[pure-silver] Re: Practical print sizes
- From: kironkid@xxxxxxx
- To: jbrugger@xxxxxxxx, pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:27:55 -0500 (EST)
And I can assume that your print of Ghostwind is lining the bird cage?
Russ
Even so, I have a great big print of Erwitt's "Wyoming USA 1954" hanging
over the computer desk and really really enjoy it.
I do have a lot of respect for R. Knoppow, who knows more about
photography than all of photo.net combined.
Joe in Portland
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Brugger <jbrugger@xxxxxxxx>
To: kironkid <kironkid@xxxxxxx>
Cc: walker.sue38 <walker.sue38@xxxxxxxxx>; speedgraphic
<speedgraphic@xxxxxxxxx>; mike Baynes <mbaynes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Mar 7, 2012 9:51 am
Subject: Re: [pure-silver] Practical print sizes
Although I would never, ever disagree with Russ, 'forcing the
viewer' sounds a lot like the people who say their X type of camera 'forces
them to think.' Viewers do what they will do. I often see people at the
art museum with their noses so close to paintings that the guards are
getting nervous.
But Russ is right in the sense that an 8x12 is probably a big enough
print for most photos in most homes. Even so, I have a great big print of
Erwitt's "Wyoming USA 1954" hanging over the computer desk and really really
enjoy it.
I do have a lot of respect for R. Knoppow, who knows more about
photography than all of photo.net combined.
Joe in Portland
On 3/7/2012 9:38 AM, kironkid@xxxxxxx wrote:
Personally, I see no reason to go above 8x10, 8x12, etc.
Bigger is not better. It also forces the viewer to get up close,
and actually look at the print.
Russ
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pure-silver <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue, Mar 6, 2012 5:28 pm
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Practical print sizes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Sinclair" <photo1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:16 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Practical print sizes
> Speedy,
>
> Many moons ago... (probably more moons to which I might
> be willing
> to admit), my mentor
> 'taught me' that the proper viewing distance (from which
> to view a
> print) was a function of
> focal length of the lens through which the negative was
> exposed,
> multiplied by the linear
> enlargement of that negative.
This is correct assuming no significant cropping and if
the desire is to have a viewing angle that is equal to the
camera's. This might be important for eliminating the
"distortion" of wide angle lenses, or it might be of no
importance. When the image on the retina of the eye is
large enough, and matches the viewing angle of the eye, the
effect can be nearly three-dimensional. OTOH, the purpose
of a photo is not always to be scientifically correct.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles
WB6KBL
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account
(the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
