Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2008-01-15 by namibiajohnston
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. Thanks, Chris
2008-01-15 by Bruce Watson
One practice, and there are many, is to hang prints so that at eye height, whatever you decide that to be, about 2/3 of the image is below eye height and 1/3 above. When I do this I tend to want more of a 3/4 1/4 ratio. I also tend to hand the smallest print I have like this and then line up the tops of the frames for the rest. Having the tops of the frames all the same and all level makes a very nice presentation and is visually relaxing. -- Bruce Watson namibiajohnston 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. > > Thanks, > > Chris
2008-01-15 by pr_roark
> One practice ... is to hang prints so that at eye > height, whatever you decide that to be, about > 2/3 of the image is below eye height and 1/3 above. ... I recall reading once in Kodak materials that people prefer looking down at a 15 degree angle. So, this sounds consistent with that finding. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2008-01-15 by Charlie Thomson
What light intensity is required? CLT
----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Watson To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ideal viewing height One practice, and there are many, is to hang prints so that at eye height, whatever you decide that to be, about 2/3 of the image is below eye height and 1/3 above. When I do this I tend to want more of a 3/4 1/4 ratio. I also tend to hand the smallest print I have like this and then line up the tops of the frames for the rest. Having the tops of the frames all the same and all level makes a very nice presentation and is visually relaxing. -- Bruce Watson namibiajohnston 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. > > Thanks, > > Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1223 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 8:23 PM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-15 by Bruce Watson
It's sort of "light to taste" more or less. 50-75W spots from about a meter away would be plenty I suspect. Of more importance will be the angle. Need to keep the lights at relatively steep angles (30 degrees or so) so you don't reflect into people's eyes, while not making the shadows the frame throws too big. -- Bruce Watson Charlie Thomson wrote:
> What light intensity is required? > > CLT > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bruce Watson > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:06 AM > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Ideal viewing height > > > One practice, and there are many, is to hang prints so that at eye > height, whatever you decide that to be, about 2/3 of the image is below > eye height and 1/3 above. When I do this I tend to want more of a 3/4 > 1/4 ratio. I also tend to hand the smallest print I have like this and > then line up the tops of the frames for the rest. Having the tops of the > frames all the same and all level makes a very nice presentation and is > visually relaxing. > -- > Bruce Watson > > namibiajohnston 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. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris > > >
2008-01-15 by David Emerick
> 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@smcm.edu http://staff.smcm.edu/dnemerick/ http://emerick.blogspot.com http://smcmlibrary.blogspot.com
2008-01-15 by Brian Wall
According to Deborah Klochko, the Director of the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego, the standard is 58 inches (center of frame) but some prefer 56 inches. From an article on The Art of Exhibition. http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2008/jan- feb/exhibitions.shtml Thx, Brian --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "namibiajohnston" <chris@...> 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. > > Thanks, > > Chris >
2008-01-15 by Brad Smith
Brian I get an error on the link. On Jan 15, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Brian Wall wrote: > According to Deborah Klochko, the Director of the Museum of > Photographic Arts in San Diego, the standard is 58 inches (center of > frame) but some prefer 56 inches. From an article on The Art of > Exhibition. > > http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/2008/jan- > feb/exhibitions.shtml > > Thx, Brian > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2008-01-16 by Tony Sleep
On 15/01/2008 Brad Smith wrote: > Brian > I get an error on the link. Linewrap issues. Use http://tinyurl.com/2629jt instead. -- Regards Tony Sleep http://tonysleep.co.uk
2008-01-16 by Bruce Watson
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 60\ufffd on center. This is the National Gallery Standard height, the > average height of the viewer\ufffds 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 >
2008-01-16 by caostebbins
Dear Chris, Here's another perspective on print height. Minor White used to say "hang them at heart level." The 56"-60" range that others have mentioned that the National Gallery and commercial galleries use helps me understand why I have such a difficult time viewing prints (especially up close with my bifocal glasses). Never has the right feel. Christy P.S. Your question begs me to ask another one, however, which will impact us all, and that is the viewing light. When galleries and clients shift to fluorescents, what will take the place of our 5000K standard? --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "namibiajohnston" <chris@...> 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. > > Thanks, > > Chris >
2008-01-16 by Robert Lee
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 > > >
2008-01-16 by Harold Jackson
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]2008-01-16 by David Emerick
I thought that this discussion was about standards. Which is why I quoted the National Gallery standard. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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
2008-01-16 by Harold Jackson
Which is exactly what I was agreeing with! Certainly they have some experience in understanding what the ideal veiwing height is. Seems like a good idea to follow their lead.
David Emerick <dnemerick@...> wrote: I thought that this discussion was about standards.
Which is why I quoted the National Gallery standard.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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]2008-01-16 by Sam McCandless
On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Harold Jackson 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. Would a Museum's experience be relevant? Since this thread was begun, I tuned in late to a PBS TV program on the makeover of "the DMI". (While I watched, the "D" was never decoded, but enough was said about the DMI's urban setting to make me think it must be Detroit.) In any case, what the DMI did in the way of pre-makeover homework was to film and analyze the behavior of the Museum's visitors - where they stood in relation to the works, how they examined them, how long, etc., etc. And as a result, they went around the Museum and lowered all the works by a few inches. (I think it was three.) By what standard they had been hung in the first place wasn't revealed. But it is interesting that a standard set by close observation and analysis of human behavior can differ from whatever the conventional wisdom was by enough to justify adjusting a whole museum's display. -- Sam
2008-01-17 by Robert Lee
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] >