[AggieDad]

I will be ready to replace my 2017 iMac 27" with a new Mac Studio in January. But since the Studio is not an all-in-one computer as was the iMac, I will also be in the market for a monitor to go with it. Of course, I can just buy the Mac Studio display (and I might). However, there are alternatives that are $500 to $600 less expensive that I am considering.

But regardless of price there is another consideration: I have seen several discussions on the Internet about 2K vs. 4K monitors for photo editing, especially editing for print.

I am interested in knowing the thoughts and experiences of those of you who process for printing your photos. Do you use a 2K or 4K monitor? What does your experience tell you that I should take into consideration when making my decision?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

Don

[Mooncatt]

When I asked about this a year or so ago, most people seemed fine with 1440p (I assume that's what you meant by 2k?), but also came down to monitor size and viewing distance. I ended up going with a 4K 27" monitor and it's been fantastic. The higher resolution at a larger screen size allows for keeping the editing UI smaller but clear, while having more real estate for the image to work on. This was especially helpful when viewing 1:1. I also game on it and wanted the 4K for that too.

[MarkJerling]

Don, I went to a 4k display about a year ago. (New laptop).
In my view, it's a huge step up from a 2k display. If it does not break the bank, I'd suggest go 4K.

[JohnMc]

It's kinda relative to size, set-up calibration, and the users ability to relate the transmissve to reflective. You can certainly get by with 2k in the 24-27" range, and Eizo makes a few nice ones.

[FozzFoster]

imho, far more important that 1440p or 4K (even 1080p will do the trick), is a monitor with an IPS panel. Also, containing features that make for easy colour calibration. Look for high colour bit-depth and a wide gamut. VESA mounts can also be important.

[pschlute]

You can certainly get by with 2k in the 24-27" range, and Eizo makes a few nice ones.

I use an Eizo 2560x1440 monitor and am very happy with it.

A question to those using 4k screens.... if you are viewing a heavily cropped image at 100% for editing purposes (eg sharpening) do you ever find the 100% view too small ?

[AggieDad]

1440p (I assume that's what you meant by 2k?

I am sorry if I was not quite clear.

2K — 2560 x 1440
4K — 4096 (or 3840) x 2160

Most photo-capable monitors come in either 2K or 4K — there are very few 5K screens other than Apple.

The screen of my iMac has a resolution of 5120 x 2880 and is 27" in size. The new Mac Studio display has the same resolution and size.

If I choose other than the Studio, it will be either a 27" or a 32" screen.

[MarkJerling]

A question to those using 4k screens.... if you are viewing a heavily cropped image at 100% for editing purposes (eg sharpening) do you ever find the 100% view too small ?

Yes, it's routinely necessary to go to 200%.

[pschlute]

Yes, it's routinely necessary to go to 200%.

Can that lead to pixelation Mark ?

[MarkJerling]

Can that lead to pixelation Mark ?

Still not much pixelation visible at 200%. But it's a good tell whether something's sharp or not.

[Bruce Clark]

imho, far more important that 1440p or 4K (even 1080p will do the trick), is a monitor with an IPS panel. Also, containing features that make for easy colour calibration. Look for high colour bit-depth and a wide gamut. VESA mounts can also be important.

Yes IPS is essential in my view.

[Mooncatt]

A question to those using 4k screens.... if you are viewing a heavily cropped image at 100% for editing purposes (eg sharpening) do you ever find the 100% view too small ?

The only time I use 100% view is when in Raw Therapee, where some adjustments are only rendered at 1:1. I'll sometimes go in further in Gimp, but that's for things like healing blemishes, and I'd be working extra close regardless of the screen resolution.

[Mooncatt]

If I choose other than the Studio, it will be either a 27" or a 32" screen.

27" is kind of that fence line where I see people go either way. If you go 32", then 4k becomes the more dominate resolution unless you sit far away from the screen. 4k is also fairly matured these days, so the price difference isn't between it and 1440p isn't that bad.

[JohnMc]

I use an Eizo 2560x1440 monitor and am very happy with it.

A question to those using 4k screens.... if you are viewing a heavily cropped image at 100% for editing purposes (eg sharpening) do you ever find the 100% view too small ?

I won't say "too small," but I will say it's sometimes prudent go up higher, but that's okay since there's generally the headroom to do so cleanly. I'll regularly jump to 400% to cleanup masks. I'll regularly use my 2011 13" laptop to print/soft proof from not because it's technically in anyway better, but because I'm used to how it relates with my print output and how I see.

[calsan]

I like the Asus Pro Art series. Also worth considering are the things like the types of connections suit your computer and that it's height adjustable. Also you don't need a fast frequency like in gaming monitors so ignore that specification. IPS as already said many times.