# Facebook Resizing 960px, 2048px, other?



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 17, 2012)

So I'm seeing conflicting information from my web searches about this. 

What is the maximum size you can upload to Facebook without the Facebook re-sizing algorithm mutilating my images? I'd like to upload as large as possible. 

This source claims 960px: 
Optimizing and resizing pictures for facebook | San Diego Photographer - Blog

This source claims 2048px:
How to Use Photos on Facebook: Sizes, Dimensions, and Types


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 17, 2012)

Nobody?


----------



## Tee (Aug 17, 2012)

For me, as a general rule I don't go anything larger than 800 on the long side for web use.  I haven't had any problems with size or compression.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 17, 2012)

I think the high quality option is 2048 but the normal quality is around 900


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 17, 2012)

I resize everything to 1000. However I believe that I have read that facebook supports a max resolution of 960 on the long side. 
Always upload high quality as well.


----------



## FireRescueFL (Aug 18, 2012)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> I resize everything to 1000. However I believe that I have read that facebook supports a max resolution of 960 on the long side.
> Always upload high quality as well.



This is exactly how I do it as well. 

---Chris


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 18, 2012)

I usually do 800 long side for FB.. but will occasionally use a Flickr shot (1024) that I am too lazy to resize. They usually look fine. I won't post anything larger on FB... because users there seem to think it is ok to take anything they want.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 18, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I usually do 800 long side for FB.. but will occasionally use a Flickr shot (1024) that I am too lazy to resize. They usually look fine. I won't post anything larger on FB... because users there seem to think it is ok to take anything they want.


Facebook has bred that. There are app's where you can print any photo off facebook... I actually took down most of my sports stuff because of it.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 18, 2012)

Thanks. So it's looking like 960px just to be safe?


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 18, 2012)

If you use LR, there is a plugin by Jeffrey Freidl that will upload directly to FB so you can resize many pictures to a small size, add a watermark and upload with little effort.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 18, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> If you use LR, there is a plugin by Jeffrey Freidl that will upload directly to FB so you can resize many pictures to a small size, add a watermark and upload with little effort.



I'll have to look into that. In LR 4.1 you can create a "collection", connect it to Facebook account,  and tell it how to upload the pictures. I have mine set to resize to 960px on the long side and sharpen for screen.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 19, 2012)

hey guys i am actually making a FB preset in lightroom right now, i set my pixels to 900 on long edge but then next to that it says "resolution" do i just set that to 300?


----------



## Superfitz (Aug 19, 2012)

sactown024 said:
			
		

> hey guys i am actually making a FB preset in lightroom right now, i set my pixels to 900 on long edge but then next to that it says "resolution" do i just set that to 300?



If it is just for facebook, then I would set it at 72. Anything above that is not necessary for viewing on a monitor.


----------



## sactown024 (Aug 19, 2012)

Superfitz said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



okay thank you!


----------



## Garbz (Aug 20, 2012)

Resolution has zero impact for displaying on a monitor. It is only relevant when printing where the size of dots are arbitrary. The size of dots on a monitor are set by the person's screen size and their screen resolution.


----------



## KmH (Aug 20, 2012)

Superfitz said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, any value works the same for electronic display.



Garbz said:


> Resolution has zero impact for displaying on a monitor. It is only relevant when printing where the size of dots are arbitrary. The size of dots on a monitor are set by the person's screen size and their screen resolution.


Ditto. &#8593; &#8593; &#8593; &#8593;

300 ppi, 72 ppi, even 1 ppi - look exactly the same when displayed electronically. For electronic display the pixel dimensions of the photo are the only numbers that have meaning relative to image size. You would want to consider the image file size, but again 300 ppi, 72 ppi, or any ppi, has no effect on the file size.


----------



## Superfitz (Aug 20, 2012)

I was trying to keep the answer as short as possible...


----------



## Superfitz (Aug 20, 2012)

Superfitz said:
			
		

> I was trying to keep the answer as short as possible...



And went with 72 invade they didn't want people to print their stuff out at a high quality. (I hit send to early last time). They are correct though. You can make it anything you want.


----------

