christy_davis Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 <p>I have been asked for permission to post pictures on Facebook. To be clear, this is from a client, who I have allready shot the photos and they have purchased a portrait package. I have never posted any of my work on FaceBook for fear that people will just print them off like mad. How do others do this? Do I simply upload them the files at 72dpi and downsize them so that they can't be printed well without pixilating? Or do I just upload them with a watermark on them? I do have them in a private gallary on my site for them to view,,, but I get this request often. Actually I was surprised they asked,, most people just scan them in and post away without a care in the world anymore! Not sure if the best thing to do is just charge by the edited print these days instead of having customers buy "packages" and worry about them scanning them in and making prints. I loath the thought of anyone printing my work at Costco tho,,, so I trudge on. I would love to hear your input!<br> Christy<br> Silver Creek Photography</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 <p>Forget 72dpi (or <em>any </em>dpi number that happens to be embedded in the file's header) - it really doesn't have anything to do with how printable the file is. The only thing that matters is the actual number of pixels wide, and tall, in the image file you post. If it's for on-screen viewing, then just upload images that look OK on a typical display... no more than, say, 640 pixels on the longest side. That's plenty for an audience to enjoy a look at the image via a web browser, and is a small enough amount of data that it would make an ugly print, even at 4x6.<br /><br />And sure, why not watermark. You can do it tastefully, and it will help to spread your name if the images wander around.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
april_hollingsworth Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 <p>The dpi does matter when you are looking at the size of the photo. For example, 72 dpi at 4x6 would not be good printed any larger than a 2x3. But I place my logo and webaddress in white at about 60% opacity. It is great for marketing. Anytime I get a new client, I find them on Facebook and add them as a friend. When the pictures have been uploaded (with my logo and web address) I tag them. When someone clicks on "photos of [clients name] those photos will show up, tada, you have possible new contacts!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 <p>April: 72 dpi at 4 x 6 simply means 4x72 by 6x72, or 288 x 432 pixels in actual, real resolution. That's all that matters - the number of actual pixels.<br /><br />You can have a file that's 800 x 1000 pixels, and stamp the JPG header with "72 dpi" or "300 dpi" - and neither of those dpi header values will change the fact that it's an 800 x 1000 pixel image. The print quality is determined by the number of pixels, period. The dpi value doesn't change that, one way or the other. <br /><br />The best way to be sure you're keeping a file at an actual resolution that you know to be safe is to note the number of actual pixels. Don't get distracted by what is or isn't embedded in the file header. Many printing routines completely ignore that stuff anyway, since people will just check "fit to page" or some other mechanism that ignores the suggested dpi anyway.<br /><br />Pixels are pixels, no matter how many dots per inch the file header suggests as guidance. That value has no bearing on anything when it comes to displaying a file on a web browser.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 <p>Facebook photos aren't very large and they appear to be re-compressed by Facebook. I've never seen anything printable at larger than thumbnail size on there. They aren't going to compete with a print from a high resolution file. </p> <p>And Matt is right, 72dpi is meaningless. It's a header file to a device that outputs in inches, which screens don't.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christy_davis Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 <p>What I usually do to downsize for the web is I check "resample " and then I put in the lower DPI, and also resize the images down to about 1200 x 800 pixels, if putting them on my website.(so they could even be smaller than that and look okay on facebook?)... I have the larger files at 300dpi without the resample option checked. Is this how you do it? It seems to take forever ,, to make files of both sizes of the finished edited photo,, I think I will make a CD for them,, or just post them on Facebook as you said. I have been afraid to even have my business on myspace. I was afraid of them printing all the images. You guys have really made me feel more confidant. I need to use it as a marketing tool like you all are suggesting. (By the way,, I get myspace and facebook confused in my typing,, I only have one of them,, pretty new at the facebooking stuff,, joined up to talk with a teenage neice of mine,, and boom,, I see everyone but me has been using it for business ! )</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ameenb Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 <p>Facebook resizes any images uploaded so that the longest edge is 604 pixels, as far as I can tell.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim mucklin Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 <p>Can't the client print or burn the photos that you sold them, or even scan and copy to the web. If they have prints or files, don't worry about trying to protect them.<br> Send him a small file as a present and let him upload it, if it gets copied it's on him. Put your logo in the corner for free advertising.<br> I use to load about 300 images to my site on weekends, 300 pixel, 72 dpi with logo that was flattened into the image. I saw so many of my images on their my space accounts, I started giving them out, when they purchased prints, they would spend hours cloning and removing the watermarks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 <blockquote> <p>then I put in the lower DPI<br> 72 dpi</p> </blockquote> <p>As both Matt and I pointed out above, this is unnecessary and irrelevant. It's important to understand that screens display in pixels, not inches. Because of this, a 600x400 image is the same at 1dpi and 1 million dpi. It should not be a factor, it can be whatever happens to be in the box when you do your pixel sizing.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_sullivan Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 <p>so, a slightly off topic question.....if Facebook, as Ameen believes, resizes images so that the longest edge is 604 pixels, if I uploaded pics at that size......would my pics then look like they do when i just look at them in my browser at home. I ask this, cause I usually size my stuff to 700 on the long side, and when i use to post them on FB, they looked horrible.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 <p>Nothing for it but to test, Thomas. It a fair bet that even if they don't resize a 604 pixel image you provide, they could likely compress it if it's above X bytes. What X is, is something you'd have to discover through testing. Since you CAN upload an image that size with almost no compression, and have it be easily 300kb or more, it's a fair bet that they're going to crank it down to under 100k - and that's going to cost some detail. There's also the chance of some color space shenanigans... sRGB vs. Adobe RGB, etc.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
april_hollingsworth Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 <p>Yeah, I think we are stating the same thing in different ways. What I mean is when you look at the image size in photoshop and it reads 26x34 with a resolution of 72 pixels per inch, that is the same size as a 6.4x8 at 300 pixels per inch. Perhaps I used the term dpi when I meant pixels per inch. If you have the "resample image" box checked and your file is 4x6, then you change the pixels per inch from 300 to 72, then your file, will indeed be smaller.<br> In my humble opinion, it is better to give your client a good, small image with your logo on it than to have them scan it and place it on the web. Their scanned copy will most definitely be horrible comparitively.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 <p>That's the wrong way to think about anything for web publishing. Computer monitors don't have "inches" so they don't have dpi or ppi. They have pixels, with no inches. You size it for the web in pixels and that's all you have to do. Inches, ppi, dpi are all completely irrelevant on the web. Don't change them, set your pixel size to something like 900x600 or 600x400 and ignore anything that references inches.</p> <p> </p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_greene Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 <p>Funny how so many people don't understand this stuff.<br> Try this article:<br> http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=199</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Notice how on that Photoshop pop up for size, DPI is under "document size" not "image size". Document means paper or photograph. If you are printing a photo then you use DPI to get the size that you want for the print. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chauncey_huffman Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 <p>I know a fellow photographer that offers a "low-res" disc of 72 dpi images for use on Facebook and Myspace etc. He charges $150 for this disc and he actually gets quite a few people to purchase it. Just putting in my 2 cents!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christy_davis Posted October 9, 2009 Author Share Posted October 9, 2009 <p>Thanks so much everyone for responding! I enjoyed the links and discussions about dpi. I have learned a lot. I have decided to provide pictures for the customers for the web at no additional cost. I put my copyright stamp on it for the free advertising and size the pixels down as recommended by you guys. Thanks so much! I couldn't live without these forums! :)<br> Christy</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now