New monitor 4k vs 2k
I'm considering the purchase of a new 27inch monitor primarily for photo editing and subsequent printing.
I'm doing some online research and there appears to be a divergence of opinion over whether 4k monitors are beneficial for image editiing
I thought I'd see what the collective thoughts are of this forum over the topic
Any input welcomed
I'm doing some online research and there appears to be a divergence of opinion over whether 4k monitors are beneficial for image editiing
I thought I'd see what the collective thoughts are of this forum over the topic
Any input welcomed
Once you have used a higher resolution monitor you are unlikely to want to go back to a lower resolution monitor.
The downside is higher resolution monitors are more expensive.
The downside is higher resolution monitors are more expensive.
Will one monitor be enough? I have used dual monitors for many years now. For Photo editing it is convenient as I have all of the pallettes open on the second monitor leaving the main screen clear for the maximum sized current image for editing. Lightroom is already designed for dual monitors. This is probably also true for other editing software as Affinity allows you to open all the palletes on the second monitor. I find this also valuable for other work as I often need multiple documents open. I have just settled for Dell Ultrasharp monitors which are resonably priced. I would not trade my two Ultrasharps for one 4k monitor.
Dave
Dave
I cannot see why. I normally produce my finally edited images in TIFF format for either printing or to export as required JPEG version for projection or web. I have just realised that my main monitor is 4k and second monitor 2k. I still do not think it is a big issue.
Dave
Dave
I have to agree with Len; having recently bought a 32" 4K monitor I can now see all my image defects in the most ghastly and horrifying detail: in my view very relevant to printing not so for uploading JPEGs to the web.
I changed to the monitor I have now, a Dell UP2716D, for the colour accuracy. It also happened to be an increase in resolution, but the main aim was the wider gamut for photography. The 2560 x 1440 res was an increase from a 1080 panel, but one slight downside what that Windows needs resizing, as do some programs that allow it.
I sometimes connect the computer to my 4k TV and the lots of things would need resizing in Windows and various programs to try and make the usable if I were to stay using that resolution.
I would always take colour accuracy, on a calibrated monitor,
over resolution. Especially if I were to be printing regularly. A bad set of prints was the reason I got a calibrator. Can't blame the printer if you have no idea if what you are seeing, and editing to, is accurate.
I sometimes connect the computer to my 4k TV and the lots of things would need resizing in Windows and various programs to try and make the usable if I were to stay using that resolution.
I would always take colour accuracy, on a calibrated monitor,
over resolution. Especially if I were to be printing regularly. A bad set of prints was the reason I got a calibrator. Can't blame the printer if you have no idea if what you are seeing, and editing to, is accurate. 
Quote:
Quote:For those with experience would you take a lower res screen to keep a wider gamut
Yes, most definitely.
If shooting or printing as a jpeg - no.
Quote:If shooting or printing as a jpeg - no.
Splitting hairs a bit Len... personally I would take a wider gamut any day, we have no idea what format the OP is using, I would rather assume they are using a file format more suitable for printing such as TIFF. If they are using LR which works in wide gamut under the hood and is superb for printing then a wider gamut monitor would be more beneficial... My Retina Macs are not near 4K but are a happy medium for me.
Thanks for all the contributions. It's all good stuff for me to consider. I was initially thinking of the Benq SW270C but the 4k version the SW271 really is pushing the budget for me. I do most of my work in LR to RAW files and if needed will finish PP in PS before printing as a TIFF.
I guess the affordable wide gamut 4k monitor is like the cheap, light and sturdy tripod question...... Pick any 2 😁
I guess the affordable wide gamut 4k monitor is like the cheap, light and sturdy tripod question...... Pick any 2 😁
Quote: I do most of my work in LR to RAW files and if needed will finish PP in PS before printing as a TIFF.
A wider gamut is going to be more important than the horizontal resolution of the monitor for your use. Look to a decent 2 - 3K monitor with the widest gamut that you can afford, to be frank you will not see any difference to your prints even if you have a 5K monitor.
I'm still working successfully on a 2k monitor - although if you have the cash for a good 4k one, that would probably be better.
As for printing - the res of your monitor is not going to make any difference to the resolution of your digital files, or your print quality. You will just need to zoom in more/less to check for sharpness
As for printing - the res of your monitor is not going to make any difference to the resolution of your digital files, or your print quality. You will just need to zoom in more/less to check for sharpness
