Does 4k Display Make A Difference On Photography

By | 23/06/2022

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?


2

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?


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?

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?

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?

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

Roy Sletcher

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


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-