Facebook Compression

[MattGrey]

We all know Facebook does some awful things to photos when they get uploaded.

 

Has anyone found a method of uploading that stop the compression?

 

I have read and tried all sorts of things but my photos still loose clarity and saturation when I upload them.

 

Any suggestions welcome!

 

Have tried smaller res, png with differing levels of compression, colour spaces all to no avail. 

 

Thanks.

Edited June 22, 2014 by MattGrey

[pauln]

The best way I've found although there are still issues is to save for Web rather than save as jpeg, png etc. It does save at a low res but it seems to display slightly better than larger 300 dpi images

[colinb]

The best way I've found although there are still issues is to save for Web rather than save as jpeg, png etc. It does save at a low res but it seems to display slightly better than larger 300 dpi images

 

I always reduce to 72dpi for web posting rather than let 3rd party software do it for me, saves time and seems to work ok.

[Black Pearl]

I know this is my usual rant but I shall keep at it stops rearing its head- the ppi of an image when sized to be viewed on a screen is irrelevant. 

 

What you need to set is the specific pixel dimension (for example 900x600) and you can set the ppi to ten or ten thousand as it won't make any difference what so ever.

[ChrisLumix]

I know this is my usual rant but I shall keep at it stops rearing its head- the ppi of an image when sized to be viewed on a screen is irrelevant. 

 

What you need to set is the specific pixel dimension (for example 900x600) and you can set the ppi to ten or ten thousand as it won't make any difference what so ever.

 

Exactly. What's more you get better protection in case people 'swipe' your photographs to their desktop without asking. They will get small sizes and an unprintable 72 or 90 ppi.

[Black Pearl]

No they won't. 

 

If you set a pixel dimension - which you do when saving an image to be viewed on a screen - you are setting that dimension regardless of the ppi. 

 

Lets say you make it 1100 x 733 pixels (my usual sharing size) it will be 1100 x 733 at 72ppi as it will be 1100 x 733 at 300ppi as it will be 1100x733 at a billion ppi.

 

Nothing changes.....nothing!

 

If someone downloads it they can print all of them at exactly the same quality because all of them have the same number of pixels.

[MattGrey]

Thanks all.  Had a play, got slightly better results, but still crap!

 

BP, I understand that saving in a different ppi does nothing.  But can you explain why the option is there?  It does nothing to the image, nothing to compression etc....so.....what is it doing!?

 

[Black Pearl]

It is for printing purposes when you take a high resolution file and set a ppi and a print dimension ready to send to the printer.

 

Again it does nothing to the actual pixels or the file size but it tells the printer what size image to put on the paper and at what pixel density.

[MattGrey]

So it's just a tag that the printer can read?

[Black Pearl]

Yep - unless you are using software to interpolate the file and add/remove pixels it is simply a virtual number.

[MattGrey]

Thanks BP.

[ChrisLumix]

No they won't. 

 

If you set a pixel dimension - which you do when saving an image to be viewed on a screen - you are setting that dimension regardless of the ppi. 

 

Lets say you make it 1100 x 733 pixels (my usual sharing size) it will be 1100 x 733 at 72ppi as it will be 1100 x 733 at 300ppi as it will be 1100x733 at a billion ppi.

 

Nothing changes.....nothing!

 

If someone downloads it they can print all of them at exactly the same quality because all of them have the same number of pixels.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree. If you print a 72 ppi image you will get a worse print than if it was 300 ppi. And if you change the ppi in Photoshop, you will find the print size of the image changes dramatically.

[MattGrey]

Yes, the print size.  Has no effect to the way it looks on screen or the saved file, only the final print.

Edited June 24, 2014 by MattGrey

[MattGrey]

More to the point, you can save at 72, e-mail the photo to someone, they can change it straight back to 300 and print a full size, ful res image.

 

Try it!

[ChrisLumix]

More to the point, you can save at 72, e-mail the photo to someone, they can change it straight back to 300 and print a full size, ful res image.

 

Try it!

 

Not at all, with respect. Once you've changed an image to 72 ppi, you've 'lost' some file information, just as with jpeg compression. Sure, someone can change it back to 300 ppi but that's like changing an MP3 @ 128 kbps to an AIFF - the file size goes up astronomically, but the information that's there is still what was in the original MP3, you've not regained the missing information. 

 

If you're in Photoshop with a 72 ppi image and go 'Print', you might see your image fill a sheet of A4. If you then increase the ppi to 300 and go 'Print', you will see the image now fills only one quarter of the page. Try it!

 

If you reduce the absolute pixel size of what you post FB (I never post larger than 1000 pixels on the longest side) AND reduce the ppi to 72, you have an image that someone can steal but can never improve the reduced quality of. Meanwhile, you have the original full size image and could therefore (theoretically) prove to any Court in the land that the image is yours.

[Black Pearl]

If you change the ppi without changing the size of the image (number of pixels) you're not changing anything you're just changing the tags.

If you set the pixels to 1000 long and change the ppi the the image will still be 1000 pixels long so the nothing has actually happened to your file and the potential print quality will be exactly the same - try it!

If however you change the ppi AND interpolate the image THEN the image size will change as you are either losing or adding pixels - but that is an entirely different process and is not the way to resize something for screen use.

You are partially right but you're confusing file sizes, image sizes and print sizes.

[ChrisLumix]

If you change the ppi without changing the size of the image (number of pixels) you're not changing anything you're just changing the tags.

If you set the pixels to 1000 long and change the ppi the the image will still be 1000 pixels long so the nothing has actually happened to your file and the potential print quality will be exactly the same - try it!

If however you change the ppi AND interpolate the image THEN the image size will change as you are either losing or adding pixels - but that is an entirely different process and is not the way to resize something for screen use.

You are partially right but you're confusing file sizes, image sizes and print sizes.

 

If you keep the absolute pixel size at - say - 1000 (longest side), and it's 300 ppi, then its 'real world' size is 1000/300 inches. If you change its ppi to 72, then its 'real world' size becomes 1000/72 inches, i.e. bigger but with pixels added to make up the difference, so reduced quality.

[Black Pearl]

I'm at work so I can't get at my iMac and Photoshop to show you but read back what you've just posted.

If the first image is 1000 pixels long and the second image is 1000 long then they are both 1000 pixels long - so they're both exactly the same. It doesn't matter what ppi is set in the background they are still both 1000 pixel long.

[ChrisLumix]

I'm at work so I can't get at my iMac and Photoshop to show you but read back what you've just posted.

If the first image is 1000 pixels long and the second image is 1000 long then they are both 1000 pixels long - so they're both exactly the same. It doesn't matter what ppi is set in the background they are still both 1000 pixel long.

 

Yes, but you missed my point about 'real world' images. Agreed, both images are 1000 pixels long, but if those pixels take up only 3 inches then there's more information per inch. However if the 1000 pixels are spread over 12 inches then there's a lot missing.

 

I suppose it's like a strip of dough : 445 grams of bread dough is 445 grams whether you roll it out to be 3 inches or 12 inches long. But the resulting 3 inch loaf will be a lot more dense and concentrated than the 12 inch loaf which will have a lot of air in it. 

[Black Pearl]

But the discussion started with what is the best size etc for FB and ppi was brought into the equation at which point I said it doesn't matter. It still doesn't matter, it is still a virtual setting and it still has no affect on the file itself.

If you set a file to 72ppi and it ended up being 25 inches long you would have to be mad (plus you'd need a big printer) to print it that size. What you would actually do is tell the printer you wanted it 6 inches where upon the printer would change the file to 300ppi and everything would be tickety boo. It can do this as the ppi is a virtual setting and unless you are interpolating the file when resizing it a meaningless one.

I know what you are saying but for on screen use the ppi doesn't matter so you don't need to change it and for printing unless you are interpolating when setting it again it doesn't matter.

[ChrisLumix]

But the discussion started with what is the best size etc for FB and ppi was brought into the equation at which point I said it doesn't matter. It still doesn't matter, it is still a virtual setting and it still has no affect on the file itself.

If you set a file to 72ppi and it ended up being 25 inches long you would have to be mad (plus you'd need a big printer) to print it that size. What you would actually do is tell the printer you wanted it 6 inches where upon the printer would change the file to 300ppi and everything would be tickety boo. It can do this as the ppi is a virtual setting and unless you are interpolating the file when resizing it a meaningless one.

I know what you are saying but for on screen use the ppi doesn't matter so you don't need to change it and for printing unless you are interpolating when setting it again it doesn't matter.

 

Agreed, but my points were all a comeback to your disagreement to my original point about theft of images on Facebook - which I still stand by, because it included the proviso that one should also reduce the absolute image size (in pixels) so the full size original is not given away for free. The smaller and more compressed the image on FB, the better, as there's no reason to put anything up there except to share with other people. The ppi argument I only raised in connection with printing, i.e. so that people can't make full size full prints from your reduced ppi images.

[MattGrey]

Yes they can.

 

You just change the PPI setting back!

 

[FUJI]

After all this and all those numbers you have addled my old brain..........

QUESTION......is it really worth joining Facebook?

If so.........Why?

Joined Instagram, but dont really know what to do with it ;-)

FUJI

[MattGrey]

I use Facebook for feedback on photos.  Lots of groups with 1000s of member who will give you a ton of criticism in minutes with no fore thought for my feelings! 

 

I rarely use it as the social tool it was supposed to be.  My friend list is only about 40 I think, I keep it just to people I will speak to in the street.

Edited June 24, 2014 by MattGrey

[ChrisLumix]

Yes they can.

 

You just change the PPI setting back!

 

 

Yes, but then the image is re-interpolated for printing, and the quality is NOT restored. Read up about 'lossy' compression.