Digital BW, The Print

I don't think it ever hurts to try to understand where the standards
come from. My point was that the standard jives with median eye
levels--that it isn't arbitrary. (This might have been clearer if I'd
used a more reasonable difference of 4-5 inches, rather than 6, for
height vs eye level, so I apologize for that goof.) 

Since height should have nothing to do with whether one goes to a
gallery or not, it is indeed reasonable to expect a height
distribution typical of the general population.

My own reasons and preference for slightly lower than the standard was
offered as just that--reasoned opinion, not some kind of competing
standard. Sorry if that was not clear.

Robert L

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Harold Jackson
<harold@...> wrote:
>
> I thought that this discussion was about standards.  If the median
height of men in this country is 69 inches, that means that half of
the men in the US are taller than 69 inches and half are shorter. 
Does that say anything about those most likely to attend a given
gallery opening?  Of course it doesn't?
>    
>   It just makes more sense to me to adopt the standard set by a
gallery that has put on thousands of shows and not try to make up  ad
hoc rules as we go along. If the viewing height is set to a standard,
most people will be comfortable but a few will not.  Such is life.  
> 
> Robert Lee <l33ry@...> wrote:
>           I think we'd all agree that ease of viewing for the most
people is the
> point, generally.
> 
> If you guys want to be scientific about it, here's some relevant data:
> 
> According to one table in wikipedia, the median height for US adults
> is just under 69 inches for men and 64 inches for women, putting
> median eye heights around, say, 63 and 58 inches, respectively. So 60
> inches more or less splits the difference. While that gets you into
> 20th percentile-ish territory for men, it is above the approximate eye
> height of 80% of women.
> 
> If it were up to me, I guess as a starting point I'd bias a few inches
> lower than 60 (whether by shifting and/or tilting (no pun
> intended)), both to minimize glare from typical lights/windows
> placement and to accomodate more people (assuming it's easier for
> taller people to move their eyes down than it is for shorter people to
> move theirs up). From there, adjust to taste and circumstance.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> - Robert L
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
> <bwyg@> wrote:
> >
> > I assure you that the average eye height in America is considerably
> more 
> > than 60 inches (5 feet). Yet, 60 inches on center is almost exactly 
> > where I hang my art. This puts 2/3 to 3/4 of the image below (my) eye 
> > height which is most relaxing and unobtrusive.
> > 
> > The point of all this is to make it easy to view the art after all.
> When 
> > art is hung well, one doesn't notice how it's hung, one only sees the 
> > art itself.
> > --
> > Bruce Watson
> > 
> > 
> > David Emerick wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> I don't think this is off topic, I am certain someone somewhere
> has quantififed this. Any thoughts on what the ideal viewing height
> range is for framed mounted prints in a gallery setting? Frames will
> be up to 30" x 20" or 750 x 500mm. I'm thnking there is a sweet spot
> from 45" to 80" or 1m10cm to 2m.
> > > Art is hung 60² on center. This is the National Gallery Standard
> height, the
> > > average height of the viewer¹s eye level.
> > >
> > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > >
> > > D A V I D E M E R I C K
> > > Digital Media Specialist
> > > St. Mary's College of Maryland
> > > dnemerick@
> > > http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/
> > > http://emerick.blogspot.com
> > > http://smcmlibrary.blogspot.com
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>                          
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>