Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries 
Thread started 17 May 2018 (Thursday) 11:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ideal Image Resolution Size for Posting on Social Media

 
SYS
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,004 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1069
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Gilligan's Island
     
May 17, 2018 11:49 |  #1

I just discovered that someone's been downloading my photos that I posted on Facebook and then uploaded one of my photos as his own. I confronted him about it and then unfriended him.

I know that image theft is inevitable, so this post isn't about how to prevent theft or placing copyright notification and so on. What I'd like to know is what's an ideal image resolution size for posting on social media, particularly Facebook, such that the viewers can enjoy my photos with full clarity and at the same time, should they decide to download, i.e., steal, my photos, they can't really do much with it except to re-posting elsewhere but not for the purpose of selling them?



"Life is short, art is long..."
-Goethe
My Gear & DIYs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,918 posts
Gallery: 1355 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 8968
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited 6 months ago by MalVeauX.
     
May 17, 2018 12:07 |  #2

From Facebook:

How can I make sure that my photos display in the highest possible quality?

We automatically resize and format your photos when you upload them to Facebook. To help make sure your photos appear in the highest possible quality, try these tips:

Resize your photo to one of the following supported sizes:
Regular photos: 720px, 960px or 2048px wide

Cover photos: 851px by 315px

2048 pixels at the widest. Personally I find the 960 pixels is sufficient while not giving someone a higher quality image that could be used for something else (basically 1280 pixels widest for me for social media, and a water mark).

And then either use PNG, or high quality JPG.

Sadly this is why invasive watermarks dominate this stuff, unless you just accept that there will be people (or AI) taking your photos and doing stuff with them no matter what you do.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SYS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,004 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1069
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Gilligan's Island
     
May 17, 2018 12:24 |  #3

MalVeauX wrote in post #18627320 (external link)
From Facebook:

2048 pixels at the widest. Personally I find the 960 pixels is sufficient while not giving someone a higher quality image that could be used for something else (basically 1280 pixels widest for me for social media, and a water mark).

And then either use PNG, or high quality JPG.

Sadly this is why invasive watermarks dominate this stuff, unless you just accept that there will be people (or AI) taking your photos and doing stuff with them no matter what you do.

Very best,

Thanks for the info. I didn't know that FB had the image posting recommendations.



"Life is short, art is long..."
-Goethe
My Gear & DIYs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,915 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1578
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 22, 2018 08:49 |  #4

I used to publish everything to Flickr at 1024px on the long edge. This will still allow those who really want to to make a A4/Letter sized print from it. The vast majority of folks are actually more than happy with a print at 100 PPI. Still it is pretty limiting from a commercial point of view, although for many online uses it's still plenty big enough. I did move to 1280 px long edge when the forum changed it's posting limits. I shall not be going any higher though. One thing that you can do to also make people less likely to try to make prints from your images is to put stupidly high PPI values in the EXIF. Lots of software still reports the size of an image in physical dimensions based of the PPI value in the EXIF. So if you make your 1280 px long image show 1000 PPI then it will show up as being only 1.2" long. It will at least deter the vast proportion of the population who are generally ignorant of this.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
5,908 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3035
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
May 22, 2018 08:55 |  #5

What Mal said. Not really anything you can do except kindly ask the offender to stop.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SYS
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,004 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1069
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Gilligan's Island
     
May 22, 2018 11:41 |  #6

Thanks everyone for sharing your methods and suggestions. One question I have:

Recently when I did a batch resizing of my photo files using my old PS, I set both the "W" and "H" to 1300 px (I've been playing around with different px to see the differences on my monitor) and one thing I noticed was that some files obviously ended up at near 2 MB file while some others at 1 MB. This has to do from having to set both W and H to 1300. Is having a file size to 2 MB make any difference in printing quality or monitor display quality?

If so, in order to bring the file size down, is the only way to do so is to setting the W and H to a lower px?



"Life is short, art is long..."
-Goethe
My Gear & DIYs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,918 posts
Gallery: 1355 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 8968
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
May 22, 2018 12:35 |  #7

File size has a lot to do with the container you're using (such as JPG versus PNG).

Has nothing to do with print size. But compression can certainly have effects on the quality of the image which will effect display & print (such as really high compression, low quality JPG).

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,915 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1578
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 23, 2018 17:57 |  #8

I don't know what version of Ps you are using, for some time now Adobe has offered additional options, such as specifying the length of the longest edge. Setting both width and height to the same value has the same effect as using long edge so it doesn't really matter. When it comes to image file size, especially with JPEG, then that will change with the content of the image. Images with lots of areas with little fine detail will compress far more easily than those with lots and lots of small fine detail.

In general when dealing with Adobe products it doesn't matter if the JPEG compression scale is the 0-100 or the 0-12 one, they all only have 13 different compression levels. Because JPEG converts the image data from the usual RGB colour channels to a system based on luminance and chrominance channels similar to that of old analogue TV signals there is always a small conversion loss involved in storing an image file as a JPEG. After doing some tests I discovered that it was almost not possible to even measure the difference in the RGB channels for any pixel in an image that was saved at a compression level of 10 (80) or above. The comparison was made between an 8 bit uncompressed TIFF file made directly from a RAW and first generation JPEG versions made from the same image. There is though a much bigger difference between the level 10 JPEG and the level 12, but that is not what you should be measuring.

In general you should see a reduction of between 40% and 60% in file size between a L10 JPEG and the uncompressed image data. For a 3:2 ratio image, which is 3.22 MB when uncompressed, when saved at level 10 I would expect it to have a file size between 1.9 MB and 1.2 MB. Level 12 is basically convert to JPEG and save without any compression, and I have actually seen some maximum quality JPEG files that have been larger than the uncompressed TIFF file. File sizes will change if you crop to a different aspect ratio, for example if you make the image 1:1 by cropping ti square then it will end up being 1300×1300 pixels, and an uncompressed size of 4.83 MB. So you may also see quite a bit of change in file size if you crop to different aspect ratios too.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

598 views & 4 likes for this thread
Ideal Image Resolution Size for Posting on Social Media
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Jannik
801 guests, 367 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.