Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

5k 27" vs 4k 32" for photography

S

ScratchyMoose

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 13, 2008
221
15
London
Hi everyone,

The price difference between both screens is getting smaller, and with 10.10.3 both screens are now supported. LR6 may be released next week, hopefully with speed gains, to allow proper user of higher dpi.

Using a nMP and Lightroom and Photoshop, which would you prefer - a higher density at a lower size, or a lower density at a higher size?

I really like the larger size for editing, but I'm leaning towards the smaller 5k ... any thoughts?
 
T

thedeske

macrumors 6502a
Feb 17, 2013
963
58
Seems like you'd almost need the 2 systems side by side for a few days to really know what you prefer. Still photos look mighty good on both.

The larger screen always gives you the impression of "Seeing More" when it might not be entirely true.

Good Luck
 
MCAsan

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Jul 9, 2012
4,587
442
Atlanta
I would want the one that does AdobeRGB gamut, not just sRGB gamut. While some of your images may be output to a sRGB world (printers, the web, ...etc.), you may need/wamt to calibrate around output for an AdobeRGB device. This goes with the strategy of always using the widest gamut in camera and in post prococessing. Only drop to a narrow gamut when the final device, such as a printer, forces that gamut reduction.
 
S

ScratchyMoose

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 13, 2008
221
15
London
Thanks guys. Yeah, the larger screen would be better for me, but the 27 5k would have a lot more pixels! Tough call!

(I'd either go for the LG 31MU97 or the Dell 5k ... i'd imagine both are good for colour. Having said that i'd be going from a NEC Multisync, that i don't think yet, has had a DeltaE of over 1, so it may be a slight downgrade!)
 
E

edanuff

macrumors 6502a
Oct 30, 2008
577
258
slater-k said:
Thanks guys. Yeah, the larger screen would be better for me, but the 27 5k would have a lot more pixels! Tough call
Click to expand...

Do you spend much time using a retina MBP? If most of your experience is using a Thunderbolt display, then you probably will prefer the extra screen real estate for a 30"+ 4K monitor that you run with minimal or no retina scaling. OTOH, if you're currently switching between a retina laptop and a Thunderbolt display, then the difference in crispness is probably already driving you nuts, which would argue for a smaller 4K or 5K monitor run with retina scaling.
 
S

ScratchyMoose

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 13, 2008
221
15
London
edanuff said:
Do you spend much time using a retina MBP? If most of your experience is using a Thunderbolt display, then you probably will prefer the extra screen real estate for a 30"+ 4K monitor that you run with minimal or no retina scaling. OTOH, if you're currently switching between a retina laptop and a Thunderbolt display, then the difference in crispness is probably already driving you nuts, which would argue for a smaller 4K or 5K monitor run with retina scaling.
Click to expand...

no - currently i'm on a 30" 2560 x 1600 display. Ideally, i'd like 32" 5k so that i have the size to show lots of detailed images when in grid in LR ... it seems right now my only choices are smaller & higher dpi, or larger & lower dpi :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom