Certainly I don't feel qualified to disagree. It does seem to that
the greatest "argh" producing behavior is people putting their hands
on fine prints and staining them. They have to be close to do that
and one reason unprotected art is roped off in museums. One may
expect that 3-4 feet is the expected viewing distance, but people
don't pay attention to expectations. Really, I suspect they approach
it as closely as they can to get something more out of it and then
they back up to take in the whole. I tend to do that myself and am
pleased with a lot of fine resolution up close.
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Oct 23, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 250-300 ppi seems to be embedded in peoples
> brains as a hard and fast requirement for any print. I don't know why
> because 'taint so. The requirement is based on the resolving power
> of a
> good human eye (as is the DOF table) but it's only valid for a normal
> reading distance.
>
> Remember the 24x36 portrait done with a D30 that I mentioned the other
> day? The resolution of that image is only 60 ppi. If you inspect
> it at
> normal reading distance you can see the pixellation. But that doesn't
> change the fact that it looks great at 3-4 feet away which is how it's
> meant to be viewed.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|