Interface font size on 32" 4K monitor

[tryonk]

Lightroom Version Number

15.3.1

Operating System

1. macOS 26 Tahoe

I have been using a mobile workflow with LR on my MacBook Pro for a while and recently went back to using my Mac mini and BenQ 32" 4K monitor with LRC. I lose HDR viewing, but boy, can I see detail a lot better, and I have a lot more control over exporting and publishing. The problem (unsurprisingly) is that I have to nearly touch my nose to the monitor to read the interface text, especially for shutter speeds in fractions, and previews can take several seconds to render, which makes adjusting sliders a perky-jerky experience. Based on my reading of this thread, there isn't a way to increase the interface font size from within LRC other than the one small/large interface setting. It's a bit of a head scratcher that I can tweak the panel end marks but not the font size.

MacOS offers two adjustments:

• Reduce the resolution and lose the advantages of a 4K monitor.
• Increase the interface font size: works well but only for system applications.

I'm contemplating adding a 2-3K HDR monitor as my primary and reserving my 4K for detail work. That would both give me a larger, easier to read interface and faster previews for basic editing, and HDR viewing capability (I shoot exclusively in raw), while still being keeping my color-accurate, high resolution display available for detail work and soft proofing.

• Does that make sense?
• I saw references in the older thread to apps that could auto-switch resolution—can anyone tell me more?

Thanks,
kt

 

[Gnits]

Adobe developed True Type Scalable Fonts in the 80’s. They were adopted by Microsoft.

It is crazy that it is not possible to be able to scale fonts in a user friendly friendly manner to suit the users screen and independently on how image pixels are handled.

Is this a supreme example of lazy programming or is there some other good reason to make this so difficult. Also, 4k screens are now a modern real world standard.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

It’s not just fonts, it’s all interface items. Clicking a checkbox on a 4K screen in native resolution will also require special reading glasses.

 

[clee01l]

We do agree, and we discussed that before. It’s all in the thread I quoted, so I’m not going to repeat the whole thing. You’ve set your screen to the native 3840x2160 pixels resolution, so what I described in that thread about scaled resolutions does not apply to you.

So it was the "Scaled resolutions" that I missed. I agree. I've never seen a reason to buy a HiDPI monitor and dumb it down.

I do have problems with my Apple Neo. The native resolution is 2408X1506 (16:10 aspect ratio) on a 12.9" screen. I keep it set to native resolution for Lightroom and even with reading glasses reading text is difficult. To get the same text size that I have on my 32" screen would need a resolution of 1508 X 943. which is between the offered 1647X1024 and 1408X881 (the default). When working for long periods in text documents, I sometimes switch to the default resolution rather than to be using the 3 finger double tap to zoom.

 

[clee01l]

Adobe developed True Type Scalable Fonts in the 80’s. They were adopted by Microsoft.

It is crazy that it is not possible to be able to scale fonts in a user friendly friendly manner to suit the users screen and independently on how image pixels are handled.

Is this a supreme example of lazy programming or is there some other good reason to make this so difficult. Also, 4k screens are now a modern real world standard.

In the process and automation industry the GUI, which is more commonly known as a Human Machine Interface (HMI) has adopted a monochromatic Grayscale standard. Combined with HiDPI monitors, Adobe's gray text on grayer background makes it very difficult to read text which is after all only pixels in a pattern. The smaller the pixel and the fewer pixels making up the character increases the problem of text readability.

 

[Gnits]

A depressing topic that such an “in your face” usability issue has not been resolved at an industry level . I am thinking that my next desktop may be an Apple Studio or Ultra.. but conscious all the time of 4k screens being challenged in Apple environments.

Further.. I had planned to get an OWC Thunderbolt disk enclosure and 2 very large disks.. pre upgrade to modernise my aging storage situation and ease the transition from Windows to Mac.. The current storage prices renders such a disk upgrade a 3-5 k € spend alone.

If I have to factor purchasing Apple compatible screens to be able to get a satisfactory GUI experience in a Mac environment then it becomes totally unrealistic.

But the solution is easy for me.. I will stick with my current Windows kit until I see more sensible options.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

A depressing topic that such an “in your face” usability issue has not been resolved at an industry level . I am thinking that my next desktop may be an Apple Studio or Ultra.. but conscious all the time of 4k screens being challenged in Apple environments.

I’m not a Windows expert in any way, but as far as I know, the way Windows deals with this is very much the same as what Apple does. The only difference is that Windows presents the options in a different way to the user. Where Apple shows the scaled resolution, Windows users can set their display to “150%”. Under the hood, that’s the same thing as far as I understand it.

 

[antoniboy1989]

hi

 

[Gnits]

When I got my 4k monitor it took me a while to figure out the combination of settings to get text size that worked for me. I will check later.. when I get back to my desk..probably tomorrow.

I do know I have this as a check point before purchasing a Mac Studio as this topic crops up on too regular a basis to ignore.

 

[clee01l]

But the solution is easy for me.. I will stick with my current Windows kit until I see more sensible options.

ASUS has provided me with satisfactory compatibility with MacOS. An Apple Studio XDR display is not large enough at 27". It is difficult to down size once you've experienced working on (2) 32" HDR displays. I tried that once with iMacs going from a 27" Intel iMac to the 24" M1 iMac. The current 24" iMac is not XDR at only 500 nits.

 

[Gnits]

I have limited supply options in Dublin and little opportunity to see actual demo view… so it is challenging. While 4k is the current in vogue size, better HDR options are evolving... hopefully by the time I need to make a decision the overall situation may be easier to deal with.

 

[John R Ellis]

I’m not sure if Lightroom displays images differently when in full screen mode (it might indeed do that), but the way images are displayed when interface items are visible is suboptimal

To clarify, when you set the Mac's display settings to a scaled resolution larger than 50% and smaller than 100% to increase the readability of text, LR will still use the full native resolution to display the images in Library and Develop Loupe view.

For example, attached are screenshots of Loupe view at the native resolution of 3840 and scaled resolutions of 2560 and 1920. When I view them with Mac Preview in full screen, I can't see any appreciable difference between them.

But there are two annoying bugs:

- 100% (1:1) zoom will display the image at somewhat less than 100% zoom. For example, when I use a scaled resolution of 2560 on a native display that's 3840, then 100% zoom in fact displays at 75% zoom. I have to zoom in a little more using drag-zoom to get close to an actual 100% zoom.

- Catalog Settings > Preview Size > Standard Preview Size > Auto uses a default that's twice the size of the scaled resolution rather than the native resolution (e.g. 5120 instead of 3840). You can choose one of the other sizes, though the dropdown menu typically won't include your display size. For example, with a scaled resolution of 2560 on a native 3840 display, your two largest choices are Auto (5120) and 2880. For me, that's not too bad, since Loupe view with the bottom toolbar and filmstrip showing is typically 3194 pixels wide, and when I edit a shoot, I usually pre-build 1:1 previews anyway.

While annoying, I don't think either of these bugs should stop people from buying high-resolution / high DPI displays for Macs.

 

[tryonk]

@clee I use a Magic TrackPad

Figuring out quoting . . .

I set the gesture on my MacBook, but I use a vertical mouse on my desktop because of wrist issues. I was able to set a dial press on my TourBox to command-option-8 to toggle PIP zoom and set the dial to command-option - and command-option-+ to zoom in and out. Works pretty slick.

FWIW, part of my current job is research apps and writing the documentation the help desk uses. My graphic design background comes in handy.

 

[tryonk]

Uncheck the option Preferences > Interface > Use Typographic Fractions:
View attachment 29256
View attachment 29257
I doubt many people find typographic fractions more readable.

Thanks for the tip—never knew that option existed. I like fancy fractions when I’m typesetting but not when I’m reading mouseprint.

 

[tryonk]

In System Settings > Displays, using a scaled resolution changes the size of text proportionately, but LR still uses the full resolution for displaying images:
View attachment 29258
View attachment 29259

You can verify that by setting the resolution to be low, starting LR, opening a photo in full-screen mode, and then taking a screenshot. Change the resolution to high and repeat. Compare the two screenshots.

The settings dialogue is a bit different in OSX 26 but has the same options. I’ll have to experiment a bit.

 

[tryonk]

I'm reasonably confident that MacOS creates an image 2x the display settings, then downscales that image to the screens native res. If you screen capture and open up the screen capture its double the OS display settings in pixels, rather than the display's native pixel count. This is the "trick" that Johan references. Its not obvious because most people use Mac's default 50% native display, for a high res/retina screen, and the two values match.
When I used a 32" 4K screen I ended up setting to 3008x1692 (half of Apple's 6K screen), I found that to be the goldilocks resolution for interface size on a 32". I found that I didn't notice any loss in sharpness or detail and I'm a fussy pixel peeper, I was using an OLED so YMMV.

Windows appears to do something similar. I use this same monitor with my work Dell laptop, and Windows 11 sets the scaling to 175% by default. I don’t know if it is reducing the resolution or scaling up pixels or something else.

 

[tryonk]

I have limited supply options in Dublin and little opportunity to see actual demo view… so it is challenging. While 4k is the current in vogue size, better HDR options are evolving... hopefully by the time I need to make a decision the overall situation may be easier to deal with.

Off topic My wife and I toured ROI for a belated 30th anniversary trip last August. We’re thinking about applying for refugee status from the orange menace.

https://portfolio.artgeek.biz/ireland

 

[John R Ellis]

The settings dialogue is a bit different in OSX 26

Those screen shots were from Mac OS 26.4.1 System Settings > Displays. Depending on the display, it will initially show a row of thumbnails (Larger Text to More Space) or a list of resolutions. You can switch from one to the other by right-clicking a thumbnail or resolution and doing Show List / Thumbnails.

 

[Johan Elzenga]

100% (1:1) zoom will display the image at somewhat less than 100% zoom. For example, when I use a scaled resolution of 2560 on a native display that's 3840, then 100% zoom in fact displays at 75% zoom. I have to zoom in a little more using drag-zoom to get close to an actual 100% zoom.

That was my point, so we agree (except that I would call 75% zoom when you want 100% not “somewhat” less). Lightroom should ignore the scaled resolution for image pixels and display them at the native resolution regardless of the scaled resolution. Or it should use a magnification setting that is 5120/3840 (or whatever needed with your scaled resolution) and call that “100%”, knowing that this gets downscaled to a real 100% view in practice. Drag-zoom will always be a guess.

While annoying, I don't think either of these bugs should stop people from buying high-resolution / high DPI displays for Macs.

I fully agree. A 2560 pixels display may show the exact same image as a 4K display set at 2560 pixels scaled resolution, but the 4K display will still show a sharper and more detailed image because what it actually shows is a 5120 pixels version of that image scaled down to 4K.

 

[tryonk]

Those screen shots were from Mac OS 26.4.1 System Settings > Displays. Depending on the display, it will initially show a row of thumbnails (Larger Text to More Space) or a list of resolutions. You can switch from one to the other by right-clicking a thumbnail or resolution and doing Show List / Thumbnails.

Yup—I remembered that when someone mentioned showing resolutions as a list. I rarely change it because I want to use the display’s native resolution, but I didn’t know it was more complicated.

 

[Gnits]

I promised earlier I would post my display settings... Here they are.

I experimented with various combos.. did not deliberately settle on the following.. I just accepted these worked for me.
I always assumed I would revisit... but I am used to them now.

I
I am happy to post any other settings if anyone interested,
O/S is Win 11.
I

 

[UtahLlama]

That was my point, so we agree (except that I would call 75% zoom when you want 100% not “somewhat” less). Lightroom should ignore the scaled resolution for image pixels and display them at the native resolution regardless of the scaled resolution. Or it should use a magnification setting that is 5120/3840 (or whatever needed with your scaled resolution) and call that “100%”, knowing that this gets downscaled to a real 100% view in practice. Drag-zoom will always be a guess.


I fully agree. A 2560 pixels display may show the exact same image as a 4K display set at 2560 pixels scaled resolution, but the 4K display will still show a sharper and more detailed image because what it actually shows is a 5120 pixels version of that image scaled down to 4K.

Seems to be a lot of agreement that setting a native 4K display to half 5K or half 6K fixes the GUI size problem but now doesn't map 1 image pixel to 1 screen pixel. I spent an afternoon looking for differences in Photoshop comparing screen captures last year with the ASUS ProArt Display OLED PA32UCDM. I really couldn't find any difference in sharpness appearance and was comfortable fine tuning image sharpness with either. My camera is 6000x4000pixels so bonus for me was 100% might not be 1pixel mapping but fits to screen.

Suggest tryonk gives it a go, its very easy to switch back

 

[tryonk]

A depressing topic that such an “in your face” usability issue has not been resolved at an industry level . I am thinking that my next desktop may be an Apple Studio or Ultra.. but conscious all the time of 4k screens being challenged in Apple environments.

Sometimes it feels like LrC is the red headed stepchild of the Adobe brood. I don't know if Adobe has left the interface so clunky because photographers don't like change or because they are trying to kill it slowly.

I’m not a Windows expert in any way, but as far as I know, the way Windows deals with this is very much the same as what Apple does. The only difference is that Windows presents the options in a different way to the user. Where Apple shows the scaled resolution, Windows users can set their display to “150%”. Under the hood, that’s the same thing as far as I understand it.

I think I mentioned that I use this same display on my work Dell laptop (it has a KVM switch built in—very handy), and Windows sets the scaling to 175% by default. I had been bumping up the interface font size instead because the Settings app gives dire warnings about changing the scaling setting, but I recently got a new work laptop and decide to zap my modified settings. I was expecting it to go to 100% scaling, but it must be reading the monitor PPI and adjusting the default to match. I haven't yet tested to see what resolution the screen is running at. but based on the soft edges and antialiasing I'm seeing, my guess is that it is at its native 4K, and Windows is upscaling the interface. It certainly is easier to read stuff at that size.

Slightly pedantic point: aren't these high PPI monitors, not high DPI? I guess you could use DPI, but I spent long enough as the geek in a mostly print design studio to make a distinction between screen pixels, printer dots, and halftone screen lines. I don't even know what the resolution of a stochastic screen is called—probably DPI. Regardless, it appears all you need to do to start a rousing discussion (or just a row) among a bunch of digital imaging geeks is to say "4K".

 

[John R Ellis]

aren't these high PPI monitors, not high DPI?

A descriptive versus prescriptive lexicographic difference.

Many software and hardware vendors and print service providers use the terms DPI and PPI interchangeably, while most imaging experts make a distinction between PPI and DPI. That distinction is quite sensible but not nearly as widely observed as the experts would prefer.

For example, my Epson Scan utility uses DPI for what the experts call PPI.

Adobe, Apple, and Microsoft documentation is littered with references to DPI, where the experts would use PPI:

https://www.google.com/search?q=dpi...CDUzNDBqMGoyqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=dpi...CDk2OTBqMGo5qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=dpi...ABgWGB6YAwCSBwM4LjGgB5lj&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

 

[tryonk]

I ran with some of the group's suggestions, and this is what I've found so far:

• I turned off typographical fractions. (Thank you, @John R Ellis!).
• I set the scroll button on my TourBox to enable a PIP zoom window and the scroll dial to change the zoom level. Works great. (Thank you @clee01l )
• I set my screen resolution in the OS to 2560x1440 rather than the native 3840x2160.
  • A screenshot at the native resolution matches the screen at 3840x2160.
  • A screenshot at the reduced resolution measures 5120x2880, or 2x the nominal resolution. That is completely counterintuitive, and I never would have guessed that the OS was rendering the display that way if @Johan Elzenga and @clee01l hadn't argued about discussed it.
  • I don't know what screen resolution LrC is using for loupe views, and I don't know how to determine that. It looks pretty sharp.
• While experimenting with OS text size, I discovered that MacOS scales Finder icons along with text. I'd seen it before but never really noticed.

A 32" display feels a little clunky at the lower resolution, but that is likely because I've used it with tiny text for so long. It's also within the range of minor text and zoom tweaks. I plan to try it this way for a while and see how it works—I still may pick up an affordable HDR monitor as a second display, just so I can see true HDR previews. I hadn't realized how much difference that made until processing images of Christmas lights at night and sunlight on water. After seeing those images in HDR on my MacBook, SDR looks dull by comparison.

 

[tryonk]

A descriptive versus prescriptive lexicographic difference.

Many software and hardware vendors and print service providers use the terms DPI and PPI interchangeably, while most imaging experts make a distinction between PPI and DPI. That distinction is quite sensible but not nearly as widely observed as the experts would prefer.

Ahhh, a fellow geek who cares about precise terminology.