Are you using a 4K monitor

I'm trying to decide on one.

What brand, model, and size do you use?

Why is that monitor your choice?

My wife is using the Samsung, U28E590D, and 28". It's their monitor, not their TV.
I am in the process of upgrading to the BenQ PD3200U, 32".

If you wish to use a 4K monitor, it would be better to have an Apple or a PC that runs Win10...the display management in Win7 does not well handle displays with greater than 1920x1080 resolution, as text gets to be a bit small or not always well managed if you simply choose Windows text setup greater than 100% size.

I'm good on that, my desktop and laptop both run Win10.

My laptop is a Dell 15in with a 4K display and its stunning. I cant imagine why anyone would want less than a 4K display, especially on a large monitor.

My desktop video adapter goes up to a resolution of (some 5000 number above 4k) so it already has enough muscle to run 4k resolution.

My laptop and my TV are 4K, that's it. My desktop is running dual 24" 16:10 1920x1200 monitors.

I haven't got a strong desire to upgrade to 4K on my desktop, I'd probably upgrade to something in the 2560x1440 range.

Part of the reason is cost, I still want a good monitor that doesn't put pixel count above pixel quality.

The other is I do play some games and don't really feel the need to be pushing 4K resolution, my video card would melt and I don't want to game below native resolution.

Thank you contributors to this thread, I had similar question.

Regards,
Andrew

See my response #5 at https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1496745

Asus ProArt 32" PA329Q. Beautiful display. Editing on it is a pleasure.

I like 1900x1200 in 24-27”, the text is too small at 4k unless I get a bigger screen size which I do not want at all. I edit 4k videos w/o issues.

I recently upgraded my work computer and ended up with a 27" 5k wide-gamut display. It's amazing how small images are on it! My D810 files are not a whole lot bigger than the screen. Zooming in to 100% for detail work no longer works. I start at 200% which now looks clearer than 100% did on my last screen, 300% just barely starts to show that you're zoomed in past the pixel level, and 400% is where I now do my fine detail retouching work.

I have a Benq SW320 (32", 4K, 100% Adobe RGB) and it is awesome! I run Windows 7 and it works fine. You do need to buy a X-Rite i1 Display to calibrate the monitor. I think 32" is just right for 4K.

Yes and no....depending of where I am. A couple of my old 1080p monitors work just fine...but I have to admit my Dell '27 4K is pretty sweet. Just saw it (or a near-identical one) on sale at Amazon for under $400 on Friday, so the costs are definitely starting to come down.

I think 32” 4k is the minimum screen size for proper text size in Windows; Even Windows 10 is not great at scaling especially legacy software

I’m using a 5K iMac instead of a PC, but I agree it does make the editing experience much nicer.

williaty wrote in post #18641204
I recently upgraded my work computer and ended up with a 27" 5k wide-gamut display. It's amazing how small images are on it! My D810 files are not a whole lot bigger than the screen. Zooming in to 100% for detail work no longer works. I start at 200% which now looks clearer than 100% did on my last screen, 300% just barely starts to show that you're zoomed in past the pixel level, and 400% is where I now do my fine detail retouching work.

I have the 5K Dell UP2715K, and when doing detailed brush work, such as spot removal in Lr I will start at 1:4 and move to 1:8 so that I can get right up to edges without those odd artifacts you sometimes get. Ps also often sees me using 800% when doing fine detail work, and wanting to get an accurate brush stroke along an image edge. This is at a point where I'm no longer really working on the image, but adjusting individual pixels. I do often give an image a quick check at 1:2 in Lr before posting online, just to be sure that it looks OK at the physical size many will be looking at it.

One thing that Lr used to do when I first had the 5K display was limit the size of the "Fit" setting so that it didn't size an image past 1:1. This was very useful with older images from my 6 and 8 MP cameras, especially if they had also been cropped. Some of the images from my 300D have been cropped to less than 2K pixels on the long edge. When scrolling though images using the mouse wheel I'll now see an image shown at over 1:2 magnification on screen, and I wonder why I ever picked it as OK.

artsf wrote in post #18642241
I think 32” 4k is the minimum screen size for proper text size in Windows; Even Windows 10 is not great at scaling especially legacy software

My only issues with screen scaling in Win 10 has been with older programs, or many open source programs that don't use the windows API's for screen drawing, but instead deal with screen drawing directly. Most of those have issues, but that in not really Win 10's fault is it? The only thing I find with older programs, I use Office 2007 still for example, is that the initial splash screens, being images, get displayed at 1:1 and are thus very small on screen. Once the programs are loaded though I have no issues with scaling. Well none that I have found in Word, Excel, or Access anyway. Oh I just remembered there are issues with scaling with IE 11, which I needed to use with the Sky TV on demand service. It was the only browser that would work, something to do with Silverlight support IIRC.

Alan