Re: viewing distance and resolutions

[Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@xxxxxxx>]

I don't disagree. It makes little to no sense to process an image with a 
resolution beyond what is required for the viewing setting.

People who go around with loupes at photo openings, should be hung by 
the string around their necks ;-)

Art

byard pidgeon wrote:

> Sharpness and perfect and so on...isn't it really the viewing distance and
> purpose of the image that determine our subjective response in terms of how
> sharp or perfect the image is?
> 
> I don't think I've ever been able to discern the dithering pattern on a
> billboard while driving past at even 25 mph (although I can if I'm stopped
> near one at a light), so for that application, the print is sharp and
> perfect.
> 
> In a gallery setting or on a page, we want something different in terms of
> sharpness...unless the intent of the maker is to call attention to grain or
> printing patterns.
> 
> Regardless of the optics/physics/etc., the subjective maker of the image and
> the subjective viewer will ultimately decide whether an image is
> perfect...isn't non-subjective perfection imposssible to acheive?
> 
> on 06/13/2002 11:59 PM, Arthur Entlich at artistic-1@shaw.ca wrote:
> 
> 
>>Like 2.5 kilometers away ? :-)
>>
>>Art
>>
>>Jerry Olson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have seen many a billboard printed from 35mm and they are extremely
>>>sharp, when viewd from the proper viewing distance!
>>>
>>>Jerry
>>>


-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.