# Photo quality on facebook?



## cwindle1 (Aug 12, 2014)

Hi all, I've got a facebook page for photography and was wondering how to make the image actually look good on FB. We all know the quality turns pretty much, cr*p. However, I look on other photographers pages and there image quality is insanely good for facebook. Is there a photoshop action on resizing?....


----------



## Msteelio91 (Aug 12, 2014)

https://www.facebook.com/help/266520536764594

That might help


----------



## julianliu (Aug 12, 2014)

That's a good question. I am wondering the same thing too


----------



## Braineack (Aug 12, 2014)

check the high quality button, dont upload poor quality images to start with.


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 12, 2014)

If you want your photos to look good DONT post them on Facebook. Post them on your own website and then link to them on Facebook.  I have NEVER seen a photo on Facebook that looks more then half decent.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 12, 2014)

Have you seen mine?


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 12, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Have you seen mine?



I don't have to. Facebook does the same crappy compression to any photo you give it.  No mater what you do to the photo to make it look good before you upload it Facebook is going to run it scrappy compression on it the moment you upload it. 

That said most people don't mind the crappy compression that Facebook does, I do mind it. Between that and the Facebook terms and conditions I don't let my any of my non snapshot photos hit Facebook's servers.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 12, 2014)

Tell people to hit "Download" if they wish to see the file looking good. The _NEW Facebook_ offers excellent image quality. A year ago, no, not so good, but they now allow larger images that look good. 1904x on the long side is working well for me.


----------



## e.rose (Aug 12, 2014)

Lightroom Export Settings:

2048px on the long side, 72ppi, Sharpen for web: Standard

Keep "High Quality" check marked on upload.

Das how I do it.


----------



## snerd (Aug 12, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Lightroom Export Settings:
> 
> 2048px on the long side, 72ppi, Sharpen for web: Standard
> 
> ...



^^^ This!


----------



## Browncoat (Aug 12, 2014)

snerd said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Lightroom Export Settings:
> ...



Agreed. That's how it's done.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 13, 2014)

Light Guru said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Have you seen mine?
> ...




looks awful: https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd....8_10101930889489036_3872531933387370842_o.jpg


----------



## KmH (Aug 13, 2014)

Who has a 72 ppi computer display?

My display resolution is set to 1600 x 1200.
My screen is 18.625" x 11.75" 
1600 / 18.625" = 86 ppi (horizontal)
1200 / 11.75" = 102 ppi. (vertical)

Of course, I can change the resolution of my screen to any of several combinations of w x h.

PPI for display on line is meaningless. You can set the ppi to 1 or to 1000 and the photo will stay the same as long as the pixel dimensions stay the same.
Try it!


----------



## jsecordphoto (Aug 13, 2014)

The problem with sharing a photo to facebook linked from your website/flickr/etc is facebook won't show external links to as many people. Facebook's algorithm already sucks enough for organic reach (I'm talking for a photography page, not your personal page) because they are pushing businesses toward paying to promote their posts. I'm a content creator for a few bigger FB pages (basically an admin) and have learned a lot over the last few months about how FB works with business pages. For example, one of those pages has just over 100k likes, but it's not like every post is shown to 100k people. Depending on how much activity a post gets within it's first few minutes, FB's algorithm then decides what % of your audience will organically be shown that post (it will appear right on their FB feed). Posting external links brings that amount way down.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Aug 13, 2014)

KmH said:


> Who has a 72 ppi computer display?
> 
> My display resolution is set to 1600 x 1200.
> My screen is 18.625" x 11.75"
> ...



The reasoning I've heard behind setting it to 72ppi is to discourage people from saving and printing photos found online


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 13, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Who has a 72 ppi computer display?
> ...



This^

My internet image files don't exceed 72ppi and no more than 800-1000k pixel dimension...especially on FB which as part of it's TOS states they have the rights to images posted on their site. 




jsecordphoto said:


> The problem with sharing a photo to facebook linked from your website/flickr/etc is facebook won't show external links to as many people. Facebook's algorithm already sucks enough for organic reach (I'm talking for a photography page, not your personal page) because they are pushing businesses toward paying to promote their posts. I'm a content creator for a few bigger FB pages (basically an admin) and have learned a lot over the last few months about how FB works with business pages. For example, one of those pages has just over 100k likes, but it's not like every post is shown to 100k people. Depending on how much activity a post gets within it's first few minutes, FB's algorithm then decides what % of your audience will organically be shown that post (it will appear right on their FB feed). Posting external links brings that amount way down.



And this^


----------



## KmH (Aug 13, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Who has a 72 ppi computer display?
> ...


All they have to do is change the ppi value before they print.
You discourage people from saving and printing photos found online by _reducing the pixel dimensions_ of the photo.


----------

