I'll try that...and the 100K filesize limit (thanks, I wasn't aware of the 100K limit!).

I'm getting noise and halos along any contrasting edges. They're not in the Photoshop produced JPEG original, and they don't show up in windows image viewer or any other program.

I've tried saving all the way down to 640 wide as well as uploading a full HiRes and checking the High Quality box.  Even the 720 and 960 uploads seem to still have some type of shitty "conversion" going on...and halos along contrasting edges. Must be from the 100K limit.

D'oh, I have been uploading 1024 on the long side since that is what it was last time I checked.  I guess I will go down to 960. 2048 just seems like it's inviting people to steal your images.

dont worry.  once it gets compressed it won't be so inviting.  you cant have 2048 on one side and have a file size anywhere near their limit for being uncompressed.

Tried pretty much everything...<600wide, <100K, verify sRGB, etc.

Just can't get it to upload cleanly! As soon as I get it below around 167K the compression artifacts are intolerable. Blow me, Facebook.

I'm not sure about that. It may save the file at 900K somewhere, but from my experience it's showing an image that's compressed and (if you look close) it's showing a "reduced image" with some artifacts along contrasting edges. I've tried all the combinations and as soon as it posts to the timeline or into an album, it get's compressed and the artifacts appear.

I even then saved the facebook image back to the desktop and it's noisy, and is compressed from 250K to 48K, even when the "high quality" is checked on the upload to the album.

I think if you look at your 900K image when you upload it you will find that it was compressed. Try going to your Facebook image and do a right-click/save-as and (even with High Quality selected on the upload) you will find it was compressed. That does not happen with Mayhem (or Photobucket, etc) uploads, at least as long as they're under the size limits. Facebook seems to do it no matter what.

The original 250K image (linked to Mayhem here, from photobucket, 600pix wide):


And the 48K "compressed" copy after facebook "high quality" upload:
Notice the colors have changed (slightly lighter) and the artifacts created along the ridge-line. Neither copy looks as good as the relatively noiseless 250K JPEG reduced-original does in Photoshop, but only Facebook seems to trash it to such an extent that its' un-usable (as you can see!).

Yup! Sadly I think we're pissing in the wind on that, but you would think they could kick their image quality (compression schemes) up a little, especially if they're going to start offering support for iPAD 2048 "Retina" display resolutions, and such. They can't REALLY handle even a 600pix image like the one above...without trashing it.

Mayhem here and Photobucket seem to have solved (or minimized) the issue, you would think the folks at Facebook could work it out as well. And it's not a browser issue because Photobucket and Mayhem come out okay. Blow me, Facebook.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Tried pretty much everything...<600wide, <100K, verify sRGB, etc.

Just can't get it to upload cleanly! As soon as I get it below around 167K the compression artifacts are intolerable. Blow me, Facebook.

I don't know... what this is all about!!!

The following image was sized 1,000 pixels on the long side and I uploaded it to FB in High Quality...

I just went to the image, even chose full screen view and saved it to my desktop for comparison... what I saved has the following dimensions:

1000 x 665 pixels as sized by me and 139kb as reduced by them to 72dpi (from my 300dpi)... image looks fine to me...

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a … 5367_n.jpg

Your image looks good to me too...I'm not seeing any of the same artifacts/halos along contrasty edges like in my photo. And FB reduced mine (600pix wide image) from 250K to 48K even when I checked the "High Quality" checkbox in the upload. WTF! It's like they have an automatic 5:1 compression no matter what size your original.

I don't see any other places in the Facebook menus maze (or Privacy Settings) that I could have made different image choices.

I tried uploading a 1000pix wide image in "High Quality" and yes, it will download the "same" image (relatively) clean (but compressed from 800K to 170K!)

But, when it shows that "high quality" image in facebook (in the album or timeline) it adds the artifacts to the image it shows. In other words it looks like SHIT on the timeline or in the album view (of Facebook itself).

(FB's compression artifacts, as you can see in this FB screen capture):

Unfortunatly, as an artistic hobby shooter that caters to the Facebook/Mayhem crowd...I HAVE to care.  Most of the models on Mayhem are NOT "agency" models looking for 9x12@300 printed images for their "book"!
Shit, it's a Facebook/iPAD world we live in now.

Not to mention I also want to figure out ways to get the best upload settings for ALL of my desired output formats...Facebook, my Monitor, your Monitor, Competition Projectors, and DVD Slideshows.

Why learn to do RAW editing just to have the model post a "final" JPEG image that goes to shit when it's uploaded. I also believe Facebook's future will be a very different animal than Myspace. Sure it will "evolve" but it ain't going away anytime soon. (as much as it SUCKS and Blows!)

Try uploading at one of the resolutions listed and see if you see the same problem. I did notice that if you view it at different sizes (not full screen for example) then you are presented a compressed version.

Regular photos

720 px, 960 px, 2048 px

It tells you on the Image Upload page:

Photos must not contain more than 4 million total square pixels (e.g., 4000px x 1000px), or exceed 800kb in file size. Photos wider than 800px will automatically be resized, which will also strip EXIF and color space info.

Yup, I did that Bro! Thanks. It appears to not be so much the "resolution" but more the filesize that determines the compression. And from what I have found this morning...it (Facebook) compresses at about 5:1...which is like saving at the the "poor" quality level in Photoshop. And you hit it...it shows a compressed image...even if you uploaded and checked the box for a "High Quality" file.

why are you starting with low-res images to upload to FB? if 5:1 is getting you such small files you need to be starting from something larger.

I have tried starting with 720x720pix, and 960x960 (as they supposedly "support")...to try to avoid their compression.

But, both the HiRes(2048 and above) and LowRes(720) images are ALL getting seriously compressed + creating artifacts when shown ON FACEBOOK. (as shown in screen capture above). It doesn't seem to matter about resolution...it seems to be more about Facebook doing a 5:1 compression in general. Or, perhaps what matters is the tonal variations in the original upload. Your example (above) does not have a LOT OF TONAL and COLOR RANGE in the image...that may make the difference.

Facebook seems to create a different compressed image for viewing on the album/timeline than what you upload...even when you check the "HighQuality" checkbox. Mayhem, Photobucket, etc...don't seem to have this problem.

Word. +1. And it's pissing me OFF!

ArtisticGlamour wrote:
AVD, your example above is also an uploaded "lowres" 960x922.

Was that image a downloaded copy of a "High Quality" uploaded original? And I notice it's linked from another site ("fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net"), so I'm wondering if it looked as good "on Facebook" itself, as it does here (above).

Also, when you downloaded it, how much was the resulting download file copy (above) compressed compared to the original upload file?

It's also hard to tell if there are artifacts because of the texture of the water. But, it does look pretty good for a facebook download. I'm showing it as a 960x922 image, and at 202K filesize. I'm sure the original 960x922 she uploaded was less compressed...probably around 600K or better.

I can upload (and download) a HQ original that looks good (but the downloaded copy has still been "compressed" by facebook...even if it was uploaded at "HighQuality"), but it's WHEN it's actually shown in facebook that it looks like shit and all the artifacts are added.

1) the link is to Facebook. thats the actual FB link to the file.
2) I did not download it. nor did not load it. A llama did.  thats a direct link to a file on her FB.  direct links work when privacy settings get in the way.

3) she had a 6.26MB image delivered to her at 3184x3326 to work with. and a Grade 10 education. I have no clue what she did. but she must  have done something right.

Impossible to know without seeing the image on her Facebook timeline or in her album itself. I can see that she uploaded a 960x922 size file that downloads from it's current location as a 202K file.

It would help to know how large her 960x922 original upload filesize was, and how much compression Facebook performed on it, as well as how it actually looks on her Facebook page or Facebook album.

The issue is that Facebook seems to "present" a different (compressed/degraded) image than the actual upload/download file...even if the upload was a small 720x720 "supported" file...it seems to still compress and degrade it further.

That image you linked also is not much help because the waterfall texture may hide any artifacts where the model contrasts against it. A different image might be helpful. But thanks for the link.

Her "10th grade education" would seem irrelevant...as she was obviously smart enough to know that a 960pix re-size was supposed to be a "supported format" in Facebook. Although the resolution seems to be less important than tonal/color range to Facebook's eventual compression and degradation. It's impossible to tell how the linked image looks without seeing it in her actual Facebook timeline or album, on the Facebook webpage itself (or a screen capture of that).

A portion of that image looks very very pixelated to me

yep, I can't figure that problem out either. I also had models post images there and they are cropped all to hell. I post the same pics and they are fine. I figured they are using some program prior to uploading that is doing a number on the pics? I generally resize my pics to 800 on the short side and sharpen AFTER resizing. no problems.

you are over thinking this or underthinking.  you do not know what she uploaded.  you just know what the result was.  All you know is that I gave her a  6.2MB image @ 3184x3226. she may have uploaded the original or performed some magic on it before the upload.

as for compression, there is no way to know.  she could have uploaded the original and that would be 30:1 compression or she might have modified for FB and it could be anything lower.

once again. This is the image as seen on her page.  It is the actual image that everyone sees. you are just getting a direct link to the image on FB's servers rather than a link to her page.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

A portion of that image looks very very pixelated to me

for shame! you should have left that line for ME!

I was beginning to wonder myself...if Facebook has different "updates" in different parts of the country, or something.

I did both a HiRes and LowRes(960) Jpeg upload to a "High Quality" Facebook album...and my upload contains compression artifacts as you see in the screen capture above (from inside Facebook itself). Yet, I can download the "HQ image" from the album, and it looks only "slightly" degraded.

So, it seems Facebook still presents a compressed and degraded image, even if I upload in a "supported" format like 960pix.

No, she uploaded an original 960x922 image...just less compressed than as it is in her album. Facebook did not resize it...but it DOES compress it. If I upload a 960x960 image at 800K, I get back a 960x960 image at 200K. I'm finding about a 4 or 5:1 compression is typical.

No, it's a direct link to the image she uploaded. Facebook will upload that and it will look okay as a download or direct link in your browser (just as mine does downloaded from or direct linked to a "HQ album"). However, what "everyone sees" on the Facebook page itself is different.

If you want to prove it just do what I've done...upload the image yourself and take a look. Just pick a different image where the contrasting edge doesn't have a waterfall behind it so you can actually SEE if there are artifacts or not. The Facebook Timeline and/or album views are different than a direct link. The Facebook "front end" presents a slightly different degraded image.

Bingo! And they are different. The Facebook "page" itself somehow degrades the image due to compression. (ie: it must be a more compressed image than the direct link, because I can duplicate the exact same artifacts in Photoshop by saving the file with more compression). Facebook seems to be "presenting" a different compressed/degraded image on it's "page" or "album view".

For example, I downloaded your 960x922 example image (above) and uploaded it (to an "HQ" album) on my Facebook as a test...then downloaded it back to the desktop again from there...the downloaded file was compressed further (from the original 202K further down to 172K)...but the 960x922 image size never changed. That was a temporary test based on your example, and all related files were immediately deleted. So, the file was compressed/degraded again, but the image size never changed. In "Facebook itself"...it looked degraded. Just as my files above did.

This.

you really need to slow down.
1) you were asking about the image I posted so you have no in formation about the model and what they posted anywhere.  you do not know that she uploaded 960x922. how you conclude this is beyond me.  Had I given her MM-sized images instead of fullsize you could have concluded that she started with 800 on the long side (it would have been a safe bet) but since I didn't you CAN NOT CONCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT pixels after the fact.

2) the direct link and going via an album BOTH GO TO THE SAME IMAGE.  This how FB and MM and every image site works. They have profiles or portfolios or Timelines or whatever.  And they have images and videos on a Content Delivery Network (CDN). The CDN manages the images and just responds to a call "hey gimme this image" "ok here it is".  so whether its a direct link or an indirect call to the direct link (that gets generated when you click) it does not matter. you get a call to the same image. there is no 'more compression' or less.

3) your test is irrelevant since a) its not a test of what happens when you view something just a test of what happens when you save files to FB more than once and b) you do not know what the original was. I'm not going to get sidetracked for nothing.

4) I've been trying very politely to help you but you just are not listening.

1.) Wrong. Facebook compresses the image when you upload...but it doesn't resize it. I can upload a full 2048 image into an HQ "album" and it doesn't get magically resized (or does it? Hahahahaha! Try it and see! LOL!)...it just gets compressed.

THUS, based on you said it was a direct link to the image uploaded in her album, she uploaded a 960x922 image as shown in her album.

A HighRes (say 3600pix wide) image will get resized to 2048, and the "standard view" of the same image in the album seems to be a "reduced copy" that's capped at 960. But anything 2048 and under will not get resized when uploaded into an HQ album. If you click to view it at "Full Size" it will show the full 2048 file.

So, you can load up to 2048 sized images in an "HQ Album" for the model to download (or as someone said...steel if you're not careful) if you wanted, but they will be compressed files and slightly degraded from your upload.

2.) Wrong. The album's "standard view" and  the timeline ("page") both seem to present a degraded/compressed image.

IF you click to go to the full-size image THEN you will see the full-sized image without artifacts. The timeline AND the reduced album view show a more degraded image. And if you right-click/save-as it's a MUCH smaller file...NOT the direct link file you say it is. Sorry.

3.) My test proves that each time you upload to facebook (even an "HQ album") there is -some- compression to the file. It doesn't seem to matter to save in 720pix or 960pix, Facebook will STILL compress/degrade your image to some degree itself as well.

4.) Really? LOL! That's pretty comical...with statements like this:

Yeah, thanks for your polite help.

Spot ON! with compression artifacts included.