How to Upload Good Image to Facebook
If at that place is one matter I get asked, and that has been answered online time and again, it'south "How exercise I get my photos to look like I desire them to look on Facebook?" followed immediately past "Why does Facebook ruin my photos anyhow?" and finally "I just want my photos to look awesome on Facebook."The lesser line is, Facebook does give usa options, loopholes if yous like, and nosotros but need to attach to them and our images will wait stellar. Simply, what are these magical settings? I decided I was going to fuse my 2 careers together into i article, and explain it all every bit all-time I can. Bold Facebook doesn't change these someday presently, here are the full details on what I do (at least) to make my images on my Facebook Page look clear, sharp, and with minimal or no information compression, as of December thirteen, 2014. Let's kickoff with some history, because thorough knowledge is meliorate than hasty knowledge. At the end of this commodity, I have added minor, dated updates since it was published as new information became available. Note: If you don't want to bother learning about the technical aspects of file types and image data on the web, and just want to make your photos look meliorate on Facebook, skip this section and scroll down. Now and so, when you discuss photos on Facebook, you lot are really discussing image data on the cyberspace, broadly speaking. Having some background in web design would help yous every bit a photographer striving to showcase their work online, but non anybody has that luxury. I started working equally a web designer in 1997, and worked on my final website project equally recently every bit 2013, and I can tell you lot that showing images on the spider web isn't equally linear and elementary equally one might think. Yes, it can go complicated and technical, but there are also tons of unnecessary $.25 of tech information nosotros photog'due south don't demand to worry about. So let'due south intermission it downward into the elements that a photographer in the modern, net age needs to be concerned with. In that location are bonkers amounts of digital paradigm (raster) file types in the world, for every industry from motion-picture show to websites to medicine, and it can striking you lot with the subtlety of a squadron of flight mallets when you lot first dive in to the subject. So, to go far simpler, we volition only hash out the file types that relate to images on the spider web, and more than specifically file types that matter on Facebook. Let's beginning with the ane you've probably heard of (well, mostly likely anyway, since your camera can create these types of files), which is the industry standardJPG. Go on in mind, JPG was originally JPEG, which is an acronym for Joint Photographers Good Group, the committee that created the file blazon standard. JPG is what is known as a "lossy compression format", or a file type that utilizes data compression to decrease overall file size, but at the sacrifice of paradigm quality (sharpness, smoothness, color consistency, etc) That said, only because JPG uses information compression, it does not hateful that a minimally compressed JPG file is "bad" or "depression quality". JPG paradigm quality can vary wildly depending on the compression settings, so don't disbelieve it as a good format for your images. You don't actually have much selection, though, because JPG is the de facto standard format for digital images on the web. Want to know fifty-fifty more than technical details? I recommend y'all outset with the Wikipedia entry about JPEG (alert: heavy reading). Bank check out the same file as a JPG compressed to quality 100 (minimal compression) and a JPG compressed to quality 0 (maximum compression). Employ the slider to compare, and notation that the 100 quality version is 445kb and the 0 quality version is 31kb. We don't want our images looking similar the 0 quality version, dang information technology! Next upward isGIF,which stands for Graphics Interchange Format, and is dissimilar from JPG in many ways. This extremely antiquated file type (first introduced by CompuServe in 1987) fabricated its manner onto the cyberspace via goofy, simplistic graphics in the web's infancy. In modern times it was given a stay of execution, in terms of common usage, because of one principal reason: information technology supports animated sequences via sequential frames. While the GIF format is extremely limited in color (can but back up up to 256 total colors in whatever given file, or said another mode, less than .01% of the colour information of a RAW file, making it worthless for contemporary digital photographers) the fact that information technology was implemented as one of the image file standards for web browsers and information technology supports frame sequences kept information technology live and pop. Heck, now we take unabridged websites defended the fascination of "Funny GIFs". Video sequences tin be converted into comparatively smaller sized GIFs, though with a signifcant quality loss and no audio, and can play on any browser, and so this format perseveres. And although GIF supports transparent pixels, as it were, it is seldom used for this purpose since information technology has been effectively replaced by PNG for that purpose. Which is great because GIF does diddly squat for the states photographers showcasing our work online. Feel free to read up on GIF's history if yous're downwards for that sort of affair. Wanna run into what a pro photographer'south paradigm looks similar as an 8-colour GIF vs a 256-colour GIF? Information technology'south pretty pregnant. Utilise the slider below, and too note how both versions are crummy ways to show your images online if quality is a concern for reasons of chip depth, but also meet that color management goes out the window as embedded profiles are non supported. 1994 called, they want their web images back. Which of grade brings us finally to PNG, the "newest" of the mutual image formats for the web, introduced in 1996. PNG stands for Portable Network Graphic, and unlike JPG is not a lossy compression format. Thankfully unlike GIF, it supports many thousand times more than colors, which is a expert thing, but as well makes way larger files. This is ane reason why PNG didn't take off immediately in the early stages of the mainstream web, as dial-up admission meant downloading a 1MB PNG photo was impractical (read: slow every bit hell). As a lossless format that supports as much equally 32 bit RGBA colour, the firsthand reaction to the uninitiated might be "PNG is the format for me", just there is a catch. For one thing, while the web browsers of the globe support 8-bit (PNG-8) and 24-bit (PNG-24) PNG files, remember that it is a lossless format. In other words, PNG uses no lossy pinch to decrease overall file size. The result is that image quality is not compromised, but keep in mind that the aforementioned pixel dimension JPG file at minimal compression is always quite a scrap smaller than a PNG-24 at the same pixel dimensions.You can become jiggy with thedetails about PNG also, if again you are and so inclined. Check out this 2048x1365 px paradigm equally a minimally compressed JPG (2.3MB) vs a PNG-24 (4.4MB). Even the virtually militant digital photophile would exist hard pressed to tell the deviation between them, but the fact remains that the PNG is almost exactly twice as large every bit the JPG. PNG-24 also supports something called alpha transparency, which is hugely useful and used regularly by web designers. Photographers, not and so much. You want your images to look as astonishing on Facebook as they do in Photoshop, or at least darn close, but lo and behold, Facebook makes merry with your images when you upload them and at present they look similar poop. This happens because your files are being converted past the Facebook systems, and the end result is having your file turn into a significantly compressed JPG file. The horror! Are you asking yourself, or possibly screaming at your display, "Why!!??!". Well, the answer is simple practicality. Facebook receives (no joke) well over 100,000,000 image uploads per day. I'll intermission a second to allow that sink in. 100 1000000 photos. Every twenty-four hours. And that figure is likely quite a lot higher. So it is no stretch to imagine that Facebook has some pretty meaning file serving and capacity concerns regarding images. Therefore, when the average Facebook user (who is usually non a lensman) starts to upload their vacation snapshots at full resolution (because of grade they would), the Facebook organization kicks in to resize and compress these images immediately upon upload. This function can reduce the overall size of a batch of total resolution, minimally compressed images by as much as 99%, helping file storage and data hosting considerations across the board for Zuck & Co. This works just nifty for 99% of Facebook users considering 99% of Facebook users just desire their friends to see that they were drunk as a skunk in Bermuda, and how funny that snapshot is. Quality of said drunk prototype is irrelevant to these 99%, so the image gets uploaded and shown on feeds, the user who posted information technology is pleased, and Facebook saves a crapchunk of information capacity. Call up, Facebook is simply a website, and web standards utilize across the board. Anyhow, the unfortunate matter is that we are photographers. For us, epitome quality is non just preferred, it is our very livelihood. And then when nosotros outset upload that ballsy, super sharp, colorful image of the bride & groom from the most recent gig, and Facebook kicks in and resizes and compresses it, we experience threatened. We worry that potential clients may come across it and think "This isn't very abrupt, I dunno that I similar this lensman's work very much." The good news is, most potential clients can't tell the difference. The bad news is, yous are a photographer, and you lot detect. Therefore, information technology matters that you go the matter resolved. If you've e'er researched the "uploading your photos to Facebook" field of study in particular before, then y'all may very well know that other pixel dimensions also work beyond 900x600, only I am going to start with the type of image I upload the most, vertical portraits, and I love how they work on the spider web at these dimensions: Rather than go into the details of why this works, I volition but say you lot should really be using Photoshop for purposes of file prep, and below are the key bullet points (that work for me 100% of the fourth dimension) you demand to know to prep your vertical photos for Facebook: Note: Using the same process above, except sizing your encompass imprint image to 851x315 px, yous can upload a crisp and articulate PNG every bit your Page's cover image. Quickie visual in case it helps ya out: Next, and this is crucial, you need to know where this file works on Facebook and where it doesn't. If you don't know this stuff up front, you volition try to practise them and then you'll be angry at me, so brand mental notes of these: Feeling express? Fear non, because Facebook knows that business Pages need to be able to show images clearer, and without getting compressed, and that is what you lot tin can exploit. But you have to follow the rules they've laid out in gild for information technology to work: If you did everything correctly, your image should have been accepted past the Facebook Page system equally a PNG-24, and unchanged. Equally such, it should wait astonishing (or how it looked when you lot saved it on your bulldoze, at the very to the lowest degree). Every bit for horizontal images, all the same considerations apply, but I strongly recommend these settings: Endeavour this out, and permit me know if it works for you lot. If yous have any doubts about the results I become with this, check out my Facebook Page portfolio (alert: glamour) and browse effectually. Y'all'll find minimally compressed JPGs and super clear PNG-24 files everywhere. IMPORTANT: When browsing Facebook via any mobile device, all bets are off. Facebook uses a different aspect of its file delivery organisation, compressing data (including and especially images) on-the-fly equally yous download (view) them via mobile. Basically, nothing I reviewed in this commodity will directly impact your mobile Facebook experience. The skilful news is, JPG compression is less noticeable on a mobile device, for the most role. So, don't panic. UPDATE 12/21/14: Further experimenting with uploading to my Facebook Page has yielded a new event. I uploaded a PNG-24 straight, to my timeline on my Page, and it remained unchanged (stayed as a PNG). This is different than my experiences before, so I am exploring why this suddently worked on this item image. I theorize file size has something to do with it. UPDATE ii/10/15: It seems Facebook has inverse its Photograph Uploader interface. As of this week, I noticed the "Loftier Quality" checkbox is now, in fact, in the upper left and not the bottom left as I mentioned above. UPDATE four/xx/16: I've confirmed (by repeated tests yielding the same result 100% of the time) that uploading a PNG file to your Folio that is more 1MB will crusade the file to be converted to a JPG (and subsequently over-compressed). I institute that if I tried a 960x640 PNG that ended up 1.1MB, I could merely make it 900x600 and it would exist simply beneath the 1MB limit, and therefore not get converted to JPG. Remember, PNG is "lossless compression", not "no compression", significant that while no quality is lost upon saving as PNG, the file size is determined by the overall complication (number of colors used, etc) of the file. UPDATE 5/9/17: There seem to be somewhat conflicting reports on whether or not 2048px long side JPG files work, as either horizontal or vertical. Many photographers take encountered tons of problems trying this, and others claim it works every time. Try it out and see what happens for y'all if you lot want larger verticals. UPDATE iii/5/19: Currently I am uploading every image I add together to Facebook at 2048px long side, as a minimally compressed JPG, with consistent success. So far, I have non encountered an issue with this approach for about a twelvemonth, and discover the results to be quite adept, even on my Profile. On occasion, some images seem negatively affected, but for the most function this has worked well since early on 2018 from what I have seen. It is my belief that Facebook has expanded their capacity capabilities exponentially, and can exist more generous with file sizes these days. If at that place is a glaring error on any of this information, be certain to point it out in a smug comment below! The Technical Stuff
File Types
JPG
GIF
PNG
And This Ways What on Facebook?
etheredgeineder99.blogspot.com
Source: https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-i-upload-my-photos-facebook-or-photographers-guide-photo-formats-web-49658
Belum ada Komentar untuk "How to Upload Good Image to Facebook"
Posting Komentar