Why do some displayed images, whether analog or digital, presented on digital screens or printed photographic paper, matted and framed, seem to work, and others don’t?
Years ago, at a Leica exhibition, I saw a Henri Cartier Bresson photo that stopped me dead in my tracks. It was a great image. But it had some magic.
Without getting technical and giving away the secret, let’s say it had perfect perspective. At an arm length from the museum print, it was perfect. It looked perfect. And my subconscious mind understood it immediately.
I mention this because I’m switching my rig around a bit. Switching lenses on two of my heavyweight cameras, my D2s. One is a 4MP the other 12MP. As I photograph with intent to print and display at three feet away, it seems the apparent 75mm focal length lens is best suited for the higher resolution camera, while the 50mm apparent to the lower. A 6”x9” print viewed 3 feet away will make objects appear just a tiny fraction further away than they did in real life. It provides a highly natural, comfortable field of view. And 6x9” is doable with 4MP.
All the while, the 75mm will look great on a 12x8,” again quite doable with 12MP, as this size brings the image very close to perfect perspective alignment. At 3 feet away, the magnification will look incredibly true-to-life for a portrait-length field of view.
The science as to why it works is not particularly difficult to understand, but I certainly can’t express it well. And I imagine, it interests far less people than I imagine, but I’m curious….
What medium sizes, lens combinations and print sizes have worked for you displaying photos in a museum or hall setting?
At the store today, I saw a 100” wide screen TV. Seems that many of us consider bigger is always better. That’s not what I’m talking about here. Quite the opposite.
Large images are great to view. But most don’t attempt to reflect a pleasing, and comfortable natural perspective.
Besides, Bresson taught me with his, a huge, large image, at a meter away, is certainly not necessary.
Any thoughts?
Years ago, at a Leica exhibition, I saw a Henri Cartier Bresson photo that stopped me dead in my tracks. It was a great image. But it had some magic.
Without getting technical and giving away the secret, let’s say it had perfect perspective. At an arm length from the museum print, it was perfect. It looked perfect. And my subconscious mind understood it immediately.
I mention this because I’m switching my rig around a bit. Switching lenses on two of my heavyweight cameras, my D2s. One is a 4MP the other 12MP. As I photograph with intent to print and display at three feet away, it seems the apparent 75mm focal length lens is best suited for the higher resolution camera, while the 50mm apparent to the lower. A 6”x9” print viewed 3 feet away will make objects appear just a tiny fraction further away than they did in real life. It provides a highly natural, comfortable field of view. And 6x9” is doable with 4MP.
All the while, the 75mm will look great on a 12x8,” again quite doable with 12MP, as this size brings the image very close to perfect perspective alignment. At 3 feet away, the magnification will look incredibly true-to-life for a portrait-length field of view.
The science as to why it works is not particularly difficult to understand, but I certainly can’t express it well. And I imagine, it interests far less people than I imagine, but I’m curious….
What medium sizes, lens combinations and print sizes have worked for you displaying photos in a museum or hall setting?
At the store today, I saw a 100” wide screen TV. Seems that many of us consider bigger is always better. That’s not what I’m talking about here. Quite the opposite.
Large images are great to view. But most don’t attempt to reflect a pleasing, and comfortable natural perspective.
Besides, Bresson taught me with his, a huge, large image, at a meter away, is certainly not necessary.
Any thoughts?
