For those on facebook

Jetmugg · Jan 8, 2014

Those photos just don't look "professional".

Gavjenks · Jan 8, 2014

Yes the problem with these is not facebook. The problem is that the person who took them is in a profession that is called "light writing" and yet doesn't seem to own any lights or care about light at all.

Braineack · Jan 8, 2014

ujelly?

supercool2 · Jan 8, 2014

I noticed that about a lot of pictures on facebook in general too. My pictures always seem to look ok to me ( pretty clear) , even when veiwing on my tablet. I know nothing about how to properly save them, so I dont know what Im doing right either. And I even downsize them for quicker uploading. I would love to know the answer to your question too.

Edited to say , the pictures that look crappy on my fb pages are usually the ones taken by my phone or tablet.

snowbear · Jan 8, 2014

I like the moss-covered log down the page a ways (Nov. 23, I think), but not so much on the others. Seems to be a good candidate for YANAP.

minicoop1985 · Jan 8, 2014

snowbear said:
I like the moss-covered log down the page a ways (Nov. 23, I think), but not so much on the others. Seems to be a good candidate for YANAP.

I had to look up YANAP. Looks like my work has a home! :lol:

480sparky · Jan 8, 2014

minicoop1985 said:
I had to look up YANAP. Looks like my work has a home!

YANAP is one rung up the ladder from a MWAC.

KmH · Jan 8, 2014

PPI ha no meaning or impact on images displayed online, or on any other electronic device.
PPI only pertains to physical prints.

The web has no ppi value.
However, each display has a ppi value, but few of them these days are 72 ppi.
My main display is 86 ppi.

minicoop1985 · Jan 9, 2014

480sparky said:
minicoop1985 said:

I had to look up YANAP. Looks like my work has a home!

Click to expand...

YANAP is one rung up the ladder from a MWAC.

Looked up MWAC. This is the description of a video entitled "MWAC Attack-Episode 1":

"Being a Professional Photographer is a lot easier than you think!"

That's always a good sign. Nothing like the real scoop, accurate reporting from real life situations. :roll:

Braineack · Jan 9, 2014

KmH said:
PPI ha no meaning or impact on images displayed online, or on any other electronic device.
PPI only pertains to physical prints.

The web has no ppi value.
However, each display has a ppi value, but few of them these days are 72 ppi.
My main display is 86 ppi.

Agreed, but, whenever I've tried to save images lower than that and upload to FB, they seem to get horrendously artifacted/compressed. It seems when the upload applet sees a higher dpi photo is uploaded, it doesn't degrade the photo as much--regardless of the dimensions. That or I just forgot to click the "high quality" button.

But here's a good example, this shot was saved at 1024px and only 100dpi, IIRC:

Belle Smelling Plant by The Braineack, on Flickr

the same photo posted on FB:

You can clearly see the image quality has suffered. You can see artifacting the green BG around her ears and the bokeh balls and the detail in the fur has been reduced significantly.

Compared to this shot where I saved at 1920px at 300dpi:

Happy Julia by The Braineack, on Flickr

and on FB:

Looks just as good albeit a little softer since Flickr adds an unsharp mask to their resizes.

This is why I suggest a higher dpi image (and sharpening photos).

And yes, 72dpi is less than most (if not all) modern screens. My current screen is 1024px tall and measures ~12in tall. 1024 dots within ~12 inches = ~85 dots per inch.

amolitor · Jan 9, 2014

If I were to complain about every terrible photographer I saw, I would never get anything done. There's a lot of it about. The target of this particular attack thread is better than a lot of people, and worse than a lot of people.

So what?

If you don't like her pictures, why on earth did you pay her to take some pictures for you?

pixmedic · Jan 9, 2014

amolitor said:
If I were to complain about every terrible photographer I saw, I would never get anything done. There's a lot of it about. The target of this particular attack thread is better than a lot of people, and worse than a lot of people.

So what?

If you don't like her pictures, why on earth did you pay her to take some pictures for you?

I am also curious as to why you went in on a photo session with a photographer that doesnt produce photographs you like. If you didn't view the photographers portfolio until after you got the pictures taken, i would have to say the blame is on you for not doing your due diligence.

Did you discuss your level of satisfaction with the photographer? Were you offered a reshoot or some other sort of recompense? What about the other person you went halvsies with? What did they think? Did they speak with the photographer?

I suppose what i am asking is... Have you made any effort to resolve the situation with the photographer before dragging it into a public forum?

jenko · Jan 9, 2014

The "Save for the Web" option in PS CC is 72ppi by default. I have wondered if you can change it, but have had no luck.

wedlockimages · Jan 9, 2014

Yeah, I'm not quite sure if Facebook is the issue here. There is a slight possibility that these photos looked like this out of camera. :er:

Aakajx · Jan 9, 2014

I didnt want it to be a nasty "attack thread" thread.. just more a point of view from other photographers. My friend wanted to go there and mentioned the pictures didn't come out clear. I only put money into it for a early Xmas gift. I have messaged her but she didn't get back to me.. I just couldn't work out why the pictures where not clear. Thanks all.