At 08:53 PM 10/23/2007, Winsor Crosby wrote:
>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.
My viewing habits are (I think) similar to yours Winsor. I'm first
attracted by the subject/composition but after that I like to see
fine details that "tickle" my eyes and draw me up close to examine
them. If the fine details aren't there I feel that I haven't had a
complete viewing experience - you might even say that I feel cheated
in a way or at least disappointed. With my current camera I can
print 13"x19" at ~240 ppi but I sure would like to try larger prints
at a higher density. But, I'm a landscape type person and could care
less about people pictures where too many details can certainly be a bad thing.
Later,
Johnny
__________________________
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
mailto:jjohnso4@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|