Beginner Larger prints versus larger monitors

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

is the comparison similar in regards to when photograpers talk about print size in relation to eg number of pixels a camera has when viewing bigger prints and viewing photos on a phone , a tablet and a large computer monitor?

So a photo that looks ok on a phone when viewed on a monitor starts to show up any problems with say sharpness etc?

I think ive asked this question some time ago but woukd welcome some clarity .

Thanks

 

[lightshipman]

If a picture is taken, and is very sharp, on two cameras with the same size sensors, it can be enlarged more if it has been taken on a camera with more pixels. At the sizes most of us are looking at the difference between say a 20 megapixel and a 24megapixel sensor, it would be hard to distinguish by eye with out zooming in massively on a monitor. There is more very fine detail on an image with more pixels. I think this is maybe what you mean.

 

[Brian G]

I think when viewing an image on a monitor there is a tendency to zoom in almost to pixel level "because you can" whereas on a print the image detail has been established in at the printing stage.

Whether viewing a print or the image on a monitor, surely the thing we should be looking at is the overall image, not "pixel peeking" as many seem to do, and which is easier to do on a monitor (or phone.)

 

[chris malcolm]

I've never understood why people worry about display sizes when processing for ultimate detail resolution. There's no such thing as a monitor which will display a modern 24MP or more camera image all at once in full detail. So when processing for general effect, white balance, composition, etc. I'll look at the whole image on whatever display I'm using. Then when processing for noise reduction and detail resolution I'll magnify critical portions of the image, zoom in, until I can clearly discern the tiniest detail. As the last stage of processing, just to save file space and improve image portability, I'll downsize it as much as I can without losing detail resolution. If I'm not using a really sharp lens on a tripod at a low ISO, which often means no reduction is possible, that's usually a reduction to 67% of image size. Noisy images may get cut down to 50%. Very noisy images will sometimes get cut down to 33%.

If I'm going to post an image to Facebook I'll produce a version downsized to 2048 pixels wide anyway because that's as much as FB can take without mangling it. Which if I haven't cropped down my image corresponds to a downsize of 33% anyway. Then Facebook "photographers" congratulate me on the sharp high detail resolution of my photo, which I've downsized from 24MP to 3MP. That's the area reduction corresponding to downsizing from 6000 pixels wide to Facebook's 2048 maximum.

I suspect that some of the people who insist on big very high resolution monitors for image processing don't understand how images are made from pixels and have scared themselves by the noise and pixellation artefacts they see at maximum zoom. Then they've been comforted by the way these horrid things disappear at lower resolutions. Not wanting to risk seeing the scary horrors which become visible when you zoom in, and wanting to avoid the bother of understanding noise and pixellation, they adopt the compromise of not zooming in and using the biggest monitors or prints they can afford.