At the moment the Dell Ultrasharps seem to be high on the list, but if I was to go with Dell it's which one!
I still don't see why anyone would want a 27 inch 2650 pixel width monitor. To edit photos, you need to see the pixels of the monitor clearly, so you can see the pixels of the image clearly when viewing them at 100%. Otherwise you won't be able to optimize sharpening, reduction, or image scaling. Maybe it's my eyes, but I can't see pixels any smaller than my 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor. For critical viewing I'm less than a foot from the screen, and most of the time am less than 3 feet from the screen. I can't focus on anything less than 5 or 6 inches, and that's what it would take.
I guess so, but the number of pixels is scaled up because it is a bigger monitor, so I would have thought the size of each pixel on the 24 and 27 would be similar?
They aren't...I did the math. All you have to do is find out the exact width in inches of each screen, then divide the 24 inch screen's width by 1920, and the 27 inch screen's width by 2650. I came up with something like .012 or .013 inches for the 24 inch, and .10 or .009 inches for the 27 inch. That translates to an inch or two closer than my eyes can focus, and certainly several inches closer than I'd like to edit for the less critical parts of the editing process. Certainly it could work, but it would probably give me a headache worse than I get now. Best would be a 32 inch diagonal screen that is 2650 pixels wide, at least for what I'd like.
There is an aesthetic that says it's better to not ever see a display's pixels...but I disagree with it. Even for watching tv...at least if it's material that is truly testing the resolution of the tv. For material that doesn't test it, then it doesn't matter. That's kind of like looking at soft focused pictures on the computer. It doesn't matter if you view them at 100%...unless of course they're only barely soft and some 3 pixel radius sharpening could help rescue them a bit.