Facebook Photo Sizes

[rpcrowe]

I have got to admit that I joined the FaceBook bandwagon late I also have to admit that I detest social media in general

However, it is absolutely necessary that I post good looking images on FaceBook since this has become a major source of our donations for our rescue work and a significant source of adoptive families for our dogs...

Luckily, we now have a significant number of volunteers who are posting fairly decent images on FaceBook.

https://www.facebook.com/MalteseRescueCalifornia/

Sizing photos so that they will appear correctly (and look good) on FaceBook is not all that easy for me...

Here is some information in the sizes needed to correctly show up...

https://havecamerawilltravel.com/pho...mensions-types

I don't know how correct this article is nor do I know of any other comprehensive instructions...

I also don't know about the size to be posted. What seems the most simple is the single picture 470 x 470px.

"When you upload an image to the timeline, a thumbnail is generated automatically to fit within a box that is 470px by 470px. So if you want to use the maximum space allowed, upload a square photo at least 470px wide."

Does this mean that if I uploaded a square photo of 800x800px it will fit correctly? This is the same dimensions as a 470x470px photo. Or... do I need to reduce the image to the exact pixel sizes listed in this article Then the text should read upload a square photo exactly 470x470px!

I wonder what the best way to sharpen an image would be to posted on FaceBook.

Accessing the FaceBook images on different computers give me quite a difference in quality.

[marlunn]

I put mine up at 1024 on the longest size, looks okay to me and others in my camera club that view them

think you should be able to see - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

[Donald]

"When you upload an image to the timeline, a thumbnail is generated automatically to fit within a box that is 470px by 470px. So if you want to use the maximum space allowed, upload a square photo at least 470px wide.

That need for a square image is way out-of-date Richard. Facebook will now show an image in whichever ration you post it.

Like you, I am no expert in using social media. The one thing I was told/read at one point (others may comment on whether this is correct), is that posting to Facebook as a png rather than a jpeg, gives better quality. As I say I don't know if this is so, but I have always done it. So I always save a png version in a folder I call 'Facebook' and use that.

[marlunn]

i did read that a while ago as facebook did not compress .pngs - but I seem to recall reading recently that they changed that - however to confuse further i also read that it depends on where the image is stored as facebook is across multiple datacentres depending on geographic locations and not all are in sync !

[Black Pearl]

To trigger the highest quality mode on Facebook the image needs to be 2048 on its longest edge. Save it as a jpeg and keep the slider high so the file is about 1mb *
I do this for critical posting but generally use something around 1400 pixels as thats what I upload to forums at and it still looks pretty decent on a FB page when you click on it.

* note if you are worried about stuff being taken by others - it will on FB there is nothing you can do so don't bother trying - 2048/1mb is good enough to print so just a word of warning.

[marlunn]

set the dpi to 2 in the image at whatever pixel size you want if worried about people printing it

[Black Pearl]

set the dpi to 2 in the image at whatever pixel size you want if worried about people printing it

Changing the ppi (not dpi) makes absolutely no difference what so ever as you are outputting an image at a specific pixel dimension for screen viewing.

[marlunn]

Robin, not what i said, probably me not being clear, sorry, dpi = print resolution - so impact abilty for image to be printed off facebook, ppi for viewing - whatever size you want to display it at = this was in response to your comment "2048/1mb is good enough to print so just a word of warning."

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Mark,

I may also be misunderstanding you, but for clarity ...

If an image is uploaded anywhere at 2048 pixels on the long edge, it matters not a jot what you have set the dpi figure to within the file, if it is 2048 pixels and can be downloaded as such, that will yield an image suitable for printing.

e.g. 2048 pixels printed on to say; 10 x 8 paper will be 200 dpi (just 'do the math') and give quite a good result.

With a bit of post download sharpening, you might even get away with printing on to 20 x 16 inch paper at nominally 100 dpi, but the effect 'improved' by the sharpening.

That's why many upload at significantly smaller than 2048, if they are concerned enough about 'theft'.

Cheers, Dave

The dpi (or ppi) figure 'set' in an image file is completely and utterly irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the absolute image size in pixels.
An analogy; if I am a potter and make a jug with a capacity of 1 litre, but emboss "Quarter litre" on it - guess how much it holds. BTW, I am not a potter

[marlunn]

Dave, that contradicts what i have read elswhere but - I am not an expert so will not diasagree with you, and not comment further

[rpcrowe]

I have recently uploaded square images to FaceBook at 600 pixels using 72 ppi and they show up nicely... Far nicer than the miniscule size images that the Internet post ( https://havecamerawilltravel.com/pho...mensions-types ) I referenced indicates

600 pixels square is really handy for me since the three Internet Dog Rescue sites we use want their images square at 600 pixels or smaller. Being able to post on Facebook at 600 pixels means that I don't have to do an additional resize for facebook

I am going to enlarge the size on my next posting and see what happens. Robin mentions 2048 or 1400 pixels. I will try those.

If I want to post more than a single image, should I divide the two or three images into 2048 pixels which would come out at 1024 pixels for two images and about 682 pixels for three images?

I think that be the ratio may be an important factor...

Anyway, I am content now that my images are starting to look decent on FaceBook

[Dave Humphries]

If I want to post more than a single image, should I divide the two or three images into 2048 pixels which would come out at 1024 pixels for two images and about 682 pixels for three images?

In a word; no.

If you are considering that when displayed on a standard FB page, they provide a little montage of shots two or three wide, ignore that.

People can always click/tap on one of those images, then step/flick through them individually at the bigger size, much like how LyteBox works here at CiC.

HTH, Dave

[rpcrowe]

We have just learned that we can post one, two, three or four images at 600 pixels square.

I am fairly satisfied how these look... These were 600 pixels square... Better than posting at the tiny sizes recommended on the havecamerawilltravel.com site...





The four image layout will have images the same relative size as the two image layout while a three image layout will be comprised of smaller images...

These are those images I linked directly to CiC my from smugmug.com account...

[proseak]

I found this just now -

https://www.facebook.com/help/266520...u964sOrddbTL6x

HTH

Peter

[rpcrowe]

I found this just now -

https://www.facebook.com/help/266520...u964sOrddbTL6x

HTH

Peter

Thank you... I will try this!