sk66
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,557
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a retina monitor set to the default "best" (reduced) resolution.
For both PS and LR there is an option to "open in low resolution" which is 2x the size of the normal/set resolution (even farther reduced). Which seems to defeat the point of having a high resolution monitor.
But if I open an image on the web it is automatically scaled to "low resolution." IMO, the most critical application I have is large resolution on the web (where people can pixel peep). So I'm kind of at a loss as to the best editing resolution, or if it even matters...
I can run LR/PS in low resolution and then the 1:1 view matches the web browser 100% view... Or I can run them in high resolution and 2:1 matches web view. Is there a benefit to one approach? If anything, I would think low resolution might be less demanding on the system?
For both PS and LR there is an option to "open in low resolution" which is 2x the size of the normal/set resolution (even farther reduced). Which seems to defeat the point of having a high resolution monitor.
But if I open an image on the web it is automatically scaled to "low resolution." IMO, the most critical application I have is large resolution on the web (where people can pixel peep). So I'm kind of at a loss as to the best editing resolution, or if it even matters...
I can run LR/PS in low resolution and then the 1:1 view matches the web browser 100% view... Or I can run them in high resolution and 2:1 matches web view. Is there a benefit to one approach? If anything, I would think low resolution might be less demanding on the system?