Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Better alternative to JPEG

  1. #21


    Quote Originally Posted by CamInit
    The dimensions are announced in the fb blog. I haven't upload for awhile now and apparently, fb has increased the maximum size again from 720x720 to 960x960 according to this post here:
    Bigger, Faster Photos | Facebook

    Hmm... Now that you mention it, I think I have to go back and do a closer examination. My previous observation was that uploading any photos that are bigger than their "recommended" size would really turn everything to crap but now with the continuous changes, I can't say for sure.
    I know there is a HD version for the upload when I tested it previously, yet this doesn't guarantee quality, in fact the quality got worse. The quality you get for higher resolution turns out to be rather flat colors in the image. It is quite noticeable when you are viewing at 100% should your image is uploaded using originally jpeg format. PNG will give a better quality regardless of the size use.

    Hence the issue here is not the input image size at all.
    D3S|N70-200|N24-70|N24-85|N50f1.4|N35f2|SB800|SB900|Yashica GS|S95

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007

    Default Re: Better alternative to JPEG

    Thanks everybody for your thoughts and comments. Although I only upload to FB occasionally i think the conversation on this has been very helpful to myself and (hopefully) others.

    My conclusion is that i will stick to my current workflow. JPEG is ok - but after seeing the original RAW files sometimes I notice some loss with JPEG. I guess that's why they call it lossy :-)

    Raskae comments that TV's are not good for photo viewing...can someone explain this?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts