Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · Best results for Facebook

  
 
m.sommers00
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Best results for Facebook


Facebook really deteriorates images and I'm trying to figure how to rectify that. I try to upload small sizes so their compression algorithm doesn't hinder it too much but I can still notice a difference. And their HQ option makes the pictures quick large that I could honestly print them with decent enough results.

Is there a preferred file type? Pixel dimensions? File size? Sharping level?



Jul 02, 2015 at 05:45 PM
jancohen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Best results for Facebook


You might try the specs found here.

I do a lot of work for clients that includes dealing with their social media accounts, and those specs usually work fine for me.



Jul 02, 2015 at 07:04 PM
benee
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Best results for Facebook


jancohen wrote:
You might try the specs found here.

I do a lot of work for clients that includes dealing with their social media accounts, and those specs usually work fine for me.


Jan, i have run into this problem recently with some wedding clients. lets say you do one of the recommend sizes, either 760 or 920 on the long end. Do you try to limit the file to 100kb as well so facebook doesn't compress the images?



Jul 02, 2015 at 07:46 PM
jancohen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Best results for Facebook


benee wrote:
Jan, i have run into this problem recently with some wedding clients. lets say you do one of the recommend sizes, either 760 or 920 on the long end. Do you try to limit the file to 100kb as well so facebook doesn't compress the images?


The short answer is yes to keeping your images under 100KB, Ben, to help avoid Facebook's compression algorithms. A more in-depth discussion of what Facebook does and how to cope with it can be found here though, as well as just about anything else you'd like to know about the latest hows and whys of adding images to Facebook.



Jul 02, 2015 at 08:41 PM
benee
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Best results for Facebook


jancohen wrote:
The short answer is yes to keeping your images under 100KB, Ben, to help avoid Facebook's compression algorithms. A more in-depth discussion of what Facebook does and how to cope with it can be found here though, as well as just about anything else you'd like to know about the latest hows and whys of adding images to Facebook.



Fantastic - many thanks for your helpful reply!



Jul 02, 2015 at 08:44 PM
jancohen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Best results for Facebook


benee wrote:
Fantastic - many thanks for your helpful reply!


You're welcome.

Though it's a long list of comments (there's a lot of frustrated folks out there apparently) at that link, you'll want to read through them also to see what others have been dealing with as well as the OP's responses to those comments. Very useful info when you're dealing with what we're discussing here.

That said, the other social media sites like Twitter, Google+, Pinterest, etc., all have their own specs, sometimes aligned with what's known as Facebook's OpenGraph protocol which, in-part, allows you to add images to (e.g.) Facebook timelines from external web sites automatically, sized to the correct dimensions (e.g., like when adding a blog post of your own and having its featured image and a short excerpt added to your Facebook timeline, or sharing tools you allow visitors to your site to use to share images/excerpts on their own social media pages, where you allow that).

That has a lot to do with organic SEO rankings and marketing though, and whether or not you want the added attention effective organic SEO offers.



Jul 02, 2015 at 09:02 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Best results for Facebook


So the answer is to size your images exactly at, say, 2048px wide and at 99.9KB?

Do that upon export from your PP software and Facebook's algorithm of death won't molest it?

Cheers,
Paul.



Jul 03, 2015 at 05:28 AM
jancohen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Best results for Facebook


Paul Mo wrote:
So the answer is to 2048px wide and at 99.9KB?

Do that upon export from your PP software and Facebook's algorithm of death won't molest it?
Paul.


Actually, no, but as a photographer myself, I understand why other photographers could think that was the optimal approach.

This is going to be a bit long in the tooth...

File size itself is going to be dependent on a number of things, but mostly the number of pixels (ppi/dpi) in an image, color bit depth, compression, etc., and will vary from image to image. Unless absolutely identical (which is no mean feat to achieve), a dozen images sized to 2048px wide by 1000px tall could all have different files sizes, ranging from relatively small files to much larger ones. In a similar vein, a dozen images all sized to 99.9KB would most likely differ in their onscreen widths and heights.

You can experience this yourself by trying to size a small collection (or even a couple) of images to 2048px wide and at 99.9KB at a specific resolution (e.g., 300dpi), which might result in a frustrating experience.

More important is resolution, which you have more control over. With respect to resolution and onscreen display, sizing an image properly will essentially be dependent on how large you want the image to appear on a particular screen size set for a particular screen resolution. Optimal image resolution will be driven by the screen you want to display your images on, and will differ depending on whether we're talking 1920x1200 @ 96dpi, IPS, retina, etc. That said, when it comes to the web, there's really no one set resolution that will work best, simply because of those varying screen sizes/resolutions and how web sites are set up to handle the display of images to fit their various page layouts. That's why now-a-days web designers/developers often create multiple copies of an image at varying resolutions, adding them to their web sites, while they strive for optimal quality. They don't necessarily currently do this for every image, mind you (most clients would find the billing unbearable), but do so for the most important images like logos and any others where "critical" sharpness is desired.

Now back to Facebook and how best to deal with adding images there: regardless of any one specific image you add there, chances are you are going to have to accept that some images will be modified by Facebook's image handling scripts, simply because of the way the web works, meaning client-server, web browser interactions. If someone accesses a Facebook page on their desktop screen, the web server determines which sized image best to serve to that screen. That could be a copy of an image 960px wide by 600px tall, at 96dpi. Similarly, if one views the same page using an iPhone with a Retina display, the server might respond with a copy of that image it saved at 192dpi (96x2), sized by the web developer to fit that screen's landscape. On the other hand, if varying image sizes weren't provided by the web developer for display in the different screens, the server will use an image it processed itself when the image was uploaded. There's usually no getting away from that as most web sites today have provisions in their code to generate copies of images in various sizes (resolutions, if you will) upon upload, for use in the various scenarios.

And that's the key point. If you know how images are spec'd for the different purposes they might be used in particular web page/site, you can provide copies of those images that you optimized yourself before uploading them, such that the web server does little in the way of making changes to them. Doing so greatly allows you to avoid those compression algorithms we started this discussion with, as well as the sort of frustrations experienced by the original OP.

Sorry for the long-winded, rambling comment, but I hope it helped. Now, you might want to go back to that link I provided earlier , and read the post there some more. It's actually fairly informative



Jul 03, 2015 at 08:11 AM
sjms
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Best results for Facebook


facebook is a great place to stay away from


Jul 03, 2015 at 08:25 AM
jancohen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Best results for Facebook


sjms wrote:
facebook is a great place to stay away from


+1 (I only maintain a page there for work purposes, and don't have but 2 or 3 "Facebook friends").

It is a necessary evil though, given how many people are caught up in social media today, as well as how search engines rank web sites.




Jul 03, 2015 at 08:30 AM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Best results for Facebook


jancohen wrote:
+1 (I only maintain a page there for work purposes, and don't have but 2 or 3 "Facebook friends").

It is a necessary evil though, given how many people are caught up in social media today, as well as how search engines rank web sites.



For many people, especially younger folks, FB, tumblr and other social media sites., are the internet. They don't use forums or visit blogs or old style websites. Heck they don't use email either. Everything is IM or texting.



Jul 03, 2015 at 02:54 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Best results for Facebook


Maybe the social media sites are necessary for promoting a business, but memberships are not a mandated requirement otherwise. I refuse to engage in such activities.

EBH



Jul 03, 2015 at 03:06 PM
sjms
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Best results for Facebook


Gochugogi wrote:
For many people, especially younger folks, FB, tumblr and other social media sites., are the internet. They don't use forums or visit blogs or old style websites. Heck they don't use email either. Everything is IM or texting.


true that may be it can and has led to possible issues. again, i have muddled along resisting this impersonal "personal" world.




Jul 03, 2015 at 03:09 PM
m.sommers00
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Best results for Facebook


For me starting out and really trying to get this taking off, platforms like Facebook, 500px, and Instagram are necessary evils to showcase what I do and what I offer. Other than family and friends telling people about my website or showing pictures on their phones, no one will ever know who I am.

And in the photographer world, where anyone with a camera calls themselves a professional, it's hard to get noticed.



Jul 03, 2015 at 03:18 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Best results for Facebook


m.sommers00 wrote:
And in the photographer world, where anyone with a camera calls themselves a professional, it's hard to get noticed.


It's pretty much the same deal with any creative endeavor--music, studio art, actor, etc. Anybody and everybody can and does stake a claim as a pro. Success is in many ways is more dependent on skillful PR and marketing than talent and skill.

FB can get really expensive as a marketing tool. If you want your images, events and posts to make it further than a few friends and family you need to fork over plenty of Benjamins to "boost" your posts.




Jul 03, 2015 at 03:44 PM





FM Forums | General Gear-talk | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.