I don't have a 24 inch monitor either - but I do enlarge pictures for printing to 33x23 inch paper. So I do care what my pictures look like big - even though most of them end up at 1600x1200 pixels in my Pbase galleries.
Today's 24" monitors are not that high resolution any more. It's about 2MP (1080p) to 2.3MP (1920x1200). An iPad Air 2 or older is at 2048-by-1536 or 3MP, regardless its size. An iPad Pro is at 2732 x 2048 or 5.6MP A 4K monitor is 3840 pixels × 2160 or 8MP.
This is a multifaceted question.. in the olden days when there was only dial-up internet connections, website designers tried to upload pictures that are smaller in dimension and in size (mb) so the download speeds will be faster.. these days with modern technologies, that's not paid so much attention anymore.. today's image size needs is dependant on what types of media you want your pictures to be shown.. the greater in dimension the image that's going to be needed, then the higher in qualities of an image that's going to be required.
I'm still using an old DSLR (400D, 10 MP) and the photos look OK (but just OK) on my 24 inch monitors (older 1920 x 1200 ones) when they are scaled to fit on the screen
As most people have said, the only person who can say what's relevant for you is you.
Being selfish I don't care about what most people see, only what I see.
Yes... landscape orientation photos on a 5 inch phone screen... viewed phone-vertical. So your 20MP+ photo is being seen at 0.3 MP by phone browsers.
But some of your programs might have issues showing text at a readable size or buttons/icons in programs not being big enough to use.
No. They "look good" on phones because it's only at best a 2MP phone screen and you are viewing it from 12+ inches away.
Exactly. And Instagram still doesn't even allow you to flip the viewing angle.
Like some others, I would be concerned if my camera was not able to produce good-looking images on my home computer monitor. I've downloaded some sample images from the X-T10 and 18-55 kit zoom (which is a combination you mentioned in a previous thread), and they look great on my screen, nothing soft or noisy about them. Also in a previous thread you had mentioned possibly needing to send your camera in for service. Did you end up doing that; is it functioning properly at this point?
If your pictures look bad on your computer monitor, but acceptable on the devices you've mentioned, if it were me, I'd still want to know why I'm not getting the image quality that numerous test reports indicate should be the norm with the camera I own.
When electronic picture frame came out a few years back, I'd said "that's the way to show/display my photos". But back then, the screen resolution was now good; and the price for a large size display was near $1,000 so I'd never acted on it.
If no one is going to be seeing the photo larger than that, then why should you care? As long as your premise remains true so does the conclusion.
If you have no interest in improving your photography then settle for the mediocre results but if you have ambitions to improve then takes steps to make it happen, only by striving for excellence will you achieve your full potential.
