Yo guys, I recently ran into some problems with Facebook concerning my colors and picture quality. Obviously Facebook isn't made for high quality photography and for the people who are afraid of their pictures/rights getting stolen by the site, such a steal (by Facebook itself, not some users on that website) didn't happen to me yet, so I don't give a F...
Now, I ran a series of test using:
- The iPhoto Facebook Uploader,
- The Java-web-based Facebook Uploader (not available anymore)
- The Facebook Simple Uploader
- The NEW plugin-based Facebook Uploader (as of January 2010)
- The Bloom 2.6 Facebook Uploader (not available anymore)
- The Bloom 2.7 Facebook Uploader
- The Picasa-to-Facebook Uploader (thx to my friend Rémi)
- The Lightroom-to-Facebook Uploader
- The New Facebook 720 pixel wide resolution upgrade (thx to my friend Rob)
- The FlickrImportr (Uploads from Flickr to Facebook)
- The Facebook Mobile Uploads Option
All on a MacBook Pro (that's so baller of me lol). I will also post the image size generated by the rendering engines and sort them by the generated file size. This might tell us how much got sacrificed. ^^
Update: Rémi just sent me the files from the Picasa-to-Facebook Uploader.
Update (2010/02/08): Robert Smith just showed me the Lightroom-to-Facebook Uploader.
Update (2010/02/08): Rob Ahern was so kind to give me the renders from the new Facebook 720 pixel resolution compression he got access to.
Update (2010/02/21): Marc just pointed out the way to upload information to Facebook using Email. I updated the results and even added the file size of each render. And suggested I use PNG files to upload to facebook. I'll do it with Bloom and Mobile Uploads.
Update (2010/03/11): I just got the 720 pixels upgrade from Facebook. I must say that this is truly breathtaking to get his shots blown out in full facebookial glory. Okay but I must warn you about the current issue plaguing the facebook uploader (if you have more issues, please comment!):
- Facebook Uploader is buggy and progress bar seldom disappears when you create an album. Then the uploaded shots are in a fucked up order and it takes tooo long to reorganise them.
Ze Color Test
The Original-481.68 KB
Now we export all from Photoshop for the web at Quality 12
Facebook 720 pixels upgrade-103.75 KB
iPhoto-67.44 KB
FlickrImportr-71.68 KB
Plugin-based Uploader-72.74 KB
Java-75.56 KB
Facebook Mobile Uploads-77.52 KB
Simple Uploader-77.52 KB
Bloom 2.7.1 with PNG-78.09 KB
Picasa (thx to my friend Remi)-79.99 KB
Bloom 2.6-82.16 KB
Bloom 2.7-83.04 KB
Mobile Uploads with PNG-84.98 KB
Lightroom to Facebook-119.78 KB
Among the top results, I notice that the Bloom 2.7 version, a part from being much more useable and stable than the 2.6, keeps more colors while still being sharp. Using a PNG file with Facebook Mobile Uploads produces better results. As we can compare, Lightroom seems to keep more detail than Bloom here. If we take a look at the image sizes, Lightroom seems to contain more information than its counterparts.
Some days ago, Facebook was testing a resolution upgrade from 604 pixels to 720 pixels to display bigger picture in better image quality. So far in color, we can see some desaturation while native sharpness seems to be well kept with no additionnal sharpneing filters like Bloom.
Now we export all from Photoshop for the web at Quality 12
Facebook 720 pixels upgrade-25.97 KB
FlickrImportr-16.66 KB
Bloom 2.7.1 with PNG-19.66 KB
iPhoto-21.17 KB
Java-21.47 KB
Plugin-based Uploader-22.47 KB
Picasa (thx to my friend Remi)-23.98 KB
Bloom 2.6-23.98 KB
Lightroom to Facebook-23.98 KB
Simple Uploader-24.24 KB
Bloom 2.7-24.24 KB
Facebook Mobile Uploads-24.24 KB
Facebook Mobile Uploads with PNG-24.24 KB
iPhoto Uploader destroys the sharpness of the shot... totally while keeping more dynamic range (tones of gray from the whitest part of the shot to the darkest) than the Java-Based Uploader. While the Java-Based Uploader and the New Plugin-based Uploader seems to keep up with Bloom in terms of Sharpness, the Bloom 2.6 Uploader seems to keep a lot more of the dynamic range than the others but pixelates. This issue is resolved in 2.7. As I add the Lightroom-to-Facebook plugin, I can see some additionnal noise in the gray area while Bloom seems to smooth it better. This is very interestion because Lightroom won the color battle over Bloom. FlickrImportr again doing a decent job at smoothing the tones.
By looking at the pictures it seems that Bloom and Mobile Uploads regardless of the image format seems to cap at 24.24kb yet the difference gap between them is too close to give a call. It all ends up with the program you like using...
Ze Black and White test
The Original-112.11 KBNow we export all from Photoshop for the web at Quality 12
Facebook 720 pixels upgrade-25.97 KB
FlickrImportr-16.66 KB
Bloom 2.7.1 with PNG-19.66 KB
iPhoto-21.17 KB
Java-21.47 KB
Plugin-based Uploader-22.47 KB
Picasa (thx to my friend Remi)-23.98 KB
Bloom 2.6-23.98 KB
Lightroom to Facebook-23.98 KB
Simple Uploader-24.24 KB
Bloom 2.7-24.24 KB
Facebook Mobile Uploads-24.24 KB
Facebook Mobile Uploads with PNG-24.24 KB
iPhoto Uploader destroys the sharpness of the shot... totally while keeping more dynamic range (tones of gray from the whitest part of the shot to the darkest) than the Java-Based Uploader. While the Java-Based Uploader and the New Plugin-based Uploader seems to keep up with Bloom in terms of Sharpness, the Bloom 2.6 Uploader seems to keep a lot more of the dynamic range than the others but pixelates. This issue is resolved in 2.7. As I add the Lightroom-to-Facebook plugin, I can see some additionnal noise in the gray area while Bloom seems to smooth it better. This is very interestion because Lightroom won the color battle over Bloom. FlickrImportr again doing a decent job at smoothing the tones.
By looking at the pictures it seems that Bloom and Mobile Uploads regardless of the image format seems to cap at 24.24kb yet the difference gap between them is too close to give a call. It all ends up with the program you like using...
Again with the 720 pixel facebook shot, I notice a lack of extra sharpening done to the larger picture which makes the Bloom and Lightroom version much crispier in sharpness. Then again, 720 pixels is a great intro to new ways of compression.
Final rankings Color (according to my observations)
- Lightroom-to-Facebook
- Facebook Mobile Uploads
- Bloom 2.7
- Facebook Simple Uploader
- FlickrImportr
- Facebook Plugin-based Uploader
- Tie: Facebook Java-Based Uploader and Picasa Uploader
- iPhoto
Final rankings Black and White (according to my observations)
- Facebook Mobile Uploads and Bloom 2.7
- Lightroom-to-Facebook
- Facebook Simple Uploader
- FlickrImportr
- Facebook Plugin-based Uploader
- Tie: Facebook Java-Based Uploader and Picasa Uploader
- iPhoto
Bottom line
The iPhoto Facebook Uploader downright SUCKS. That isn't very surprising since the last update was at May 20, 2009. The now deceased Java Web-based Facebook app is a pain to use but aces the iPhoto Facebook Uploader by giving out a sharper rendering.
Bloom is a great choice to upload photos, yet this software is even more painful to use than the 2 others lol (at the moment of this writing, I'm not used to it yet). Some days ago, Bloom updated from 2.6 to 2.7. Bloom 2.7 is quite an improvement in stability (little to no crash) and image quality over 2.6 and still produces today's best rendering on Facebook for black and white pictures with rich tones. With the new Facebook, there are issues with Bloom not being able to sync correctly with Facebook these days. I hope they are resolved.
I can also come to the conclusion that Lightroom-To-Facebook performs a lot better when given color pictures to export and it keeps more detail to the cost of sometimes more noise.
PNG files through Mobile Uploads produce some top notch results but it isn't too convenient for the people who do massive uploadings of pictures.
PNG files through Mobile Uploads produce some top notch results but it isn't too convenient for the people who do massive uploadings of pictures.
The lazy bums that have Flickr Pro account can import shots from their Flickr photostream onto Facebook Albums using the FlickrImportr. The results aren't stellar but this workflow can be very efficient to those wanting to save time with a few click to transfer their Flickr content to Facebook.
On January 19th, Facebook introduced a plugin-based uploader that prompts the user to install and run it from the browser. The usage is much more simple and streamlined than the Java Uploader. The plugin works 5 times faster than any of the other options compared. So if you want a slightly above average image quality solution for Facebook, you might seriously consider that. So far, Safari/Firefox/Internet Explorer are the only browser to support such technology.
In February of 2010, Facebook upgraded image resolution to 720 pixels wide which in turns give a more HD and detailed picture. So far, it's under test phase on some selected users of Faceboook. It's a good thing because once this option becomes public. Uploaders like Bloom will take advantage of such format to add their famous sharpening algorithm to the final shot.
So... Image Quality Addicts that upload shots to facebook should consider implementing those top uploaders in their workflow. Other should just use the plugin-based uploader. All said, it depends on the workflow you are used to and the results you like or want to achieve.
The whole test album can be found here.
16 comments:
very interesting and relevant issue. i never really noticed a difference in my pictures, maybe less quality but overall not to much. i can really see it in your pictures though.
how do you export you pictures to go onto facebook?
These are my export settings from lightroom 800x650, 85%, 72dpi, Sharpen High.
I go 800x650 because if I want to use the picture for something else later, then I don't re-export the image larger...
one more test your could do is use the Simple Uploader from facebook. on the bottom theres a link you click if you cant view the java app, try that to see if there's a difference.
Here is one thing, did you attach your monitors color profile to that file. In digital photography, a well calibrated monitor is all that matters.
Calibrate your monitor and then save the photo for web with your monitor color profile attached to it. Do not save for web, that option in photoshop kills your color profile.
The other way to do is to work in sRGB profile, but still calibrate your monitor and use photoshops option to show you how would it look in sRGB profile.
It's that option Proof color in View menu. But that is the problem with publishing your photos on line.
I knew it!! I just uploaded a university skiing trip album using the iPhoto Facbook Uploader which had a lot of 'artistic' shots in there amongst the general photos of carnage. Upon checking the album on facebook I was devastated to find my bright blue skies had been taken down to a dingy grey, my bright reds had turned brown, and the photos had gone from the SLR quality they started life at to looking like they had been taken on a noisy camera phone.
Looking at friend's albums, I could see that their photos looked tons better than mine, despite the fact I know my originals are of a far higher quality.
The quality was so shocking I had to delete the album. I'm now going to try again later with bloom, having read this article.
Something needs to be done for the iphoto uploader. Fast.
I too would be curious about how the simple uploader fares.
Updated with request from you guys! :)
Just ran accross this page - interesting! One thing you might want to look at is the Facebook "e-mail" option, where it ends up in a "Mobile Uploads" folder. I've found that the JPEG files created this way are ofter larger and better looking than the Facebook web-based uploaders. Also, you can use your image editing program and downsize to the max dimensions allowed by Facebook (I'm still at 604 pixels, but I understand 720 pixels is coming soon). Then you can sharpen to whatever level is appropriate for the photo, not just use some automated algorithm. And finally, you can upload uncompressed .PNG files, which means the photo is only compressed once.
This might be more effort than one wants to expend, but it might get you a better result!
Interesting I'll add the facebook email render to see.
Yes, do... I just installed Bloom 2.7.1 on my PC (Windows version), and compared an upload with an emailed upload (.PNG file). The resulting file sizes were about the same -- 41.7kb when emailed, 41.0kb when "Bloomed", but the emailed version has better contrast, sharpness, and color. (and this confirmed that I'm still limited to 604 pixels)
png time! ^^
nice Marc, the PNG files seems to react very well with Mobile Uploads!!! Only beaten by Lightroom in the color section!
Did facebook just recently allow pictures to be uploaded at 720 pixels? Cause mine's still stuck at 604, while I've seen others with 720 already... :(
Tim, they are giving the 720 resolution slowly to user, you'll have it one day as well ^^
I've recently started using the new facebook plug-in uploader and have found that I seem to be getting more overall compression artifacts than I had in the past. It's a "grittiness" that subtly destroys the punch of my pix in ways that just didn't happen before the changes.
It's a bummer, because I really like the speed and convenience of the new uploader. I do resize my images prior to uploading, by the way -- to 604 pixels (now 720). Oddly, my results over the past few days are worse than when I was sending 1024 pixel images into FB via the old Simple Uploader...
Keep up with the good work! I thought it was something wrong with my computer, now I know it's Picasa and facebook that destroys the pictures.
I'm finding with the 720 pixel upgrade, some of conclusions reached from the 604 pixel comparison are no longer valid. For example, I tried uploading via the standard Java uploader, then the Simple uploader, then via email, and the resulting photo quality and file sizes were about the same for all 3 cases...
Oh, and I should note that Facebook is now claiming that EVERYONE can upload at 720 x 720 pixels now...
Post a Comment