5k vs 4k monitor for photo editing

[dimme]

I have owned 2 27" 5K iMacs in the past and was very happy with the displays for by work in Photoshop an Lightroom. About two years ago my 2019 27" developed a problem that Apple could not fix. At the time the M1 were just coming out and they offered me a fantastic deal on a 24" iMac. It's worked out well but I would like to upgrade to a Mac Studio which means I need a new display. Apples Studio Display looks to be a good replacement for the iMac screen but the price seems really high. I see quite a few 4K 27" screens at half the price that get good reviews for photography. I would most likely run the display @ 2560x 1440 I have read way too much about how Mac OS does scaling and the general consensus is performance and sharpness are not an issue. What I don't understand is how this affects Lightroom and photoshop images when preforming cash such as sharpening and fine retouching. I would love to hear from Mac 4K display users and see if this is an issue in their workflow. Most of my images are shared on sites like the POD thread. I do very little print and it's just a hobby. But I come from a pro imaging background so I am picky and and stuck in some old ways and ideas. Also my eyes are getting old too. Thanks for reading.

TLDR- will someone used to 5K & 4.5K retina displays be happy with a 4K panel for photography.

 

[tragicwinding]

While the general consensus is indeed that performance and sharpness are not an issue, there are some subtle differences to consider.

5K resolution on a 27-inch display provides a level of detail where individual pixels aren't discernible at normal viewing distances, making it ideal for detailed work in photo editing. As for 4K, it's also a high-resolution option, but may not offer the same level of pixel density as a 5K display of the same size.

However, your experience might also depend on how the operating system and applications manage high-resolution displays. Some users have noted issues with Windows not being well-tuned for 5K and a few applications not scaling well, resulting in less-than-ideal visuals.

As for MacOS, it has been designed with high-resolution Retina displays in mind and should handle scaling well. The performance of specific applications like Photoshop and Lightroom on 4K vs 5K might differ, so it would be beneficial to hear from others who have had direct experience with these applications on different resolutions.

Finally, it's worth noting that the resolution isn't the only factor to consider. Things like color accuracy, contrast ratio, and brightness can also significantly impact your photo editing experience.

I think you might find this article useful. It discusses the same topic in more details.

 

[Fishrrman]

OP wrote:
"I would most likely run the display @ 2560x 1440 I have read way too much about how Mac OS does scaling and the general consensus is performance and sharpness are not an issue"

I may get rocks tossed at me, but...

... if it's 1440p you want, have you considered a "native" 32" 1440p display ??

 

[dimme]

OP wrote:
"I would most likely run the display @ 2560x 1440 I have read way too much about how Mac OS does scaling and the general consensus is performance and sharpness are not an issue"

I may get rocks tossed at me, but...

... if it's 1440p you want, have you considered a "native" 32" 1440p display ??

No rocks from me. I appreciate the suggestion. I want the ASD just trying to justify the price.
EDIT: I just realized the ASD has one input and I was hoping to use this new setup with 2 computers.

 

[jz0309]

I was going to point you to the Mac accessories subform but noticed you already posted in there so you've read all the relevant threads I assume.
I replaced my 5k iMac with a Studio and Studio display, very happy with that setup.

The one alternative monitor I would look into at this point is the Dell 32" 6k ...

 

[Apple fanboy]

No rocks from me. I appreciate the suggestion. I want the ASD just trying to justify the price.
EDIT: I just realized the ASD has one input and I was hoping to use this new setup with 2 computers.

If you are going to run a 5k 27” monitors at 2560 x 1440, just buy a 2560 x 1440 display. Running a monitor at its native resolution is always sharper than any scaling.
Personally I’d not buy a 32” 2560 x 1440 resolution.

Colour accuracy and a wide colour gamut are important to me. As is a non glossy screen. My monitors fulfil all those criteria.

 

[dimme]

If you are going to run a 5k 27” monitors at 2560 x 1440, just buy a 2560 x 1440 display. Running a monitor at its native resolution is always sharper than any scaling.
Personally I’d not buy a 32” 2560 x 1440 resolution.

Colour accuracy and a wide colour gamut are important to me. As is a non glossy screen. My monitors fulfil all those criteria.

Makes sense to me, I see the monitors you use are geared to photographers and have a great reputation and are 4K. May I ask what resolution you use?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Makes sense to me, I see the monitors you use are geared to photographers and have a great reputation and are 4K. May I ask what resolution you use?

I run them at native. 3840 x 2160.

 

[stillcrazyman]

I don't know if there are many 5K choices for displays. I chose a ViewSonic 32" 4K display running at a non native 2560x1440. Native is the 3840x2160 which is too small for my eyes.

I've used this display with my previous Mac Mini and now with the Mac Studio.

 

[Clix Pix]

I use a 4K LG Thunderbolt 3 monitor, the 24" size, which I find is the right size in terms of being able to look at for everything and and also being able to physically handle as well (not that I have a need for hauling this thing around once it was set up on the desk!). Years ago I had an Apple 24" ACD and also a 30" ACD, and I found that while the latter was great for editing photos, that for doing a bit of everything: reading text, writing, watching videos, looking at websites, etc., along with the photo editing, that I really preferred the 24" size; it just seemed to hit the "sweet spot" for me. Looking at the 27" iMac in stores, I could tell that like the 30" ACD, that would be just too darned big and heavy, too much screen for me. Ditto for an external 27" monitor.

After I began using a MacBook Pro as my primary machine and set it up as a desktop substitute, for a while I didn't bother with an external monitor as the 15" screen on the MBP was just fine for general activities and at that time I wasn't doing much in the way of photography. Once I got back into shooting and editing regularly, that was when I realized that it was time for a new external monitor and went with this one, which has been more than satisfactory for me. Since I don't print my work, nor do I sell it, I am not all that fussed with 100% color accuracy and calibration. I figure that since most people are only going to see my work on their own devices, which would be everything from the various Apple products to other brands of computers, monitors, tablets and smartphones, it is highly unlikely than anyone would see exactly the exact colors and such which I see on my monitor at the time I am editing an image anyway.

 

[ovbacon]

I have a BenQ PD2705U (27" 4K) with my mini M2 and I specifically got this monitor for Lightroom, Photoshop and Illustrator work. It is a fantastic monitor for photography and design at a good price.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

This is only a 1440P display, but dang is it awesome, and factory calibrated with a wide gamut. I used to think I needed the extra resolution of 4k, but this thing is perfect for me, and it even has speakers.

https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-ProArt-Display-Monitor-PA278CV/dp/B08LCPY1TR

 

[Apple fanboy]

This is only a 1440P display, but dang is it awesome, and factory calibrated with a wide gamut. I used to think I needed the extra resolution of 4k, but this thing is perfect for me, and it even has speakers.

https://www.amazon.com/ASUS-ProArt-Display-Monitor-PA278CV/dp/B08LCPY1TR

Factory calibrated is a waste of time. All monitors drift (even high end ones). So never pay extra for it. After all what is it calibrated to? If you sit in a really bright room then you would set your brightness to a different setting than if you work in a dark room.

If you are looking for sRGB only, then there is nothing wrong with this monitor. We had some to evaluate at work when they were looking for a distributor, but ultimately we didn’t go ahead for a number of reasons.

 

[MacNut]

Does the resolution of the monitor matter if the source material isn't of the same quality. How many cameras shoot 5k raw resolution?

 

[jz0309]

Does the resolution of the monitor matter if the source material isn't of the same quality. How many cameras shoot 5k raw resolution?

5k monitor is ~14.7MP…

 

[coolguy4747]

Does the resolution of the monitor matter if the source material isn't of the same quality. How many cameras shoot 5k raw resolution?

6k is around the lowest you'll find for modern photo cameras (yes, there are a few exceptions).


As for the monitors, modern photo apps will display your photos with as much resolution as they can, so viewing your photo in Lightroom on a 27" 5k display will show you slightly more detail than doing the same on a 27" 4k monitor. I doubt this is nearly as noticeable as the difference between text sharpness/UI elements.

 

[ovbacon]

TLDR- will someone used to 5K & 4.5K retina displays be happy with a 4K panel for photography.

I am.... I went from an iMac 5k to a mini M2 with a BenQ PD2705U (27" 4K). I actually like this setup a little better fro photo editing. Video was better on the 5K but I pretty much do Photo only.

 

[Dutch60]

While the general consensus is indeed that performance and sharpness are not an issue, there are some subtle differences to consider.

5K resolution on a 27-inch display provides a level of detail where individual pixels aren't discernible at normal viewing distances, making it ideal for detailed work in photo editing. As for 4K, it's also a high-resolution option, but may not offer the same level of pixel density as a 5K display of the same size.

However, your experience might also depend on how the operating system and applications manage high-resolution displays. Some users have noted issues with Windows not being well-tuned for 5K and a few applications not scaling well, resulting in less-than-ideal visuals.

As for MacOS, it has been designed with high-resolution Retina displays in mind and should handle scaling well. The performance of specific applications like Photoshop and Lightroom on 4K vs 5K might differ, so it would be beneficial to hear from others who have had direct experience with these applications on different resolutions.

Finally, it's worth noting that the resolution isn't the only factor to consider. Things like color accuracy, contrast ratio, and brightness can also significantly impact your photo editing experience.

I think you might find this article useful. It discusses the same topic in more details.

".......5K resolution on a 27-inch display provides a level of detail where individual pixels aren't discernible at normal viewing distances, making it ideal for detailed work in photo editing....."

just read this again. Question: no individual pixels visible, makes it ideal for detailed work in photo editing? How so? Can you explain?

 

[bunnspecial]

6k is around the lowest you'll find for modern photo cameras (yes, there are a few exceptions).


As for the monitors, modern photo apps will display your photos with as much resolution as they can, so viewing your photo in Lightroom on a 27" 5k display will show you slightly more detail than doing the same on a 27" 4k monitor. I doubt this is nearly as noticeable as the difference between text sharpness/UI elements.

I have one of the few current-ish below-6K cameras. My D5 is 5568x3712. I do also shoot with the Df, which is 4928x3280. The Df of course is no more, and the D5 has been replaced by the D6, which has the same resolution. I doubt that wonderful 20mp FX sensor will make it to a mirrorless, although its "little brother" 20mp DX sensor has become Nikon's workhorse in that size.

With that said, even when working with files from the Df, which are just a shade below 5K, I'd still say a 5K display comes in handy. I rarely view images full screen, but instead am looking at them in Lightroom with photo browser on the bottom, tools on the right, and other things that eat up screen real estate. Yes I can collapse them or shuffle them off to a second display(to some degree) but still, there's some value to me in having edge space around the display.

 

[baoguo87]

4K is enough for 27-inch display.

 

[bunnspecial]

4K is enough for 27-inch display.

After researching and playing with some, I've decided I really don't like 27" 4K monitors.

Apple figured out 20 years ago(in the acrylic display days) that somewhere in the 100-120ppi is pretty much optimum for a desktop monitor. I'm young(er) and can tolerate a little smaller, but when I go back to something in that range I realize just how much more comfortable I am.

The 27" Cinema/Thunderbolt display and 27" iMac were right in that range. I find 2K(2560x1440) about optimum for a 27" display. Going up to 30" at that resolution now in 2023 looks a little fuzzy to me, and I will no longer use the old 30" Apple Cinemas for that reason. The 27" looks beautiful, though.

The problem with 4K in a 27" monitor for me is that I find it way too small to be comfortable at native resolution. At half resolution scaling(which is computationally easy and tends to look great) you end up at 1920x1080, which to me is HUGE on a 27" screen. I'm more comfortable with that resolution on a 23" or so max screen.

5K scales perfectly to 2560x1440, which again I find optimum on 27".

Yes, you can scale 4K to 2560x1440. MacOS even does a pretty respectable job with it. If I were doing it on a discrete GPU with its own RAM, I'd have zero issue with it. The problem is that in the AS era, discrete GPUs are no more. It's probably not a big deal if you have 32gb RAM, but at 8gb(which Apple still insists on in a lot of base model computers) to me it's a no-go.

If I were going to run 4K at full native, 32" is about as small as I'd personally want to go, and my desk isn't big enough for two of them.

 

[Apple fanboy]

After researching and playing with some, I've decided I really don't like 27" 4K monitors.

Apple figured out 20 years ago(in the acrylic display days) that somewhere in the 100-120ppi is pretty much optimum for a desktop monitor. I'm young(er) and can tolerate a little smaller, but when I go back to something in that range I realize just how much more comfortable I am.

The 27" Cinema/Thunderbolt display and 27" iMac were right in that range. I find 2K(2560x1440) about optimum for a 27" display. Going up to 30" at that resolution now in 2023 looks a little fuzzy to me, and I will no longer use the old 30" Apple Cinemas for that reason. The 27" looks beautiful, though.

The problem with 4K in a 27" monitor for me is that I find it way too small to be comfortable at native resolution. At half resolution scaling(which is computationally easy and tends to look great) you end up at 1920x1080, which to me is HUGE on a 27" screen. I'm more comfortable with that resolution on a 23" or so max screen.

5K scales perfectly to 2560x1440, which again I find optimum on 27".

Yes, you can scale 4K to 2560x1440. MacOS even does a pretty respectable job with it. If I were doing it on a discrete GPU with its own RAM, I'd have zero issue with it. The problem is that in the AS era, discrete GPUs are no more. It's probably not a big deal if you have 32gb RAM, but at 8gb(which Apple still insists on in a lot of base model computers) to me it's a no-go.

If I were going to run 4K at full native, 32" is about as small as I'd personally want to go, and my desk isn't big enough for two of them.

If you are going to scale a 5k monitor to 2560 x 1440, just buy a QHD display and be done with it. It will be sharper than a 5k scaled and cost you a lot less. Also cheaper to run.

 

[Dutch60]

I have a 27" iMac scaled at 2560x1440 (which is considered "Normal" in its monitor settings). Beside that I use another 27" monitor with 2560x1440p native (but that one is very color accurate/non glossy).
So, both at 2560x1440p.
For photography (editing, etc.), I don' t use the iMac.
For editing/working on images/prepare for printing, 2560x1440p is perfect for a 27" screen.