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
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
Thread started 03 Feb 2016 (Wednesday) 22:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

FaceBook photo image issue?

 
ThomasDidymus
Member
Avatar
218 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 173
Joined Sep 2015
Location: A small town in Pennsylvania
     
Feb 03, 2016 22:51 |  #1

So my images look good on my ipad but when I look at them on my PC some of the darker images get real grain filled. I am using a 4k monitor and graphic card on my PC. It is like night and day difference. My when looking at the image below it look great on my Ipad but here and on facebook on my PC it looks like garbage. Please tell me what is wrong because I can not figure this out???

IMAGE: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/hostedphotos_lq/2016/02/1/LQ_773696.jpg
Image hosted by forum (773696) © ThomasDidymus [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

God created the beauty. My camera and I are a witness..
@didymus_photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ThomasDidymus
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
218 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 173
Joined Sep 2015
Location: A small town in Pennsylvania
     
Feb 03, 2016 23:21 |  #2

Changed setting on export..

IMAGE: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/hostedphotos_lq/2016/02/1/LQ_773705.jpg
Image hosted by forum (773705) © ThomasDidymus [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

God created the beauty. My camera and I are a witness..
@didymus_photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,635 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2058
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Feb 04, 2016 01:38 as a reply to  @ ThomasDidymus's post |  #3

The image is 1000ish pixels wide and 57k. It has been heavily compressed to the point where there are extensive artefacts visible. This is, in part, because whatever compression you apply, Facebook then goes an compresses it even more, thus reducing image quality. Viewing this on a big monitor just makes it even more obvious.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Martin ­ Dixon
Slit-scan project master
Avatar
1,867 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Likes: 276
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Ealing
     
Feb 04, 2016 08:20 |  #4

I googled a few weeks ago and came up with:

For best results Facebook uploads should be 2048px max sRGB and 99KB max - though this may now be may now be only 50KB.


flickr (external link) Editing OK (external link) www.slitcam.com (free slit-scan utility) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ThomasDidymus
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
218 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 173
Joined Sep 2015
Location: A small town in Pennsylvania
     
Feb 04, 2016 13:30 |  #5

That makes sense. I tryed a lot of tests late last night and found that the image is great in lightroom until I exported it. So I changed settings quality setting on export and got a lot better image but then had issues again once in uploaded it..GRRR I wish facebook and other websites would let us do what we do to the max..


God created the beauty. My camera and I are a witness..
@didymus_photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmnelson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,286 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2010
Post edited over 7 years ago by dmnelson.
     
Feb 04, 2016 14:53 as a reply to  @ ThomasDidymus's post |  #6

I absolutely agree that it's frustrating how Facebook diminishes your image quality. On their end, the problem is that a huge number of photos get posted every day and shrinking each one -- whether it's megabytes or kilobytes -- adds up to massive savings in storage and bandwidth. Plus I'm sure the majority of their users are on mobile devices or laptops with relatively low-resolution screens. At some point they must have considered this and decided it was a worth-while tradeoff because it saves them money in a way that most people either wouldn't notice or wouldn't care about.


Gear | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Out buying Wheaties
Avatar
7,484 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Likes: 1087
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Feb 05, 2016 12:08 |  #7

Two issues here.
iPad makes even crappy picture looking good. FB makes good picture looks like crap.

This is why I post mostly mobile phone pictures on FB, don't trust ipad for IQ and using my desktop with dedicated GFX card to see how good picture really is :)


M-E and ME blog (external link). Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,925 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2398
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 7 years ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Feb 05, 2016 12:14 |  #8

i just figured this out recently, y'all don't tell anyone okay?

if you upload PNG files to Facebook it will not compress them more. I think since they are lossless compression there is no point in compressing them again, thus your files (at least the image part of them) remain just as they were before.

Martin's comment about pixel width is true to my knowledge, but I think the file size limit is higher than that.

edit: looks like the 99K file size is still in effect.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Martin ­ Dixon
Slit-scan project master
Avatar
1,867 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Likes: 276
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Ealing
     
Feb 05, 2016 12:18 as a reply to  @ Left Handed Brisket's post |  #9

I also read about PNG, but I'm fairly sure they stopped or are about to stop this loophole - PNG is far bigger file size.


flickr (external link) Editing OK (external link) www.slitcam.com (free slit-scan utility) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,925 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2398
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Feb 05, 2016 12:27 |  #10

They change stuff all the time so it's entirely possible. But they allow 25 megabyte video uploads and are moving more and more supporting video, so who knows?

100kb is pretty lame any way you look at it.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ThomasDidymus
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
218 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 173
Joined Sep 2015
Location: A small town in Pennsylvania
     
Feb 05, 2016 22:11 |  #11

Well even squarspace limits you to a 20mb file so.. and I have some that are over 25mg so..


God created the beauty. My camera and I are a witness..
@didymus_photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,925 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2398
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 7 years ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Feb 06, 2016 16:20 |  #12

ThomasDidymus wrote in post #17887642 (external link)
Well even squarspace limits you to a 20mb file so.. and I have some that are over 25mg so..

are you saying you upload 20-25 megabyte still image files?

if so, that is your problem. Definitely do not let Facebook, SquareSpace or pretty much any other web based app resize your images that much. Always export them from RAW at the maximum size they will be viewed online, if the app resizes for thumbnails etc, there's not much you can do about it.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ThomasDidymus
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
218 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 173
Joined Sep 2015
Location: A small town in Pennsylvania
     
Feb 06, 2016 22:25 |  #13

Thank you all for the help. I have never really messed with the export setting in Lightroom. This week I am reading the export chapter of Lightroom cc by Scott Kelby just to get a better idea. I did a re-size for my monitor and the image is stunning.

IMAGE: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/hostedphotos_lq/2016/02/1/LQ_774149.jpg
Image hosted by forum (774149) © ThomasDidymus [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

God created the beauty. My camera and I are a witness..
@didymus_photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,120 posts
Gallery: 556 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1682
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Feb 07, 2016 09:09 |  #14

ThomasDidymus wrote in post #17888781 (external link)
Thank you all for the help. I have never really messed with the export setting in Lightroom. This week I am reading the export chapter of Lightroom cc by Scott Kelby just to get a better idea. I did a re-size for my monitor and the image is stunning.
Hosted photo: posted by ThomasDidymus in
./showthread.php?p=178​88781&i=i150036842
forum: General Photography Talk


The great thing about LR is that you can save your own Export presets. I have lots of them, any time I think I will need to export images to the same destination more than once I save a preset for it. It makes life so easy to do that, it also means that I don't have to keep any local JPEG copies of my images, just export, use, delete.

Alan


alanevans.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 571
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Mar 23, 2016 19:52 |  #15

With Facebook, I follow one of two processes.

1) For the more general "sharing" I tend to export photos with the size allowed here in POTN (what is it, 1280 pixels?)...I find our images here can be pretty pleasing at that size, although I tend to go smaller with the Height dimension...

2) for more "serious" Facebook photos I'll go wider, up to say 1600 pixels. This can be very cool when users open the image then select the "Full Screen View Mode" -- Facebook will either display the pic in its "original" size (what you exported/uploaded) or if you have a smaller screen it will shrink it to fit.

Of course the thumbnails you see when you scroll through a post will look lousy, but go the Full Screen mode and you may be pleased!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

5,004 views & 4 likes for this thread, 8 members have posted to it and it is followed by 4 members.
FaceBook photo image issue?
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Stuff General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

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

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 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1467 guests, 129 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.