Can You Upload Raw Photos to Facebook
WHY Do PHOTOS Await BAD ON FACEBOOK?
Posting and processing images on Facebook has been a problem for me for quite a while. Pretty much all my social and photographic activity ends upwards on that platform and in the absence of more concrete wallspace for prints, my Facebook wall is my simply real artistic outlet.
How frustrating to find that Facebook is scrupulously compressing my images into nasty, crunchy low detail files. It's a problem all us photographer's face.
We want to show the world our all-time work only unfortunately, the earth is on Facebook...
So, how to fight back?
None of what follows is going to mean your images will exist perfect on Facebook simply they may well look a lot ameliorate than they did previously.
HOW TO UPLOAD THE BEST POSSIBLE PICTURES TO FACEBOOK
-
Add extra brightness. Facebook has a white background that volition make your images look darker and bleed them of color.
-
Don't compress your images - Facebook will shrink the image a second time!
-
Consign them at full 300DPI resolution
-
Employ a JPG Format at 100% quality
-
Make sure the longest edge is exactly 2048px
-
Salvage the sRGB Colour Profile into the Image
-
Acuminate your photograph for screen
-
Use a Vertical Crop if possible.
Add EXTRA BRIGHTNESS & A LITTLE SATURATION
Facebook has a white background which will drain the image of brightness. Your image volition expect darker confronting a white groundwork.
This is why most photographers employ a dark grayness / black background on their websites, this boosts the appearance of effulgence and saturation.
DON'T DOUBLE YOUR Compression
There are a whole raft of blogs and articles out there which spend a lot of time telling people to shrink their images when exporting for web utilize to effectually 70% quality.
That'due south good advice for posting to your website or to a Wordpress blog considering the file size will be much smaller and load much quicker and yous definitely desire your website to await good and load quickly.
All the same, it doesn't make a positive departure for Facebook because all that will happen now is that Facebook volition compress your already compressed shot even more!
I tested this extensively on Facebook. I uploaded a maximum quality prototype and a lxx% 72DPI image to facebook on a standard group timeline. I and then downloaded each prototype to compare them.
I found that the previously uncompressed image had been compressed by Facebook and was now simply 22% of the original size. Still, the pre-compressed image was twenty% of the full resolution original. Minor gains merely a gain all the same. Comparison the newly downloaded images to each other revealed that the uncompressed file was eleven% larger than the pre-compressed file after Facebook had finished with them.
I went even further. I re-uploaded (is that a word?) the previously 70% compressed paradigm to Facebook. It should have already optimised this image right? Facebook should have accustomed it with open arms and done precisely nothing. Not a chance! The image got compressed further - another 11% in fact!
DON'T Downwards SAMPLE YOUR DPI
Ignore all the advice about downsampling your pic to 72DPI (to prevent theft). On Facebook, it will make no difference - they are going to compress the crap out of it anyway... Leave it at 300DPI and allow Facebook handle it.
PNG CONVERSION
While information technology was certainly the case a while back that Facebook really posted PNG's (they tin can't exist compressed because they are a lossless format). Facebook now converts them to JPG'south on upload then compresses them further.
So while it was true that PNGs looked way ameliorate in the past, information technology is no longer true.
The theory backside exporting as a PNG and uploading to Facebook is that there will but exist one stage of compression. This occurs in Facebook.
If you export to your difficult drive in JPG, well that means you have already applied one level of pinch in the conversion from RAW to JPG. Then, when Facebook gets the image, information technology will compress it once more.
When I tested this myself, I constitute the departure to be undetectable. When I downloaded the Facebook converted PNG -> JPG file and compared it to the Facebook JPG -> JPG converted file, it was an identical size and looked identical to my eye.
Then you can certainly try the PNG trick but I found no practical do good. The downside is that PNGs are bigger and take upward more space on your hard bulldoze.
DIFFERENCES Between TIMELINE, GROUPS AND PAGES
At that place is a lot of information about the differences of posting to Timelines, Groups, Pages and Photo Albums (on high quality).
I have bought into this in the past but I decided to actually test the principles. I uploaded my sample images to my timeline, a group timeline, my folio and using 'high quality' in an album.
Gauge what? Each one of them treated the paradigm identically. When downloading the image I could run across no difference whatsoever between them when pixel peeping at 100%. More this, they were all of an identical size - even the so-chosen 'high quality' image!
Bottom line. It seems to make no difference where you postal service.
BEST Crop RATIOS
Sizing images for social media is e'er a chip of a moving goal post. The best sizes change all the fourth dimension! But there has been a major trend recently. More than and more people are browsing the internet on phones and have you noticed what format the average phone is? I'll give you a hint, information technology's vertical.
Whereas it used to be the case that verticals were shrunk into tiny pics on Facebook (because nosotros all used computers to expect at these sites) now we use smartphones and the vertical/portrait epitome is dorsum with a vengeance.
Sites like Pinterest & Tumblr all promote verticals and Facebook has just joined the society. You lot will notation that your prototype will take upward a far bigger piece of screen real estate (on phones information technology is chosen the viewport) than they did in the by.
If you tin can't post a vertical, then at to the lowest degree post a square. The 6x6, the Hasselblad medium format ratio, is back - thank Instagram for that!
WHAT SIZE Photo TO UPLOAD TO FACEBOOK?
Sizing your image is tricky. Larger images nigh definitely look better on Facebook, but they are at gamble of theft. Not so much for print, simply for use on websites and as web images.
I'one thousand not sure there is much we can do about that other than to post small images that don't scale very well. The good news (or bad?) is that hardly anyone volition click your image to view it full size anyway. The measly timeline width is all you are really going to need. And recollect, most people will be looking at it on a tiny phone screen anyway.
Facebook actually publish what they do to images...Yeah, who knew! Check the latest communication here.
The current supported sizes for normal images are:
• 720px
• 960px
• 2048px (size will yield the best quality and fewest compression artefacts)
And then I went alee and tested 2048px five 1080px 5 960px and I got some very interesting results.
When looking at the images side-past-side on the timeline I got a hint that the 2048px images were marginally amend. You tin't download the image from the timeline for comparison so I had to exercise it past eye.
When opening the images full size, the supported file sizes of 2048px and 960px looked better than 1080px merely information technology was very marginal between 960px and 1080px.
When downloading the images from Facebook and downsampling information technology was absolutely articulate that the 2048px won out over the residue.
The cherry box indicates an surface area I masked to bear witness the noise sample from a 2048px image compared to a 1080px image after downsampling to 1080px - 2048px is clearly a lot better!
Is it me or is the lower 2048px image marginally sharper than the 960px in the timeline? Either way, there is very lilliputian in it when comparing timeline images.
The sizing conundrum is therefore clear. If you want the best quality and are less worried virtually theft, then 2048px wins. The other supported Facebook sizes of 960px and 720px come up 2nd and third. Avoid non-standard sizes, they appear to be resampled to achieve the nearest standard size in terms of equivalent DPI.
Utilize sRGB COLOUR PROFILES
Colour, as most photographers know is a very catchy trouble. The reason is that our cameras can capture more colours than the cyberspace (standard sRGB) can bear witness.
More than this, nosotros accept absolutely no control over any cruddy and poorly calibrated screen our viewer is staring at. The typical issues with screens are ordinarily to do with gamma levels and brightness besides as poor colour profiles.
Merely look, there is more than bad news! Much of the software that people are using to browse the cyberspace is not color managed either (and nor is much of the photograph-browsing software loaded on our ain computers - e.yard Windows 10 Photos)!
One tip I can requite you is to drag your JPG into a Mozilla Firefox browser window to see how it volition brandish on the internet. You can exercise this because Firefox has the great advantage of being a fully colour managed browser.
When exporting your image from Lightroom or Photoshop ensure you have converted the colour contour to the internet standard sRGB.
This step is VITAL. The reason is to cater to two groups of users; wide gamut displays and tablet/smartphones. Wide gamut displays need to know that the epitome is in sRGB or they volition not display properly - they will be over saturated.
Smartphones on the other hand do non generally recognise embedded ICC profiles. If we convert our images using Prophoto or Adobe1998 colour spaces they will announced under saturated on these devices. Converting to sRGB on export means that they will translate the image correctly - even though they don't know the prototype is sRGB.
Here'south the Lightroom CC dialog - Ensure your color space is set to sRGB, the internet 'standard' if I can phone call it that.
Even when doing this, I have noticed that Facebook flattens colour and contrast. I'd advise testing a few posts on Facebook and giving your consign settings a wee boost to saturation and dissimilarity specifically for Facebook posts.
FACEBOOK LIGHTROOM SETTINGS
(Save this equally an Export Preset)
If you didn't already know you tin create specific consign presets in Lightroom and so use these for all your Facebook images. You can even create collections that practise this for yous automatically once y'all accept finished editing - but that, possibly, is meat for another blog post.
Here'due south some other tip Utilize a dissever Lightroom Catalogue to manage all your social media output. I don't like JPG'south cluttering upward my processing catalogue.
I would also note that Lightroom omits settings for resizing and sharpening that are included in Photoshop. This added level of control may exist important when reducing the size of the epitome, nonetheless, I have not really tested information technology.
Your Lightroom CC settings should exist equally follows:
Want TO TAKE YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY TO THE NEXT LEVEL?
Source: https://willgoodlet.com/blog/optimising-facebook-images
0 Response to "Can You Upload Raw Photos to Facebook"
Post a Comment