Homepage » Tech News »

Does 4k Display Make A Difference On Photography

4 days ago23/06/2022-96 views

Most people are not even so using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

phouphou •

Contributing Member

• Posts: 760

Almost people are not nonetheless using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

Nov 18, 2022

I started a poll a few weeks dorsum about screen size and resolution: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64522491

Co-ordinate to my poll, nigh people on this site are not yet using 4K or college resolution displays, and that’s besides what bigger information statistics indicate: https://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/united-states-of-america

Plain WQHD (1440p) seems to be quite popular among users on this site and according to the chart beneath that i made about the resolution of the man-eye, WQHD should exist fine for working distances >80cm which is probably mutual. And so unless you get closer (as i do) 4K isnt’ really that important.

ppi vs min altitude to monitor (cm)

When i switched from 24″ FHD to 27″ 4K(UHD) i was suprised how much that impacted how i saw the quality of my photos. Some of my photos merely didn’t really await as good anymore from a technical point of view, simply because the photographic camera+lens didn’t meet the requirements of the high resolution display.

Galleries on DPR from lower quality systems and especially smartphones look really bad on my display now. Being a gearhead, i retrieve it has become alot easier to judge the quality of a photographic camera+lens on a 4K brandish. Did anyone have a similar experience (also on WQHD mabye)?

I detect information technology difficult to justify using a smartphone or junior camera+lens now that i know it will not be able to give me the results that i’m looking for, particularly when i’yard at a far away location during rare conditions. Back when using a FHD display i would’ve probably thought it was only fine..

Ricoh GR II

Sony a7 Two

Sony a7R II

Sony Fe 85mm F1.viii

Sony Iron 24-105mm F4

+12 more than

IanYorke •

Veteran Member

• Posts: 4,797

Re: Almost people are not yet using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

In respond to phouphou •

Nov 18, 2022

four

phouphou wrote:

I started a poll a few weeks back about screen size and resolution: https://world wide web.dpreview.com/forums/post/64522491

According to my poll, nearly people on this site are not yet using 4K or higher resolution displays, and that’s also what bigger data statistics indicate: https://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/united-states-of-america

Plain WQHD (1440p) seems to exist quite pop among users on this site and according to the nautical chart below that i made nearly the resolution of the human-eye, WQHD should exist fine for working distances >80cm which is probably mutual. So unless yous get closer (every bit i practice) 4K isnt’ really that important.

ppi vs min distance to monitor (cm)

When i switched from 24″ FHD to 27″ 4K(UHD) i was suprised how much that impacted how i saw the quality of my photos. Some of my photos only didn’t really look equally expert anymore from a technical point of view, just because the camera+lens didn’t meet the requirements of the high resolution display.

Galleries on DPR from lower quality systems and particularly smartphones expect really bad on my display now. Being a gearhead, i think information technology has go alot easier to judge the quality of a camera+lens on a 4K brandish. Did anyone have a similar feel (also on WQHD mabye)?

I find it hard to justify using a smartphone or inferior camera+lens now that i know it will not be able to give me the results that i’m looking for, especially when i’thousand at a far away location during rare atmospheric condition. Back when using a FHD display i would’ve probably thought it was just fine..

I think some of your observations are due to the 4K resolution and then viewing fixed pixel images like galleries etc and the images are also pocket-size. This photographer describes the issue and he switched from 4K to WQHD.

The new BenQ SW270C Lensman Monitor is better than a 4K one?

https://www.youtube.com/picket?v=0lChtLZhYug

4K at 32 inch gives a useful increase in screen existent manor but has its own problems:

Is A 32″ 4K Display Too Big for a Photographer? BenQ SW271 and SW320 4K Monitor Review

I flirted with a 27″ 4K but decided that 27″ 1440 gave me the optimum, as I simply do a small amount of video editing. Personal pick of course.

Ian

OP
phouphou •

Contributing Member

• Posts: 760

Re: Most people are not yet using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

In reply to IanYorke •

Nov xviii, 2022

IanYorke wrote:

I think some of your observations are due to the 4K resolution and then viewing fixed pixel images similar galleries etc and the images are too small. This photographer describes the effect and he switched from 4K to WQHD.

The new BenQ SW270C Photographer Monitor is better than a 4K one?

https://www.youtube.com/lookout man?v=0lChtLZhYug

The points the guy in the video is making are true for a professional workflow. My non-professional person workflow has actually been slightly slowed downward by 4K! He says hes editing for web-use and i dont do that. I edit for myself and family and like to await at my photos on a state of the art displays that fully exploits the quality of the images. My monitor has to be in line with the quality of the gear i use (FF+good lenses). I similar to pixel peep and with 4K i tin get close and savour tons and tons of details in my mural photos.

4K at 32 inch gives a useful increase in screen real estate but has its own problems:

Is A 32″ 4K Display Too Big for a Photographer? BenQ SW271 and SW320 4K Monitor Review

I flirted with a 27″ 4K simply decided that 27″ 1440 gave me the optimum, equally I just exercise a small amount of video editing. Personal choice of course.

Ian

Im in line with that video, the most important gene is viewing distance. The screen size and resolution has to fit your setup and workflow. And if you lot need a smoothen workflow for your (professional) workflow, i think the software ist not withal working well plenty on 4K (as in: not using todays hardware to its full potential).

Ricoh GR II

Sony a7 II

Sony a7R 2

Sony FE 85mm F1.8

Sony Iron 24-105mm F4

+12 more

RDKirk •

Forum Pro

• Posts: xvi,194

Re: Almost people are non yet using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

In reply to phouphou •

Nov eighteen, 2022

It seems you’ve answered your ain question in both your posts.

“Most people” are interested in pictures that look good in the modes they and their audition view them.

— hibernate signature —

RDKirk
‘TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.’

Catechism EOS 5D Mark II

Catechism EOS 70D

Canon EOS 5DS R

Canon EOS 80D

Canon EF 24mm f/2.8

+7 more

OP
phouphou •

Contributing Member

• Posts: 760

Re: Almost people are not yet using 4K! Practice they know they are missing out?

In reply to RDKirk •

Nov 18, 2022

this topic is probably merely interesting for enthusiasts. Overall i think the amount of people that tried 4K and found it did not help their workflow and and then went back to lower res is very low, even among pros. I recollect many people dont want to invest $500+ on a decent brandish and rather invest in a new lens, which i will never understand (unless youre a professional).

I call back nearly people, me included have/had no thought how great photos do expect in 4K, if the camera equipment can handle it.

I still use a FHD 14″ laptop and it really has a comparable pixel density (157ppi) equally my new 27″ 4K monitor (163ppi), so before i bought the new display i really had an impression of the sharpness a 4K monitor would give me. I enjoyed it and so much i actually liked looking at my photos more on the tiny brandish than my older 24″ FHD display (90ppi).

Just exercise people (enthusiasts) that are still using FHD displays know what they are missing? I’m actually non sure. I surely didn’t wait the impact a 4k monitor would have on the impression that i have now of the (technical) quality of my photos (good and bad).

Ricoh GR 2

Sony a7 II

Sony a7R Two

Sony Iron 85mm F1.eight

Sony Iron 24-105mm F4

+12 more than

Re: Most people are not even so using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

In reply to phouphou •

November 18, 2022

ane

phouphou wrote:

this topic is probably merely interesting for enthusiasts. Overall i think the corporeality of people that tried 4K and found it did not assistance their workflow and then went dorsum to lower res is very low. I think many people dont want to invest $500+ on a decent display and rather invest in a new lens, which i will never empathise.

I call back most people, me included have/had no idea how nifty photos practise await in 4K, if the photographic camera equipment can handle information technology.

I used a FHD xiv” laptop for a long time and information technology actually has a comparable pixel density (157ppi) as my new 27″ 4K monitor (163ppi), so before i bought the new display i actually had an impression of the resolution a 4K monitor would give me. I enjoyed it so much i actually liked looking at my photos more on the tiny display than my older 24″ FHD brandish (90ppi).

Simply do people (enthousiasts) that are nevertheless using FHD displays know what they are missing? I’thou really not sure. I surely didn’t expect the touch on a 4k monitor would have on the impression i had of the technical quality of my photos

4K is a measure of quantity
not
quality.

Quality, depending on the definition, has many components of which 4K (or any other resolution numeral) is a small part).

To give your comments some credibility first define the parameters for your definition of quality. Nosotros can then define whether nosotros are discussing resolution or quality.

-rs-

Re: Well-nigh people are not yet using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

In reply to RDKirk •

Nov xviii, 2022

RDKirk wrote:

Information technology seems y’all’ve answered your own question in both your posts.

I missed the chip where he answered his own question, unless yous think the implication is that he means “no”, they don’t know what they’re missing!

“Nearly people” are interested in pictures that look skilful in the modes they and their audience view them.

In which instance, I wonder why they have pictures on 40Mpixel cameras and view them on 2Mpixel screens?

I take only 6/6 vision (or xx/20 on the left of the Atlantic), which is “standard” vision, nothing special, and I can clearly see the improve resolution both in images and especially text in 4k at 27 inch.

— hide signature —

Simon

OP
phouphou •

Contributing Member

• Posts: 760

Re: Most people are not yet using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

To give your comments some credibility get-go define the parameters for your definition of quality. We can then ascertain whether we are discussing resolution or quality.

-rs-

I’g a gearhead, probably more than a photographer. I enjoy technical perfection, so for example an image of a hi-detail landscape scene that i can get close to and enjoy small details, maybe even new ones every time i come back to look at it, that would be the definition of a photo of hi quality. A smartphone for example will give me watercolor artefacts when i get close, not details.

So i would gauge quality either on a how-do-you-do-res display or a big art-print. The latter is very expensive, so i’ll stick to a 4K+ brandish (one time investment).

I remember standing in a gallery 10yrs ago being awed by a huge photo from antelope canyon shot on a big format camera. I experience similar i can now afford a similar kind of motion-picture show quality with college MP FF+quality lenses and a 4K brandish.

Ricoh GR II

Sony a7 2

Sony a7R II

Sony Atomic number 26 85mm F1.viii

Sony FE 24-105mm F4

+12 more

OP
phouphou •

Contributing Member

• Posts: 760

Re: Near people are not still using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

Simon Garrett wrote:

“Most people” are interested in pictures that look good in the modes they and their audience view them.

In which case, I wonder why they have pictures on 40Mpixel cameras and view them on 2Mpixel screens?

I imagine a professional would adopt a fast workflow on a FHD display, use 40MP to ingather to the all-time compositions and be happy making money from customers that are probably looking at the images on their smarpthone.

I have only vi/half dozen vision (or xx/20 on the left of the Atlantic), which is “standard” vision, nothing special, and I can clearly come across the better resolution both in images and especially text in 4k at 27 inch.

I think thats a proficient point. If youre older (no offense) and dont wear glasses infront of your computer, dont bother about 4K, it probably wont brand a difference for y’all personally.

Ricoh GR Ii

Sony a7 II

Sony a7R II

Sony Fe 85mm F1.8

Sony FE 24-105mm F4

+12 more than

Re: Nigh people are not yet using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

In reply to IanYorke •

Nov 18, 2022

IanYorke wrote:

I flirted with a 27″ 4K but decided that 27″ 1440 gave me the optimum, every bit I but exercise a modest amount of video editing. Personal option of course.

Same hither, while I was able to meet individual pixels on 24″ FHD, I couldn’t on a 27″ QHD, thus I think 4K at 27″ is overkill, plus taxing the CPU/GPU.

I besides use the aforementioned 27″ QHD monitor for watching movies, playing games, thus the refresh rate is besides important. Information technology’south much easier to bulldoze QHD than 4K at 60Hz or 144Hz (5700XT and LG 27GL83A-B). Screen vehement is actually annoying, brand sure to go a FreeSync/Thousand-Sync setup, too.

OP
phouphou •

Contributing Member

• Posts: 760

Re: Well-nigh people are not withal using 4K! Do they know they are missing out?

I was able to see individual pixels on 24″ FHD, I couldn’t on a 27″ QHD, thus I recollect 4K at 27″ is overkill, plus taxing the CPU/GPU.

I likewise utilize the aforementioned 27″ QHD monitor for watching movies, playing games, thus the refresh charge per unit is besides important. It’s much easier to drive QHD than 4K at 60Hz or 144Hz (5700XT and LG 27GL83A-B). Screen tearing is actually annoying, make sure to get a FreeSync/G-Sync setup, too.

UHD/4K is definetly overkill for gaming, LinusTech tips has a good video about that topic. Aparently you cannot really come across a difference betwixt 4K/WQHD, and then 120Hz seems much more important than resolution for gaming.

QHD is a sweetspot for gaming, i never used one at my workplace so i don’t know if it would exist for my photowork, RTS gaming and youtube videos.

Ane big plus for 4K: I similar watching Youtube videos from photographers (DPR, etc) and like to end a 2160p video to look at an paradigm in the video. They look so much meliorate than in 1440p/1080p, 8MP vs 4/2MP, obviously. I remember if you follow photographers thats a big reason to get UHD over QHD.

Ricoh GR Ii

Sony a7 II

Sony a7R II

Sony Atomic number 26 85mm F1.8

Sony FE 24-105mm F4

+12 more than

4k related to screen size

In reply to phouphou •

Nov 18, 2022

two

My personal opinion is that toll is the reason most people don’t have 4k monitors now. I got my 4k 27″ monitors for but under $500 each in January 2022. Around the same time I bought some 2k 24″ moniitors for $105 each.

And when I first hooked upwards those new 4K monitors? A) I didn’t accept the right cables to drive it at 4k, B) I merely one video output that had an interface that would fifty-fifty be capable of 4K, and C) I had to replace my video card with one that specifically supported 2 4k monitors.

Then I found some of my HDMI cables supported 4k, some did not.

Turned into a scrap of an expensive upgrade.

In terms of when you really need 4k, I’d say it happens when the monitors get overly large – so large you beginning to run across the pixels. I observe 4k looks pretty good on my 75 inch Television.

On a PC monitor, it’s all good at any size until you striking some older plan that doesn’t scale upwardly. So it’s fourth dimension to pull out the magnifying glass.

— hide signature —

Phoenix Arizona Craig
www.cjcphoto.cyberspace
“In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they’re not.”

Nikon D80

Nikon D200

Nikon D300

Nikon D700

Nikon one V1

+37 more than