cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

I've read somewhere that the "proper" distance from which to view a work of art like a photographic image is one from which you can see the whole thing without scanning, that is, without moving your eyes. Obviously, I look at my images much closer than that when I'm processing them, and I look at others' images more closely when I'm being critical about technique, focus, etc. What I'm wondering is whether there is any validity to the idea that the "proper" distance for evaluating artistic value is one from which you can see the whole thing without scanning. I'm anticipating lots of opinions, which are welcome, but I'd especially appreciate some kind of evidence or rationale for at least some of those opinions.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Don't know where it came from but optimum viewing distance is normally considered equal to the diagonal length of an image multiplied by 1.5.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Whatever you are comfortable with. Sometimes trying to find rules over anything is just... Not good.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It's an appropriate question which also involves perspective. In the case of a photograph what's the proper viewing distance to experience perspective as it was recorded from the camera position. That can in fact be calculated for any given camera/focal length but the bottom line is we can't really control viewing distance for others.

In gallery venues some artists have tried to force viewing distance by setting up a barrier like a rope that limits and/or encourages viewers to stand at a specific distance.

Leslie Stroebel explored the issue and went a little further by conducting measurements. What he did is measure the average distance that viewers in a gallery stood back from X size images given the freedom to stand where the wanted. What he determined was that people tended to stand back from an framed photo/painting/etc. twice the long side of the image. So for a framed 16X20 inch photo they stood back 40 inches. That's going to be very close to the figure Longshadow noted which I also don't know where it came from.

If we know that people have this natural tendency we can least shoot and process images for that target.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

When I am viewing a photograph, or any work of art, I don't worry about an "optimum" viewing distance. I like to see it from various distances, as a whole, or up close to see fine detail.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

When you start seriously looking into things like perceived sharpness (accutance) you need to have clearly defined terms and definitions. Without this you can't fairly compare two different images. Kind of think of it as rules of the road. As long as people adhere to the rules, some form of order exists. If not, total chaos reigns. So, long ago a decision was made to make the standard viewing distance 1.5x the diagonal length of the image as Longshadow posted earlier. Sure you can look at it closer or from further away, but then your perception, especially of accutance, changes from the standard viewing distance.

As far as eye movement goes. Most people try and make sense of an image and move their eyes to known shapes or patterns or colors until they have achieved an understanding then may roam around the image for deeper insight or aesthetics. There is evidence that at least two processes are going on in the brain simultaneously with the higher brain functions looking for one thing and lower brain functions looking for something else.

A good reference is "Mastering Composition" by Richard Garvey-Williams, Chapter 1 Visual Perception.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The proper viewing distance is the distance you like to look at it.
Could be near, could be far, could be in-between...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

These sites discuss the "proper" viewing distance, and the physiologic rationale behind it.

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/camera/resolution/

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

In general, John, I quite agree, as my original post suggests. The question is, when you see it "as a whole," as you say, how far from it would you be? And, perhaps more generally, what does it mean to see it "as a whole?" Does it mean being far enough away to see the entire image while not moving head nor eyes, yet close enough so that it fills your field of vision? And if it means those two things, how far is that?

If I stand, say, 8 inches from a 2 x 3 foot image, I can turn my eyes and head to see all four corners, and everything in between. Indeed, staying 8 inches from the image, I can walk back and forth and examine all the details. If I do enough of that, I've seen the whole image, but I don't think I have not seen it "as a whole." My question is, where do I stand to see it "as a whole." (If I haven't made it clear, I really like your phrase, "as a whole.")

The question arose for me today because of an image of mine, hopefully shown below; if not, as "Add Attachment" doesn't seem to be working, it can be found at

https://www.flickr.com/photos/samyaffespix/50598186278/in/dateposted/

When seen full screen at normal working distances, a friend found all the red to be too much; however, when viewed smaller, it liked it much better. This exchange reminded me of what I'd once read, but I had no idea of the source, so I figured I'd ask you Hogs. And I think that has proven fruitful.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I like your description of seeing it as a whole, but I don't think in terms of how far that is, I just move towards it until I reach that point.

TallTree

People with bi or tri focal glasses would require different distances.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Probably different distances for different people, but not as different as, lets say, 12 feet.
"Seeing it" is a perceptional thing, and everyone's perception is different.
(Albeit there's probably an average distance, which would be the "standard".)

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

Painting...for hundreds of years.