> But what is a standard print size? Is it 8x10, as once was said? I don't
> know anyone that makes that size now. How about 2, 3, or 4R? That was
> standard in the fifties. Perhaps it should relate to the screen on an
> iphone, or an average monitor size today.
Actually, I think it still applies. The small prints were handheld or
placed into albums. As a general rule, they were viewed pretty close.
The larger prints held a little farther away. This also applies to
television sets. The bigger the screen, the farther people sit from
it. The emperical evidence shows that the vast majority will settle in
about 5X screen height. (4-8X screen height encompasses all but the
fringe of people who are probably blind to begin with).
My point is, that even though 8x10 is no longer a popular print size,
the optical traits regarding it (as well as the rules regarding DoF
which are output-based) still apply to images of other sizes. Look at
the angle-of-coverage of a handheld 8x10 print and you'll see that
this angle-of-coverage holds pretty true regardless of print size.
(same as that television screen height--the larger the screen, the
more people will push their chairs back across the room).
When you increase the angle-of-coverage of a viewed print, by moving
the viewer closer to the print or by making the print larger while
keeping the viewer in the same position, a picture taken with a
wider-angle lens will appear more proper. If you decrease the
effective print size, then a telephoto lens picture will appear more
proper.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|