[normhead]

What is most common size your images are displayed.

Sorry for some reason you can only pick one option.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-20-2021 at 09:36 AM.

[jddwoods]

What is most common size you images are displayed.

Sorry for some reason you can only pick one option.

I use iMac 4K for primary viewing and editing. I also use apple TV air play to my 50 inch regular HDTV when playing slide shows for others. I eventually want to upgrade the TV to a 4K set.

[normhead]

I use iMac 4K for primary viewing and editing. I also use apple TV air play to my 50 inch regular HDTV when playing slide shows for others. I eventually want to upgrade the TV to a 4K set.

We absolutely love our 55 inch 4k TV for viewing....
The upgrade is definitely worth it.


The especially great thing about that is... the resolution at which I edit is the resolution at which I view.

[texandrews]

I voted for the largest print size because I'm shooting to get that level of quality/capability irrespective of when I get around to printing that size. I also now have in mind monitors for display, OTOH.

[biz-engineer]

There is no larger than 60" X 40" ?


Ok 40 x 60 or larger

[StiffLegged]

There is no larger than 60" X 40" ?

Or over, biz – means or larger.

[photoptimist]

This question seems to have an implicit assumption that the photograph resolution and the viewing resolution might be the same. But that's not true in my case.

Currently, I view all my images on 4k monitors (I have twin 43" desktop units). A 4k computer monitor provides a nice, decently-detailed, immersive viewing experience that's basically about 30"x20" at about 100ppi.

However, I actually want much higher resolution images than 4k would imply. For many types of my images (landscapes, cityscapes, macro, and astrophotography), I like to zoom in and wander around the image to see details that I missed when I was actually looking at the photographed scene. Photography lets me get a quick shot of a scene during a hike or while traveling and then enjoy the richess of that scene at my leisure later. I've spotted moose, tiny critters, galaxies, meteors, urban ornaments, etc. in these arm chair revisits.

Thus, for many images, I view at the roughly-8k resolution of the K-1 through a 4k window.

[swanlefitte]

If my choice could be a graph like a histogram I expose to the right and display to the left.

The genre greatly influences my goal. Showing otters exist at a pond vs how beautiful the pond is has different requirements.
One requires just enough to distinguish. The other requires nothing detracts. One requires just enough resolution to see, the other requires resolution to see more than my eye can.

What and why you shoot is important to where and size you view.

[pschlute]

My monitor is 2560x1440, so I downsize my images for screen/web to a max of 1440 on the tall side. But I regularly print at 24x16 inches. At 300 ppi, which is what my commercial printer requires, that means an uncropped K-1 36MP image is just enough.

[3by2]

24x16 is the biggest I've had printed, which is big enough for me with mount and frame. I commonly print at A4 for a3 mount and frame. I do also sometimes print a panorama. Monitor is 2560x1440, stuff gets displayed on the telly whose resolution escapes me now, not 4k though, social media is flickr and forums and I commonly snip stuff from Lightroom for whatsapp purposes, or more rarely attach a photo from file.

[Bob 256]

I'm still in the "2K" monitor arena as are most of the people with whom I share electronic photos. In many cases, the photos are sent electronically so I downsize them but try to keep them to at least "2K" quality (using JPEG files). I consider these to be "sample" photos although they can be used to make reasonable looking 5x7" prints.

On the other hand, for my own printing, I work up to, and sometimes beyond, the 16x20 size so I prefer the native resolution of my camera to support that. Downsizing is always possible but upsizing (which can include cropping and then printing that at larger sizes) can have mixed results.

Bottom line: I would have to go with 1920 and 16x20" (the latter using 360dpi) in terms of the poll.

[WileyB]

Can't find the 'Phone screen' option :-D

[biz-engineer]

16x24" is popular due to the max printer size of the consumer oriented inkjet printers (such as the Canon Pro 1000, Epson P600, P800 or equivalent). And obviously 4K digital displaying.
Lab pints however, max out their production volumes at 20 x 30", which is why 20 x 30" is the cheapest photographic print per square inch.
There is another cheap point at 32 x 48" and 40 x 60" commercial formats, most used in advertising / commercial printing.
My preferred format for matted framed work is 24 x 36", because it fits perfectly with well sized frames for hanging on walls: such as 32"x 40" (80 x 100 cm) and 28 x 36 "( 70 x 90 cm).
All I need is 70 Mpixels with sharp glass.

[ehrwien]

I voted for 4K monitor even though I only have a 2K monitor (27 in) myself, but I like to zoom in to see details. I usually don't print, but perhaps I'll change that in the future. I had a few images printed in A4 (210 mm * 297 mm / ~ 8 in * 11.5 in) on paper before, but have just this week seen an offer for a picture in 80 cm * 60 cm (~ 31.5 in * 23.5 in) behind 3 mm acrylic for 20.80€. I added their mounting bracket for 10€ and now this squirrel (cropped down to 4:3 ratio) is hanging on my wall. Looks nice in larger than life size, holds up to viewing much closer than the diagonal, and it was dirt cheap. I think I could even save the mounting bracket and use adhesive strips for safely holding that size and weight on the wall. Will keep an eye open for special offers on smaller sizes in the future.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

However, I actually want much higher resolution images than 4k would imply. For many types of my images (landscapes, cityscapes, macro, and astrophotography), I like to zoom in and wander around the image to see details that I missed when I was actually looking at the photographed scene.

With digital photography has become more of an interactive medium that has no real fixed final display size. Not like the years leading up to digital where the final output size other than projectors. How images will be viewed is highly dependent on how the medium is going to be viewed and this varies dependent on the persons setup viewing the image and if they are viewing the photo as a interactive medium.