JohnSwanda wrote:
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.
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.