I am aware that color gamut, calibration, true 10 bit vs 8 bit+FRC, etc are the primary considerations when selecting a monitor, and that resolution is generally considered a secondary concern.
That being said what are the pros and cons of 2k vs 4k on a 27 inch screen?
I understand that the image appears sharper and crisper on a 4k 27 inch screen, so how does this affect;
1) sharpening for printing on my Epson P800 inkjet
2) retouching portraits
3) masking in Lightroom and Photoshop
It would seem to me that with a 4k screen I would be able to zoom in more on an image, without having it pixelate, and thus make retouching etc easier?
I understand the "side effects " of a 4k screen on the UI, previews, performance, etc.
How does it affect my workflow, sharpening, retouching etc?
What if any, does the raw file size i.e. camera resolution matter? Is a 4k screen better for image editing on larger raw files (9504 x 6336)?
Any advantage when using high resolution cameras?
I understand that the UI on 4K can be more difficult to read due to scaling issues, although this is apparently less of a problem with Windows based PC's, which is what I use.
Does the ability to zoom in more say to 150% or 200% for retouching and not have the image break up make a 4k monitor a better choice?
For starters you need to understand that higher resolution means lower magnification and lower resolution means higher magnification, assuming that both monitors are at 1:1 magnification (1 image pixel = 1 monitor pixel). I believe this is opposite of what you are saying. The most you can zoom into an image without creating interpolated data (extra pixels that are not part of your file) is 100%.
For me that means easier editing of small details on a 2K monitor because the pixels and thus those details are larger and easier to see. If you make a detail look good at 1:1 on a 2K monitor it'll be perfect in print.
This also means a 4K monitor can provide nicer viewing of finished images. The higher resolution of a 4K monitor is more like a printed image, but still significantly lower resolution than a typical print.
What I'm saying is that IMO a 2K monitor is better for editing images and a 4K monitor produces better "crisper" viewing because it's less magnified. Prints are even less magnified than 4K, which makes them "crisper" still. Essentially the 2K monitor puts the image under maximum magnification, given all of the same settings in your editing program.
If you edit at 1:1 magnification on a 2K monitor each pixel you see comes directly from your image. To get the same visual size on a 4K monitor you need to zoom in beyond 100%, which means each image pixel creates more than one pixel on the monitor. In other words, the monitor image no longer reflects exactly what's in the file. There's interpolation involved to create those extra pixels. When you're editing at 150% or 200%, you see data that is not part of your image. You can't edit what's not there.
Because the 4K monitor magnifies the image less, you can fit more of a high resolution image on the monitor at once at any given magnification (like 1:1). That means you don't need to pan around as much, but less magnification also means the details you want to edit will be smaller.
FWIW, I edit 9504 x 6336 pixel images all the time on a 2K monitor.
I'm not trying to sell 2K monitors, and the above is really nit picking. Lots of people use 4K monitors to both edit and view images and there's no doubt you can do a great job and get great output using 4K. If you edit video using a 4K monitor is a given. But, if the goal is strictly editing files for printed output I still prefer a high quality 2K monitor.
Agree 100%.
From a purely technical point of view, a 27" 2K monitor is preferable in terms of preparing files for printing.
95-100 dpi is the optimal pixel density for editing. Therefore, you can use larger monitors assuming you maintain that density (e.g., 30" and 2.5K).
Additional info here: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170108_2112-choosing-pro-display.html
fsphoto wrote:
I am looking for a new 27 inch monitor .
I am aware that color gamut, calibration, true 10 bit vs 8 bit+FRC, etc are the primary considerations when selecting a monitor, and that resolution is generally considered a secondary concern.
That being said what are the pros and cons of 2k vs 4k on a 27 inch screen?
I understand that the image appears sharper and crisper on a 4k 27 inch screen, so how does this affect;
1) sharpening for printing on my Epson P800 inkjet
2) retouching portraits
3) masking in Lightroom and Photoshop
It would seem to me that with a 4k screen I would be able to zoom in more on an image, without having it pixelate, and thus make retouching etc easier?
I understand the "side effects " of a 4k screen on the UI, previews, performance, etc.
How does it affect my workflow, sharpening, retouching etc?
What if any, does the raw file size i.e. camera resolution matter? Is a 4k screen better for image editing on larger raw files (9504 x 6336)?
Any advantage when using high resolution cameras?
I understand that the UI on 4K can be more difficult to read due to scaling issues, although this is apparently less of a problem with Windows based PC's, which is what I use.
Does the ability to zoom in more say to 150% or 200% for retouching and not have the image break up make a 4k monitor a better choice? ...Show more →
Scaling of older programs that are not designed for high-res displays is still a major problem in Windows unless you like the tiny or blurry. At a pixel level a lower-res display like 2560x1440 is better for editing, but any display can work if you get used to mapping mentally to your output. I'm a Pixel Peoper so I like the 2560x at 27' for image editing and for the older programs. For viewing I prefer 4K or more at 32' size. If I had the visual accommodation of my youth I'd be more flexible. I would not get a 4K in the 27' size.
dmcphoto wrote:
For starters you need to understand that higher resolution means lower magnification and lower resolution means higher magnification, assuming that both monitors are at 1:1 magnification (1 image pixel = 1 monitor pixel). I believe this is opposite of what you are saying. The most you can zoom into an image without creating interpolated data (extra pixels that are not part of your file) is 100%.
For me that means easier editing of small details on a 2K monitor because the pixels and thus those details are larger and easier to see. If you make a detail look good at 1:1 on a 2K monitor it'll be perfect in print.
This also means a 4K monitor can provide nicer viewing of finished images. The higher resolution of a 4K monitor is more like a printed image, but still significantly lower resolution than a typical print.
What I'm saying is that IMO a 2K monitor is better for editing images and a 4K monitor produces better "crisper" viewing because it's less magnified. Prints are even less magnified than 4K, which makes them "crisper" still. Essentially the 2K monitor puts the image under maximum magnification, given all of the same settings in your editing program.
If you edit at 1:1 magnification on a 2K monitor each pixel you see comes directly from your image. To get the same visual size on a 4K monitor you need to zoom in beyond 100%, which means each image pixel creates more than one pixel on the monitor. In other words, the monitor image no longer reflects exactly what's in the file. There's interpolation involved to create those extra pixels. When you're editing at 150% or 200%, you see data that is not part of your image. You can't edit what's not there.
Because the 4K monitor magnifies the image less, you can fit more of a high resolution image on the monitor at once at any given magnification (like 1:1). That means you don't need to pan around as much, but less magnification also means the details you want to edit will be smaller.
FWIW, I edit 9504 x 6336 pixel images all the time on a 2K monitor.
I'm not trying to sell 2K monitors, and the above is really nit picking. Lots of people use 4K monitors to both edit and view images and there's no doubt you can do a great job and get great output using 4K. If you edit video using a 4K monitor is a given. But, if the goal is strictly editing files for printed output I still prefer a high quality 2K monitor.
Ripolini wrote:
Agree 100%.
From a purely technical point of view, a 27" 2K monitor is preferable in terms of preparing files for printing.
95-100 dpi is the optimal pixel density for editing. Therefore, you can use larger monitors assuming you maintain that density (e.g., 30" and 2.5K).
Additional info here: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2017/20170108_2112-choosing-pro-display.html
EB-1 wrote:
Scaling of older programs that are not designed for high-res displays is still a major problem in Windows unless you like the tiny or blurry. At a pixel level a lower-res display like 2560x1440 is better for editing, but any display can work if you get used to mapping mentally to your output. I'm a Pixel Peoper so I like the 2560x at 27' for image editing and for the older programs. For viewing I prefer 4K or more at 32' size. If I had the visual accommodation of my youth I'd be more flexible. I would not get a 4K in the 27' size.
Thank you for your advice.
You raise an interesting issue as far as the user's visual acuity being a factor.
That is something I will have to consider.
dmcphoto wrote:
........
If you edit at 1:1 magnification on a 2K monitor each pixel you see comes directly from your image. To get the same visual size on a 4K monitor you need to zoom in beyond 100%, which means each image pixel creates more than one pixel on the monitor. In other words, the monitor image no longer reflects exactly what's in the file. There's interpolation involved to create those extra pixels. When you're editing at 150% or 200%, you see data that is not part of your image. You can't edit what's not there.
...........
It is often stated that high res displays result in interpolation of image data. I use LrC and that is not true. If you view the image at 100%, the image is displayed with one display pixel per image pixel. If I select 200%, the image is displayed with 2x2 blocks of display pixels per image pixel. If you select 1600% the image is displayed with 16x16 blocks of display pixels which is easy to see. No interpolation. No extra pixels. No data that is not part of your image.
If you look at the zoom options in LrC, they are always integers at 100% or higher (i.e. blocks of pixels are displayed) or an integer fraction at less than 100% (pixels are skipped). No interpolation.
This means with a 2K display you can see 2K (100%) or 720P (200%) or 4K (66%).
With a 4K display you can see 4K (100%), 1K (200%) or 5760x3240 (66%).
A better reason to prefer one display resolution over another is the match to the users visual acuity. For most people a 27" 4K display exceeds their visual acuity for continuous tone images (e.g. photographs), but looks a bit better for graphics (e.g. text). 2K is a better match for most people. The problem is that most people claim their visual acuity is better than it is, so you see lots of claims about 4K and 5K displays, even 6K, that are somewhat silly. If you believe what you see in photo forums, you would conclude most photographers have 20/10 vision.
Ideally, you will see every individual image pixel on your screen. In nearly but not all cases you'll want to see them without actually noticing them. That inherently also means without noticing the gaps between them. Back in the day it was possible, even easy, to see the shape of LCD or LED screen pixels, and see gaps between pixels, all without a magnifying glass - if your vision was good enough. It was then harder to distinguish image sharpness from LCD or LED sharpness.
With modern screens and/or better quality screens, those gaps and boundaries are harder to notice without a magnifying glass but they are still there. Prove it for yourself quite easily with a magnifying glass, or a macro lens on a camera. Some people such as myself can see that stuff better than others can. That ability won't show up in standard eye tests because such tests are based on what you can resolve at a distance of 20 feet. Not 30 feet. Not 40 feet. Not 20 inches. And not on a pixelated digital screen. And never with half-tones; just black and a low-brightness "white" bordering on sepia (low wattage incandescent lighting).
Said ability is a drawback for editing digital pictures on an LCD or LED screen, but is remedied by using a higher quality and higher dpi screen (regardless of pixels per screen width). Hint: A modern 4k Eizo CS or CG 27" screen is wonderful.
I don't accept the notion that editing at 160ppi is worse than editing at 90ppi for something that will very likely be printed at 300-600ppi. Especially not on a good monitor. That's because for me it just is not true. But hey, everyone is a at least a little bit different, so I am not insisting that it cannot be true.
My strong advice would be that anyone who really appreciates good image quality for editing and/or just for display should sit down in front of an Eizo CS or CG monitor at a camera / computer shop and use either Photoshop or Lightroom Classic to view some "known" pictures at 1:1. Prepare to be impressed. But why use those Adobe programs? Because they show the pictures at the actual monitor dpi, pixel for pixel. A lot of other software will adapt to changes in magnigication but they are letting the operating apply its own scaling as well, so even "100%" or "1:1" view is actually being scaled (= altered). The Adobe software uses the actual screen dpi without letting OS dpi or magnification settings affect the result; the images may look smaller or bigger than with other software, but you are actually getting 1 image pixel for each screen pixel.
By the way, it's for that reason that you should let the Adobe s/w scale its own user interface rather than let Windows do it.
And one more thing. Sometimes (often in my case) we just want to see pictures on-screen because we don't have a well-lit print or because we appreciate the more life-like brightness and dynamic range. And especially with higher megapixel photos, a good quality much-higher-than-90 dpi screen will do it better.
fsphoto wrote:
What if any, does the raw file size i.e. camera resolution matter? Is a 4k screen better for image editing on larger raw files (9504 x 6336)?
There'll always be arguments but consider this: 9504x6336 is so much bigger than every monitor that you might as well get whatever monitor that suits you; for everthing you use it for.
Any advantage when using high resolution cameras?
Once you've got more than about 6-8 Mpx pictures, the more screen pixels you have the more picture detail you can see at one time. To me that's an advantage but admittedly it's not the same as editing.
I understand that the UI on 4K can be more difficult to read due to scaling issues, although this is apparently less of a problem with Windows based PC's, which is what I use.
Most software writes to the operating system and lets the OS write to the screen. Adobe Ps and LrC software does its own interface scaling so you can benefit from its own internal screen writing that bypasses Windows. That doesn't help with other software. Even so, the higher the screen resolution - no scratch that, the higher the screen dpi - the less obvious the adverse effects of the OS are if you're at a sensible viewing distance.
Does the ability to zoom in more say to 150% or 200% for retouching and not have the image break up make a 4k monitor a better choice?
Let's face it, that will vary with the retouching.
My experience with such intricate editing is limited but I have found that my images are usually falling apart before I get to that level. e.g. because I could not get close enough to the subject, or because boundaries within the image are blurred due to DOF, or because the signal to noise ratio is too low because there wasn't enough light, etc. However, if none of those things apply then I can't see why being able to zoom in would be a drawback - you're not forced to use it but can if you want to.
Other factors come into play too with higher resolution. Most notably, it often involves a bigger screen without a significantly higher dpi. That, for me, is no good because it's harder to fit the same portion of the screen image in my field of view without pushing the monitor further away. That in turn is counter productive because it achieves pretty much nothing and costs me a bigger desk. I generally want higher dpi rather than a bigger screen. 27" is ample for me in a 16:9 ratio whereas 24" was not.
What I really, really want is a 4:3 ratio 29" screen so I can get some height in displayed images at my present viewing distance, but some dummies have decided that we don't need screen height - just look at all that width
dclark wrote:
It is often stated that high res displays result in interpolation of image data. I use LrC and that is not true. If you view the image at 100%, the image is displayed with one display pixel per image pixel. If I select 200%, the image is displayed with 2x2 blocks of display pixels per image pixel. If you select 1600% the image is displayed with 16x16 blocks of display pixels which is easy to see. No interpolation. No extra pixels. No data that is not part of your image.
If you look at the zoom options in LrC, they are always integers at 100% or higher (i.e. blocks of pixels are displayed) or an integer fraction at less than 100% (pixels are skipped). No interpolation.
This means with a 2K display you can see 2K (100%) or 720P (200%) or 4K (66%).
With a 4K display you can see 4K (100%), 1K (200%) or 5760x3240 (66%).
A better reason to prefer one display resolution over another is the match to the users visual acuity. For most people a 27" 4K display exceeds their visual acuity for continuous tone images (e.g. photographs), but looks a bit better for graphics (e.g. text). 2K is a better match for most people. The problem is that most people claim their visual acuity is better than it is, so you see lots of claims about 4K and 5K displays, even 6K, that are somewhat silly. If you believe what you see in photo forums, you would conclude most photographers have 20/10 vision. ...Show more →
Thank you for your help.
I appreciate your time and effort!
Alan321 wrote:
Ideally, you will see every individual image pixel on your screen. In nearly but not all cases you'll want to see them without actually noticing them. That inherently also means without noticing the gaps between them. Back in the day it was possible, even easy, to see the shape of LCD or LED screen pixels, and see gaps between pixels, all without a magnifying glass - if your vision was good enough. It was then harder to distinguish image sharpness from LCD or LED sharpness.
With modern screens and/or better quality screens, those gaps and boundaries are harder to notice without a magnifying glass but they are still there. Prove it for yourself quite easily with a magnifying glass, or a macro lens on a camera. Some people such as myself can see that stuff better than others can. That ability won't show up in standard eye tests because such tests are based on what you can resolve at a distance of 20 feet. Not 30 feet. Not 40 feet. Not 20 inches. And not on a pixelated digital screen. And never with half-tones; just black and a low-brightness "white" bordering on sepia (low wattage incandescent lighting).
Said ability is a drawback for editing digital pictures on an LCD or LED screen, but is remedied by using a higher quality and higher dpi screen (regardless of pixels per screen width). Hint: A modern 4k Eizo CS or CG 27" screen is wonderful.
I don't accept the notion that editing at 160ppi is worse than editing at 90ppi for something that will very likely be printed at 300-600ppi. Especially not on a good monitor. That's because for me it just is not true. But hey, everyone is a at least a little bit different, so I am not insisting that it cannot be true.
My strong advice would be that anyone who really appreciates good image quality for editing and/or just for display should sit down in front of an Eizo CS or CG monitor at a camera / computer shop and use either Photoshop or Lightroom Classic to view some "known" pictures at 1:1. Prepare to be impressed. But why use those Adobe programs? Because they show the pictures at the actual monitor dpi, pixel for pixel. A lot of other software will adapt to changes in magnigication but they are letting the operating apply its own scaling as well, so even "100%" or "1:1" view is actually being scaled (= altered). The Adobe software uses the actual screen dpi without letting OS dpi or magnification settings affect the result; the images may look smaller or bigger than with other software, but you are actually getting 1 image pixel for each screen pixel.
By the way, it's for that reason that you should let the Adobe s/w scale its own user interface rather than let Windows do it.
And one more thing. Sometimes (often in my case) we just want to see pictures on-screen because we don't have a well-lit print or because we appreciate the more life-like brightness and dynamic range. And especially with higher megapixel photos, a good quality much-higher-than-90 dpi screen will do it better. ...Show more →
I appreciate your time and the information you so clearly explained.
Thank you.
