hope will help. This week I’m going to answer a question from listener Doug Shoemaker, about photographic print viewing distances, and I’ll explain about minimum print resolution theory and my own standards that I use when printing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |