Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Alan wrote: >Thanks for the responses about print enlargement size ... All understood except for the remark by Alf: >> Keep in mind also, that the size >> of your enlargement depends on the observer's distance. Alan, my remark is ambigious. What I meant: Usually it is necessary to perceive a picture as a total, even if you (later) look for details. So, you need to allow any observer to select his/her individual distance sensed as "pleasant" or "crresponding" to the picture's size. When you enlarge (and frame) i.e. onto 8x10, the observer usually has a chance to select distance him-/herself, because the picture is small enough. When you increase size, but don't allow the observer enough space to get the picture as a total with one glance, he/she will look at the details within the picture, or the grain etc, which is neither important (for the picture as a total) nor intended by you. On the other side, some type of pictures, pictures with many detail information, require a bigger enlargement than pictures with little detail information. For these, a 8x10 might be sensed as too small, but i.e. a 10.5 x 15 correct. In example, a face has comparable little detail information, while an object with importat but complicated structures (i.e. fractales, sorry no better example) has many detail information, meaning that a face basically doesn't need the same enlargement as a complicated structure. That's all ;) Alf - -------------------------------------------------- Alfred Breull http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm