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 rational
e for at least some of those opinions.

I think I remember reading, way back in my film days, that depth of focus, as it shows up in the marks on lenses, was originally based on experiments assuming viewing of enlargements at specific distances. While a lens is technically in focus only at a single plane, when viewed at the assumed distance an image taken at f/5.6 (say) will appear to be in focus for some distance before and behind the actual plane of exact focus, but if you get closer the apparently-sharp zone will become narrower. (I've never actually run any tests to verify this, but it made sense when I read it, and has stuck with me.)

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.

"Photograph viewing distance
Photographs are ordinarily viewed at a distance approximately equal to their diagonal[citation needed]. When viewed at this distance, the distortion effects created by the angle of view of the capture are apparent. However, theoretically, if one views pictures exhibiting extension (wide angle) distortion at a closer distance, thus widening the angle of view of the presentation, then the phenomenon abates. Similarly, viewing pictures exhibiting compression (telephoto) distortion from a greater distance, thus narrowing the angle of view of the presentation, reduces the effect. In both cases, at some critical distance, the apparent distortion disappears completely".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography) Please click on the sub-section.

The above paragraph is an excerpt from the article in the accompanying link- it very interesting.

All of this is interesting stuff, however, how much of it is practical and how is it applied to our regular daily work.

The links post by Gene 51 is the viewing distances that are standardized for viewing prints in various professional print competitions. Many P.P.of A. competitions require a standardized size of entries. It used to be 16x20. Some say it is for uniform print handling and others assume it was to establish a proper viewing distance for the judging panel. Nowadays, many images for judging are viewed on a screen- a projected image or displayed on a large monitor and much of this becomes moot.

In my own commercial and portrait work, there are several practical concerns as to viewing distances. Some of my work is for very large displays- billboards, transit advertising (poster on the sides of buses and trucks), others are for transilluminated and electronic images on large menu boards and the "Jumbotron" screen at the sports venues. Many are for brochures and menu cards. So I do have to pay attention to resolution and perspective.

In corporate and institutional portraiture, images are displayed in the boardroom, lobbies of government buildings in public view so it is important o determine an ideal size based on where it is going to be displayed.

The perspective aspect is interesting. If you have a large print of a scene made with a telephoto lens and it shows the usual image compression, as you walk away from it, at one point it becomes less apparent. Wit, fr example, you have an 11x14 print of an image made with a super-wide-angle lens- well it is difficult to view it from2 or 3 inches away. Sometimes the math wors but the eyeballs don't.

Another consideration is that billboard and most printed matter is lithographically reproduced that he PPI and the DPI may be different. I just ask the printer what kinda file they want and leave the rest to them.

I always like to know exactly what the final usage of any image will be so I can plan the shoot accordingly. Sometimes when dealing with large corporations and government bureaucracies the information does no come down the pipeline clearly or they decide to use an image from a previous assignment that is not a good fit. Let's just say that a 25-inch cupcake may look appetizing on a highway billboard but in a poster on a subway platform where folks can walk right up to it, it's kinda grotesque. A head and shoulders portrait is nice on the annual report but in a 30x40 boardroom portrait-well- ever the images of Mao Zedong at Tiananmen Square displayed in a mausoleum on the plaza.

As usual, E.L., very interesting. Using your approach, what happens when, as in the image that brought all this up for me, I shoot with a 105mm lens on a full-frame camera, and get a little close but not very, so that the material being photographed is about 10" x 15" and relatively flat - a bunch of leaves on the ground - and I view it at slightly larger than life-size, say 12" x 18", almost full screen on my 27" iMac. At what distance do you imagine I'm advised to look at it to see the whole thing "appropriately?"

Again, a friend saw the image one-way full screen and about 2 feet away, and very different when he viewed it significantly smaller.