selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I have found several answers to this but there is no consensus. Here are some opinions (in italics) from the internet.

1. The general intent of the "rule" is that the viewer should be able to see the entire image, from edge to edge, not counting any frame. Presumably at a glance, without scanning the image by moving the eyes. That makes sense but it's not very specific.

2. Common theory dictates that the optimal viewing distance for a print is between 1.5 and 2 times the diagonal length of the print. I'm not sure how common that really is. The objections seem to be that this is too far away.

3. For the vast majority of photographers, the end goal is rather a displayed print that can be scrutinized at close range (theoretically the optimum viewing distance of an image is the same as the diagonal of the print in question, ergo an 8x10” print is optimally viewed at 12.8” from the print). This seems more reasonable and it accommodates different aspect ratios.

4. The Cambridge in Colour DOF calculator defaults to a 25cm (about 10 inches) for an 8x10 inch print. The appeal here is that it's easy to remember and it's close to the diagonal mentioned in #3. But it doesn't quite fit the actual aspect ratio of many prints.

Is anyone familiar with other recommendations?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The distance where it looks best to me, whatever that may be.
And it could vary for the same print size, depending on the subject.

(never measured it, I just view)

User ID

(Download)

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

A large part of my career was working in the area of pre-press for a large commercial printer. At the end of the day, the viewing distance is whatever the viewer (customer) wants, but the reason there are viewing standards / guidelines is for contractual purposes. As a printer we set up a viewing room with the very expensive gray paint on the walls (If I remember correctly is was about $200 / gal) with proper lighting at the right intensity and viewing booths for customers to view reflective prints (usually Cromalins or press sheets), and light tables to look at transparencies, which were full page size positive film. The room had to have neutral color furniture with nothing colorful. This is where the customer signed off on proofs and press sheets. The final product is going to be looked at under very different conditions like fluorescent light, bright sunlight, a few inches from the viewer, under magnifying glass, ..., which can shift color (especially on paper that fluoresces) and change apparent sharpness.

As photographers, we generally don't have to set such stringent viewing standards, unless we are doing something like catalog work where color matching, detail and sharpness are important.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There is a difference between viewing and inspecting an image.

When you are looking at a 2k monitor that displays 1920x1080 pixels (2.1MP) with a 27" diagonal you may be comfortable with a 27-28 inch viewing distance. That monitor displays at about 80 pixels peer inch (ppi).

If you have a 4k monitor with the same diagonal you will be viewing 8.3MP from about the same distance. That monitor displays at about 160 pixels peer inch. You can see the difference in resolution. Otherwise the 4k monitor would be a waste of money.

But a normal eye can't see beyond about 300ppi from about 10 inches - 300ppi drops to 150ppi at 20 inches. That's the basis for size of the circle of confusion (CoC) used to calculate depth of field and diffraction limits. It's also based on normal vision.

A normal viewer will probably view the entire image from a normal distance.

A photographer might inspect it from the same distance if they still want to see the entire image. They just want more resolution so they need more MP.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

My experience: I print 8x10 because it is a typical low cost printer standard and frames and mat are plentiful, even at the Dollar Tree. The frame of my choice is the thin edge front mount "mainstay" at Walmart for $2.50. [8x10, 7x9, 8x8] I am displaying my photos not some thick frame or mat.

One can display their gallery in 8x10 on a wall... Large prints restrict our choice and not all homes have huge walls not blocked by doors, windows, and furniture. Typical is behind the sofa... in that case, minimal viewing is 3 feet. If at the local art gallery such as Tampabay Photo Museum the distance is about the same.

Human ergonomics says that your monitor should be at least 30" away. "Recommendations that place a maximum limit on viewing distance to reduce eyestrain all have one thing in common: They have no scientific basis. To understand why, let’s look at how viewing close objects can contribute to eyestrain. When we look at any close object, our eyes do two things: They accommodate and converge. Both of these can contribute to eyestrain. (Collins 1975 and Fischer 1977). "
https://www.humanics-es.com/viewing-distance.htm

Collins, C., O’Meara, D., and Scott, A.B. (1975). Muscle strain during unrestrained human eye movements. Journal of Physiology, London, 245, 351 – 369.

Fisher, R.F. (1977). The force of contraction of the human ciliary muscle during accommodation. Journal of Physiology, London, 270, 51 – 74.
----------------------------
Viewing light is important since it "changes" perception of color. Gray walls! Rediculus. Ultra white is best so as to reflect the light in the room which is supplied by a 5000K LED bulb. [Walmart has them] "lberto P. Perfect bulb! I'm a photographer and I have a Fine Art prints laboratory. These lights are absolutely perfect for the quality print check and the whole illumination of the studio." Graphics viewing standard: ISO 3664:2009 specifies the CIE illuminant D50 with a correlated color temperature of approximately 5000° Kelvin
https://store.waveformlighting.com/collections/a19-bulbs/products/d50-5000k-a19-led-bulb-for-color-matching-iso3664-2000

I you want to get technical regarding light and color space:
[the first pdf says 4005 50, which is not 50, but 5000 bulb]
https://www.waveformlighting.com/photometrics/TR_4005.50.pdf
https://www.waveformlighting.com/datasheets/CS_4005-5000.pdf

There is even an ISO 3664 standard for graphics and photo viewing. "An Overview of ISO 3664:2009 Graphic Technology and Photography—Viewing Conditions"
https://cdn-s3.sappi.com/s3fs-public/sappietc/The%20Color%20Viewing%20Standard%20for%20the%20Graphic%20Arts.pdf

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There are lots of galleries that don't provide enough distance for viewing large prints. You are probably familiar with the Ringling Museum where you can see some huge paintings by Rubens and others. Just east of Naples in Clyde Butcher's Big Cypress Gallery you can see some huge prints that are also difficult to view because you just can't get back far enough.

For a home or intimate gallery, 8x10 or 11x14 seems like an ideal size for a print.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Yes, by all means everyone should visit the Ringling Museum... allow a full day... it is a wonderful place.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I hold the holdable ones at whatever distance I want, NO rules.
Wall hung I look at whatever distance I want as well with NO rules.
Makes life easy and eliminates a lot of rules to follow.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

We are not trying to establish rules.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ditto.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

That is exactly what the post started out with.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

We know...
But here are "guidelines" based on averages.
Some call them rules, customs, recommendations, ...

Just like the "Rule" of Thirds...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

No, the word “rule” was in someone else’s statement.

I am just trying to see what others think is normal or optimal.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States