Has anyone else noticed this on Facebook?

[syar]

Ok, so when I upload my photo onto the web I normally put a high res version on flickr. I put a high res on there as I use it for off site storage just in case. I also put a smaller version on my facebook account for friends to see. Now I have noticed that the version on facebook looks different to flickr. The colours look different, less vibrant and more muted on facebook. Has anyone else noticed this? Try it, look at the same photo on flickr and then on facebook

If this is just me then fine (although a fellow photographer has said the same) or if it is something that is know about then let me know. Why would facebook want to mess about with the colours on photos? I don't get it

[candleman]

Yup, i have noticed.
facebook wasnt designed for people like "us".

they compress the images to save space, flickr doesnt.. or if they do, they do it to a far lesser extent.

what i normally do is put a "coment" under my pic saying "this looks terrible on facebook, heres a link to my flickr to see the real deal.

[syar]

hmm the link to flickr is a great idea. Why didn't I think of that. doh!

[save_alkaline]

yeah, facebook drops the quality way down. actually, i used to have a photobucket account as well. they were also dropping the quality rather significantly. flickr is the best i've seen.

[syar]

Why the hell would they want to drop quality? I know there servers must take a pounding when everyone is uploading there holiday photo's but carn't there be a option for people like us to upload good quality images. I ean facebook could/can be a good way of getting business. Maybe I should make a group or something so all the photographers can joing and possibly persude facebook to allow high res images

[save_alkaline]

i would say somewhere around 99.72% of all photos uploaded there are of the 'WHHOOOOOAAA... I'm soooooo drunk at this party!!!" variety. shot with a $100 point and shoot - red-eye and all.

i don't think most people are too concerned about the quality. haha

[syar]

Originally Posted by save_alkaline

i would say somewhere around 99.72% of all photos uploaded there are of the 'WHHOOOOOAAA... I'm soooooo drunk at this party!!!" variety. shot with a $100 point and shoot - red-eye and all.

i don't think most people are too concerned about the quality. haha

Yes but some of use are, and granted that its a small percentage of the reported 175 million people that are on facebook, but like flickr has the option for those drunken shots, it's called a free account. 99.9% of the photographer I know have pro accounts and I just think facebook should at least have the option for high res uploads. I don't think we should have to pay for it though like flickr. I don't mind paying for flickr as its more of a photographers tool and a cheep portfolio and the stats are a great help

[Murtasma]

With 200 million people using Facebook they are pretty much forced to enable strong resizing and compression on images uploaded from users. The amount of storage space and back-end infrastructure required to host decent sized images and compression would likely put facebook out of business unless they charged. Nobody wants to pay for a social networking site. Just like Alkaline has said almost every image I see on facebook is junk with exclusion of my photo buddies. Nobody cares really they just want to show off their latest drinking fest at the bar with the typical camera above the head looking up pose with a beer in the hand.

If you really want to share images with friends and have them look good go with a dedicated photo sharing site like flickr. There are facebook addins to make sharing your images uploaded to flickr easier.

[OsmosisStudios]

Clearly some people dont work in IT or Web development.

If the facebook page had to call up your high-rest or even just low-compression image for every gallery, it would A) take forever to load and B) slow down the entire server system with bottlenecks.

I have some pictures that are fine in everything but Facebook. Theyre on the edge, but theyre fine.

That's why I always point to my own website (and hosting space)

[dannyrich]

Facebook dramatically reduces quality, what was uploaded as a 5mb file comes off fb as 116kb or something!