Stevenson Gawen
Well-Known Member
I didn't want to pull any other threads off course here, so apologies for what feels like a slightly single-minded new thread. 
I was reading an exchange including @Gianluca Drago and @Brian Moore and wanted to add my 2 pennies worth. To be clear, I don't really have an opinion on this point, but feel that there's a bit more to it than meets the eye.
Two examples first, snaps of my desk where I spend most of my forum time. That's a 4x6 inch print for scale, resting below the screen.
I have a 32inch Lenovo monitor with a 2560X1440 resolution. Average to low pixel density by current standards.
First one of Brian's posts:
The (lovely) image is about 5X7 inch on the screen, big enough for comfortable viewing IMO, but I wouldn't want it much smaller. Due to the pixel dimensions it's not practical to enlarge it on screen. (that one is also externally hosted, but that's irrelevant to my discussion).
This is one of mine, uploaded as a 3000X2000 pixel file.
It initially shows as only slightly bigger than Brians, but as it's a file of larger dimensions, when clicked on it fills all available space, like so:
To me, it's easier to appreciate the finer details, and it could be considered to allow a more comfortable viewing distance. It'd be similar to an 8x12 inch print I guess, or a bit bigger.
I don't feel detail level matters too much, as long there's enough to appreciate the image as the photographer intended, but the actual viewing size is tied into it, at least on the face of it.
Where I think this discussion gets more relevant I think is the current crop of higher resolution screens. 4K, that is, 4000 pixels on the long edge, is fairly standard now, and at a given physical size, like my 32in (diagonal) screen, that is going to make an image of smaller pixel dimensions even smaller, to the point that viewing becomes unpleasant unless you magnify it somehow.
Obviously, we don't all have the latest tech (or I don't anyway!) but it is filtering in.
Just some food for thought I guess.
I was reading an exchange including @Gianluca Drago and @Brian Moore and wanted to add my 2 pennies worth. To be clear, I don't really have an opinion on this point, but feel that there's a bit more to it than meets the eye.
Two examples first, snaps of my desk where I spend most of my forum time. That's a 4x6 inch print for scale, resting below the screen.
I have a 32inch Lenovo monitor with a 2560X1440 resolution. Average to low pixel density by current standards.
First one of Brian's posts:
The (lovely) image is about 5X7 inch on the screen, big enough for comfortable viewing IMO, but I wouldn't want it much smaller. Due to the pixel dimensions it's not practical to enlarge it on screen. (that one is also externally hosted, but that's irrelevant to my discussion).
This is one of mine, uploaded as a 3000X2000 pixel file.
It initially shows as only slightly bigger than Brians, but as it's a file of larger dimensions, when clicked on it fills all available space, like so:
To me, it's easier to appreciate the finer details, and it could be considered to allow a more comfortable viewing distance. It'd be similar to an 8x12 inch print I guess, or a bit bigger.
I don't feel detail level matters too much, as long there's enough to appreciate the image as the photographer intended, but the actual viewing size is tied into it, at least on the face of it.
Where I think this discussion gets more relevant I think is the current crop of higher resolution screens. 4K, that is, 4000 pixels on the long edge, is fairly standard now, and at a given physical size, like my 32in (diagonal) screen, that is going to make an image of smaller pixel dimensions even smaller, to the point that viewing becomes unpleasant unless you magnify it somehow.
Obviously, we don't all have the latest tech (or I don't anyway!) but it is filtering in.
Just some food for thought I guess.
Apologies for my pun. 
