Perspective and viewing distance of a print

As perspective is determined by the distance between the camera and the subject, do people have any thoughts about the optimum camera focal length and print enlargement in relation to the viewing distance of a print on a gallery wall?

I've had three one man shows in our local museum, so can only speak on that limited experience.

The first two shows had all images in one size, with the same size mats and frames. It didn't matter if a photo was a wide open landscape or a close up, people would stay the same viewing distance from the wall for every print. It was like they were on a moving sidewalk at a set distance parallel to the walls.

The last show had 5x7's for closeups, 8x10's for middle distance images, and 11x14's for wide open landscapes. People in the gallery reacted in a completely different way; they moved in to see the closeups and moved back to look at the landscapes. Interestingly, if they were looking at a closeup they would move sideways and inspect the finer details in a bigger print before moving back to see the whole image at a more comfortable viewing distance. There was an ongoing ebb & flow back & forth from people in the gallery.

So, based on my experience, it has nothing to do with subject matter and everything to do with print size and I will never again have a show with one print size for all subject matter.

There is a relationship, but there isn't a particular optimum.
People often comment that pictures of people are more flattering if they are taken from a relatively long distance, due to the flattening of perspective that gives you.
But if a picture is taken from close, using a short focal length lens, the print will look quite natural if viewed from up fairly close.
That print will only show a relatively distorted perspective if viewed from farther away. And as a matter of practicality, if one is to view a print from a fairly long distance, it can't really be well seen if it is small.
So pick a viewing distance and work from there for the magnification necessary - given the film format - to make it easy to see the result. Then you can take that magnification and format and calculate from that which focal length and subject to camera distance you will need to fill the frame with an image that gives you the perspective you need.

It has been said that the optimum 'perspective' of a print is provided when the viewing distance is equivalent to the FL of the lens (multiplied by enlargement factor of the print)! The logic is that the angle subtended by each element in the picture should be the same as the angle subtended at the camera by the same element in the original scene. This concept was mentioned by Ansel Adams, in talking about the viewing distance at which the perspective would look 'natural'. (Of course, this does not take into consideration any cropping of the film image during the enlargement process.)

Think about it....a scene captured by a 24mm lens onto a 36mm horizontal 135 format frame captures the original 'perspective' seen by the lens and captured on that film frame. So if viewing an enlargement of that image, one needs to magnify the FL of the taking lens accordingly...if I was viewing a 60" wide canvass, which is a 42x enlargement of the original image on film, so viewing distance recreating the film-to-lens node distance would be 42 * 24mm, or about 40". That would mimic the camera position relative to the scene, the 'perspective' of the camera.

Note this is different from the 'optimum viewing distance' of a print, which makes zero attempt at reproduction of the 'perspective' of an image but merely considers the eye+brain viewing capability. And since, in a museum exhibit, one has no idea what format and what lens FL, it is the only consideration...no attempt or possibility of recreating the 'perspective' seen by the lens.

cliveh said:

the optimum camera focal length and print enlargement in relation to the viewing distance of a print

Click to expand...

No, I don't see it that way, personally. Size does matter, but I wouldn't say that it depends on focal length or perspective during recording. Some images 'want' to be big, others do better at a smaller size.

And some negatives really can't stand up to being made big. Anything with slightly poor focus or camera shake, for example. Many such images look just fine small.

MurrayMinchin said:

they moved in to see the closeups and moved back to look at the landscapes. Interestingly

Click to expand...

I find that interesting because, from your point of view, the closeups were probably easier to discern the detail from the greater viewing distance, but your viewers automatically moved in to have the print take up more of their field of vision. That may have been due to wanting to focus more specifically on one image in isolation or it may have been habit from years of looking at things. You look at a poster from a few feet away. You look at a snapshot at book-reading length.

I also don't think the size matters but rather how the gallery groups them. My last solo exhibition had prints ranging from 4x5 pt/pd prints and other size images up to 6ft. To me it is the composition and treatment of the subject that really counts. exhibitions have varying purposes from exploring a theme, featuring a particular photographer and galleries most interested in exhibiting what sells to their clients.

ABOUT | JEFFREY GLASSER

HOME | SCULPTURE and PHOTOGRAPHY

MurrayMinchin said:

I've had three one man shows in our local museum, so can only speak on that limited experience.

The first two shows had all images in one size, with the same size mats and frames. It didn't matter if a photo was a wide open landscape or a close up, people would stay the same viewing distance from the wall for every print. It was like they were on a moving sidewalk at a set distance parallel to the walls.

The last show had 5x7's for closeups, 8x10's for middle distance images, and 11x14's for wide open landscapes. People in the gallery reacted in a completely different way; they moved in to see the closeups and moved back to look at the landscapes. Interestingly, if they were looking at a closeup they would move sideways and inspect the finer details in a bigger print before moving back to see the whole image at a more comfortable viewing distance. There was an ongoing ebb & flow back & forth from people in the gallery.

So, based on my experience, it has nothing to do with subject matter and everything to do with print size and I will never again have a show with one print size for all subject matter.

Click to expand...

Why not one print size?

Personally I find photos the larger they are, the better at a gallery.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Why not one print size?

Personally I find photos the larger they are, the better at a gallery.

Click to expand...

Personal choice.

When viewing my own work in a gallery setting, having a mushroom closeup the same size as a distant mountain range with big sky landscape right beside it creates a visual/cognitive dissonance.

That, and I like it when viewers move toward and away from the wall...makes me think they are getting a more intimate experience.

Despite enlarging 4x5 negatives, I never made prints larger than 11x14 so the big print thing never got ahold of me. Now making hand coated alt process prints, and they won't be getting much bigger.

MurrayMinchin said:

Personal choice.

When viewing my own work in a gallery setting, having a mushroom closeup the same size as a distant mountain range with big sky landscape right beside it creates a visual/cognitive dissonance.

That, and I like it when viewers move toward and away from the wall...makes me think they are getting a more intimate experience.

Despite enlarging 4x5 negatives, I never made prints larger than 11x14 so the big print thing never got ahold of me. Now making hand coated alt process prints, and they won't be getting much bigger.

Click to expand...

What I noticed about my viewing in a gallery or museum is having to get close to read the little typed index cards next to paintings and photos.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Why not one print size?

Personally I find photos the larger they are, the better at a gallery.

Click to expand...

Large photos are impressive. But do collectors buy them? Do they have the wall or storage space for many? One gallerist told me to stick to 16x20 or smaller, that sold best with his collectors. Another gallerist had a friend who was having a show to make large (up to 48x60) prints. It cost her a pretty penny. Only a few sold and they weren't the largest ones, although the big ones looked quite nice in the gallery.

If you do print editioning, the large prints can end up aiding in sales of smaller prints.
The other advantage to editioning is that you can match the print size to the nature of the exhibition space.
Going back to the initial question, I prefer to let the nature of the subject and my personal "inner eye" preferences dictate the perspective of the result.
That in turn dictates the position of the camera in relation to the subject.
Which in turn dictates the focal length of the lens chosen.
Then, when the final print is close to reality, I an make a decision on whether a large print and a relatively long viewing distance works best, or whether a small print and a relatively short viewing distance works better.

Here is the "Background" I currently see when I power up the laptop I'm currently typing on:


I'll let you decide whether you think that this photo would be better as an "intimate" small print or a more commanding large print on a gallery wall.
The choice of lens was was dictated by where I had to stand, and the perspective I wanted to communicate with the result.
I tend to lean toward more depth, and therefore shorter lenses. Amongst my probably too many lenses, I have considerably more short lenses than long ones. The shorter focal lengths suit my visual preferences.

Pieter12 said:

Large photos are impressive. But do collectors buy them? Do they have the wall or storage space for many? One gallerist told me to stick to 16x20 or smaller, that sold best with his collectors. Another gallerist had a friend who was having a show to make large (up to 48x60) prints. It cost her a pretty penny. Only a few sold and they weren't the largest ones, although the big ones looked quite nice in the gallery.

Click to expand...

I saw Clyde Butcher's BW landcapes at his Venice, Florida studio and in a commercial gallery in NYC. Most were 60", a few even larger. They are impressive. And expensive. I always recommend to people when they buy a TV to get the next larger size after they decide on the size at first. If you buy the first decision, you always say after it's installed, "Gee I wish I bought the larger one."