Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Jack,Excellent Asher! You've raised a very salient point -- that we don't have the brush-strokes of the masters to appreciate as we move in, and we do need something, so what we have at our disposal is more detail.
That said, do we thusly 'move in' to critical (8"?) viewing distance for *every* image regardless of size? If so, then maximum print size becomes directly dependent on pixel count. Or are we more inclined to move into larger prints in some non-linear fashion, and if so, at what size do we start keeping our distance so to speak? In which case we have a non-linear need for increased sensor resolution as print size increases...
I think we are now dealing with something that might separate a lot of art from just pictures. I believe that art, at it's best, lives independently of the artist. The massive photograph, however, is quickly changed and seen less than what it must be if one breaks through the aura of the pictures "being". So when one is faced with the same grain or digital dots one sees on any other print, the uniqueness is lost and the spell broken.
Living things maintain their character on close presence. So detail in a print is our only defense.
Asher