Previous news story    Next news story

Facebook Lightbox vs Google+: which better presents your images?

By dpreview staff on Feb 10, 2012 at 22:59 GMT

Facebook is making its first steps towards taking photography seriously with the launch of its Lightbox display interface. The change, which is being rolled-out to users in the coming weeks, darkens the rest of the screen when a photo is selected and shows images in greater detail than before (up to 960 pixels in each dimension). How does this presentation compare to the more obviously photo-friendly Google+ service?

Despite it having more photos uploaded each day than any other site - claiming over 100m per day - Facebook has traditionally had fairly poor photo capabilities. The move to offering larger images began in November 2011 but the 960px maximum is relatively small by the standards of most modern monitors.

 Facebook's 'Lightbox' photo display improves the presentation of your images to other users


Google+ also has a similar background-darkening view mode but also has an attractive way to show your friend's recent uploads and your galleries. It also has functions that mimic many of the photo sharing and discussion features that made Flickr popular. It also offers photo editing tools that came from the acquisition of online editing service Picnik.

Google+ will resize all images to a longest edge of 2048 pixels (and these images do not count towards your 1Gb Picasa Web Album limit if you have one). Facebook gives an option to upload at 'High Quality' (also 2048px) but these larger versions are currently only available if you choose the download option - they're still displayed in the same manner as the default 960px versions.

Google+ has had a blacked-out presentation screen for some time. There's an icon at the bottom right of the image to remove the side panel (which you can't do in Facebook)

How well do Facebook and Google+ show your images?

We thought we'd conduct a simple test - uploading the same two images to both sites and seeing how they then tried to present them:

Image 1 - Downscaling

The first image we used is much larger than our monitors can display - a 4000 x 2667 pixel images on a 2560 x 1440 display. Below are demonstrations of how the two services present the image:

 Google+ presents the image as 1600 x 1067px  100% crop from Google+
 Facebook presents the image as 960 x 940px  100% crop from Facebook
 Original image (4000 x 2667px)  100% crop from original image

As you can see, Google+ makes better use of the screen - darkening the background more than Facebook does and showing the image larger.

Image 2 - Upscaling?

Our second image is considerably smaller (350 x 400px) than the interfaces can show, so acts as a test of whether they will attempt to upscale the images.

Google+ upscales to 683 x 1024px 100% crop from Google+
Facebook displays at native 350 x 400px resolution 100% crop from Facebook
Original image (350 x 400px) 100% crop of original image

With small images, Facebook displays them at their native resolution, while Google+ tries to upscale them. Side-by-side comparison shows that Facebook has re-compressed the image but the effects are only visible on excessive examination.

Based on this simple test we'd be inclined to say that Google+ makes a better job of presenting images, if you want to show your photos off across social networking sites. Facebook treats small files more sensibly but Google+ does a better job of making larger images look impressive. Assuming, of course, you feel comfortable publishing large-res images on such sites.

All grabs taken from Chrome v.17 for Mac.

Comments

Total comments: 142
12
delete
By delete (Feb 27, 2012)

So far I happily survived w/o joining FB and/or G+. And the things I read in this thread about the IPR handling by these services, and general terms of use, convinces me I'll continue like that until the end of (my) days.

1 upvote
Neil2112
By Neil2112 (Feb 23, 2012)

Agreed.
Leo Laporte and the geek world may be enamored with g+ and that's fine but normal people don't know it exists. I shoot weddings, no brides ask me to friend them on g+. Why would they when they want their friends to see the pics, none of whom are on g+ either?

0 upvotes
keysmith
By keysmith (Feb 19, 2012)

it doesn't matter if google+ is a little better or worse. Everybody is using FB anyway. A user posts photos where people will see them, not where they can be viewed a little better. Also the technology used by sites changes quickly. Comparisons of this type is only useful for very small period..

0 upvotes
spencerberus
By spencerberus (Feb 17, 2012)

I've never been a fan of Facebook's photo galleries, I tend to just post links to Picasa albums. It's definitely nice to see them improving, that's what happens when there's competition!

0 upvotes
eNo
By eNo (Feb 14, 2012)

Noticed over the weekend Flickr just went to the Lightbox interface. Not sure what to think of it. G+'s input of comments is easier.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Feb 14, 2012)

The images I place on facebook are mostly teasers or giveaways for promotional purposes. I often post a single image and a link to the photog gallery on my Zenfolio page.

The Zenfolio slideshow displays a full screen image, is download protected but also enables one to sell prints, digital files or photo-merchandize .

The slideshow is full screen with a choice of background tones. Image DATA may be displayed or turned off for a clean display.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Feb 14, 2012)

Last time I looked FB still had in place its rights grab policy in the user agreement. While they have a disclaimer stating that FB does not claim ownership of the copyright, it claims all the rights that are afforded to the owner of the Copyright, including the right to use, distribute and even relicense the work without permission, notification or payment. They claim the right to any works that are put on their servers. This means that if someone else places a link to your work on FB, they will access the RSS feed to generate a thumbnail. That recides on their server so they claim usage rights to the work.

I only place expendable images that have no monetary value on facebook. For other photos I place a link to my online portfolio and I am watermarking the image that will be used to create the RSS feed thumbnail so that the image that recides on FBs server is unsaleable.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Feb 14, 2012)

The thing is, those terms are close to those used by most other sites. It's how they can have permission to replicate images on servers worldwide.

Would you post your photos on a site with these terms? "With respect to content for the Services you submit or make available for inclusion, and designate as Publicly Accessible for viewing or use on the Web Site, you grant us a license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such content on the Web Site for the purposes of providing the Services, promotional, and/or display activities."

It's from dpreview.com. Dpreview is a little better in that they clearly say they need the license "for the purposes of providing the Services, promotional, and/or display activities" and Facebook should be clearer, but Facebook is no longer that far from the norm.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Feb 15, 2012)

@ Graybalanced- Ususually the devil in the users agreements is hidden withen reams otext that few people read throughly. For facebook, the devil is in the lack of details, as you mentioned above.

When I fisrtjoined facebook the term that concerned me was "re-"relicense." That has now been changed to 'sublicense." What concerns me is that it does not provide any terms or details on how it could be sublicensed.

When I license an image to a client, the terms of usage are very specific. I might, on rare occasion, sell the right to relicense an image, but I won't just give it away. Some clients insist upon a transfer of copyright or exclusive/unlimited rights and when they do, I insist upon the transfer of additional payment to me. The wording to do this is very simple...it's much easier to give rights away than it is to protect them.

facebook does not need the right to a sublicense in order to put the image on their servers.

(Con't. below)

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Feb 15, 2012)

I attended a seminar by an intellectual property rights attorney. He related this:

A pro photographer posted a photo he had taken of a celebrity on his facebook page. A few weeks later the image appeared in a celebrity magazine. The attorney contacted the publisher who claimed they purchased the image from an agency and had the right to publish. The agency acknowledged it had sold the image and claimed to have the right to "relicense" (sound familiar?), that it had acquired the image from an undisclosed third party. Rather than face an expensive copyright infringement suit, they paid a generous settlement. How the agency acquired the image was left undetermined. All one can do is speculate.
But this underscores the importance of actually registering the copyright.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Feb 16, 2012)

I agree that Facebook should be clearer about their purpose for relicensing. I'll bet it has to do with the logistics of content distribution, but if they don't intend to make money off your images by licensing them, they should have more specific language about that.

My main point is that people keep panicking about the larger TOS when the same people probably upload to other sites with TOSs that are similar.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Feb 16, 2012)

You're correct. The issue is not limited to facebook. Being on the top of the heap, fb gets alot of attention regarding privacy policies and user terms. fb users are more aware that they are not its customers, they are the product, and that is making them more wary of how fb uses the information. But any site that gathers information or allows content to be posted, probably has similar terms and condtions as fb. Because they are less well known they can fly under the radar and escape scrutiny.

But I truly believe that ambiguous terms are intended to confuse the user. But to what ends? The stated terms give away more rights than are needed to perform the operational functions of the portal. Although fb is not openly in the stock photography business, it could at some future date offer the creative content on its servers up for sale. We have all granted them permission to do so and would have no legal recourse because we agreed to those terms.

1 upvote
G10Rebel
By G10Rebel (Feb 13, 2012)

I love my Google+ gallery. Probably the best online gallery there is. You can enjoys photo from other people in your circles easier, and they are presented in such subtle yet sophisticated way.

0 upvotes
Maryarena
By Maryarena (Feb 13, 2012)

I like the way FB presents the images, but hate how they compress them and make my blue skies look pixelated on my bird photos. Have to agree with other poster that neither are good for serious photography.

2 upvotes
Peter Galbavy
By Peter Galbavy (Feb 13, 2012)

You can also share a G+ album via a URL without the viewer having to "sign up", unlike facebook.

0 upvotes
CIASpook
By CIASpook (Feb 13, 2012)

Facebook allows for album sharing as well which does not require membership. There's a copiable link at the bottom of the gallery.

2 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Feb 13, 2012)

How is this an issue? Nobody uses Google+.

13 upvotes
poorfatjames
By poorfatjames (Feb 13, 2012)

snap

0 upvotes
A Schamber
By A Schamber (Feb 13, 2012)

Nobody used to use some equipments a time ago, until they realized it was better.

0 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (Feb 13, 2012)

Initially when MySpace ruled nobody was using Facebook either.

1 upvote
eNo
By eNo (Feb 14, 2012)

I must say... G+ seemed a lot more active when I joined 3 months ago, but no one seems to be interacting with my stuff there of late. Maybe no one likes me, which wouldn't be a new finding. L:( --- on the plus side, I'm getting lots of hits from Google searches on my main site. Think about Google presence and search prioritization the next time you want to dizz G+. :)

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Feb 14, 2012)

It's so funny that you say "nobody" uses Google+ when one of the primary communities on it are photographers. They and techies are the early adopters who have the largest presence. Photographers!

0 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Feb 13, 2012)

Facebook's tendency to interpolate and compress my images means I would never use it for serious photos - I limit it to light-hearted iPhone snaps, usually with some comical subject material.

Anything I want to "publish", I will do so on my own website, where I have total control over dimensions, compression, and so on.

Brian

5 upvotes
dchng
By dchng (Feb 13, 2012)

Google+ apparent upscaling for small images is a bug in the service, which has now been ratified. Uploaded images will now retain their dimension.

FB uses a more aggressive compression algorithm for images, and the outcome is often worse than those uploaded to picasa/google+. If comparing between these two, Google+ will get my vote for being the better site to host photos.

1 upvote
Crepuscular
By Crepuscular (Feb 13, 2012)

No comparison of color retention, I've noticed the colors displayed on my facebook albums are somewhat different from what i see of the original files

0 upvotes
ARShutterbug
By ARShutterbug (Feb 13, 2012)

I recently switched to Google+ with Picasa, and I found it easier to use because of the lack of album size limitations and windowing oddities. What really matters is can Facebook be trusted, and I think the answer anymore is no.

4 upvotes
sergueis
By sergueis (Feb 13, 2012)

What is missing here is downscaling comparison when downscaled images are the same size. I.e. comparison of downsizing engines.

0 upvotes
Bob Meyer
By Bob Meyer (Feb 12, 2012)

I'm not sure it matters which is "better." Just like an iPhone, Facebook's version will be "good enough" for the more than half a billion users of Facebook.

Is G+ "fastest growing" Perhaps, but that doesn't mean much. Adding a million users to G+ is faster growth, in percentage terms, than adding 4 million to FB. G+ could "grow faster" for years while falling further behind.

If my home grown social network grows from 4 users to 40, that's tremendous growth, but it doesn't mean anything.

1 upvote
rdzona
By rdzona (Feb 13, 2012)

You're not to good at Math are you Bob? If it's faster growth and assuming it stays that way it will eventually pass it up, that is how it works.

And your home grown social network example increasing by a whole order of magnitude does indeed mean something! Lets say that growth happened every month. From 4 to 40 to 400 and so on, you would have more than the worlds population in less than a year by quite a large margin. (40 billion > 7 billion) in just 11 months.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 12, 2012)

is google+ still online?^^

4 upvotes
Charrick
By Charrick (Feb 12, 2012)

Yeah, and it currently has over 90 million users and is the fastest growing social network. And you'll probably be using it in 2-3 years, when everyone else is. (I use it, and also use Facebook.)

So, the short answer is "Yes."

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Feb 13, 2012)

Google+ might be invisible to the larger audience, but photographers are one of the most active and fastest growing groups on Google+, with Trey Ratcliff being the pied piper of that. He leads live video Google+ "hangouts" where groups of photographers talk shop in free videoconferences, and they're sharing tons of photos all the time.

1 upvote
Stig Nygaard
By Stig Nygaard (Feb 13, 2012)

> Trey Ratcliff being the pied piper of that...

And if you are not a fan of Treys HDR work or HDR in general, Thomas Hawk and Scott Jarvie are examples of other socially active photographers on G+. Well, and a lot of others, had to stop somewhere :-) ...

0 upvotes
newbeltane
By newbeltane (Feb 12, 2012)

IMHO I suggest that which site(s) you use depends on your needs. If you just wish to share 'snaps' with friends then FB is probably the way to go (if you are on FB). if you wish to show your photos off in the best possible way to the widest audience then Flickr is probably the best. if you wish to sell your images then I suggest you look at RedBubble, Deviant and Zazzle. If you are on G+ then it seems that its better than FB at showing off your images but then your audience may not be as great as FB.

Which one is best for you depends on your needs and existing networks, as well as issues of whether you really want to share hi-res images with anybody and everybody.

2 upvotes
Victor Engel
By Victor Engel (Feb 13, 2012)

I like zenfolio for all of the above, including sharing on facebook.

1 upvote
klopus
By klopus (Feb 13, 2012)

yes, Zenfolio or SmugMug

0 upvotes
Fredy Ross
By Fredy Ross (Feb 12, 2012)

Well I find it very irritationg that in Facebook my photos are joined to the dialogue box and I think it spoils all photos as though they are cropped.

3 upvotes
NineFace
By NineFace (Feb 12, 2012)

All of my friends are on fb so it is the best place to show off my photos :D
I also have G+ but hardly use it.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stig Nygaard
By Stig Nygaard (Feb 12, 2012)

Yes, if you only want to show them to your friends :-)

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 12, 2012)

@nineface: so you run google+ or facebook as a company account? ^^ those pages are meant to be for your friends, so who cares who sees it besides your friends^^ if you really want to share photos go to flickr or make a professional portfolio page :)

1 upvote
Lng0004
By Lng0004 (Feb 12, 2012)

Google+, doesn't have a similar interface. Facebook flatout stole the design from Google. Get that straight please.

0 upvotes
javieralcivar
By javieralcivar (Feb 12, 2012)

The post should be how many people will actually see your photos in Facebook vs Google+

1 upvote
Stig Nygaard
By Stig Nygaard (Feb 12, 2012)

Yes maybe, but the answer depends highly on how you use the services. In my opinion people should stop comparing FB and G+ like they are same kind of service. They are not. I have 85 friends on FB and only a handful of these are on G+. But I only use FB to connect with friends, and have never been tempted to use FB to anything else but that. G+ on the other hand, is very nice place for interest-based networking IMO. On G+ I follow almost 700 other users sharing on or more of my interests (mostly photography), and more than 4000 users have chosen to follow me.

My guess is, that your point is that more people will see your photos on FB. But as you can see that highly depends on how you choose to use the services...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
sean lancaster
By sean lancaster (Feb 13, 2012)

Fb is fun to share my images with more people if that's my sole purpose, but Flickr and/or G+ are better for actually storing and backing up photos. Flickr and/or G+ are much better if you're even remotely serious about photography and viewing and critiquing photos or sharing images with people who shoot photos for quality. I am heavily invested into Flickr and I've love to switch to G+, but moving is really, really tough. Sigh.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Frenetic Pony
By Frenetic Pony (Feb 12, 2012)

Shouldn't this be "Deviant Art vs Flickr?" I mean if you want to show stuff off online that's where you're going to do it.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 12, 2012)

exactly! but this is a review page not about photos .. or something like that ^^

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Feb 12, 2012)

Who really cares? lol

0 upvotes
maboleth
By maboleth (Feb 12, 2012)

I can't stand FB's way of showing the images. LOUSY and drastic compression, reslizing the images for 1px so nothing is as sharp as it should be, etc.

So I ended up uploading 800px photographs to FB. They look good now but sometimes they suffer terrible compression. I don't know the reason why.

So, no, I think FB's image handling is horrible. Better than it used to be, but FAR from good. And I'm not a fan of their new lateral comments. It ruins the feeling of a photo. The first thing you see is not an image but comments, sponsors and likes. I guess that's what they wanted.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
sean lancaster
By sean lancaster (Feb 13, 2012)

Lower quality is why I never understood the popularity of Instagram. Then again, the masses aren't serious about photography as much as they're serious about just having fun. Ah well.

1 upvote
klopus
By klopus (Feb 13, 2012)

Actually IG has quite a few pros and lots of very interesting amateurs. It's just a very different media from web, not speaking of print and exhibitions to present images including, yes, artful images. Supposedly advanced Zenfolio and SmugMug have their share of cat and how-i-look-in-the-mirror snaps or totally overdone pseudo HDR.

To me IG guys made it right by limiting upload and viewing just to iPhone and forcing square format. I treat IG as a distinct image presentation format, more akin to eyeballing unmagnified slides on the light box. Like many others I even shoot and edit images specifically with IG and iPhone (not Web or even iPad) viewing in mind.

People make mistake discarding IG as some kind of the lowly mini-Flickr or something.

0 upvotes
Lights
By Lights (Feb 11, 2012)

I find the images at Google+ look pretty good, but to me it has a very confusing interface so far. Facebook vice versa.
Yep on the images. Low resolution, photographers copyright embedded, anything you can do, including unobtrusive watermarks. Something will get stolen sooner or later. For myself, I don't care much if it's personal use (some other opinions will vary on this) but I've found a lot of photos from friends have been used for anything from illustrations on Ebay, to illustrations on photo sites, to use in books and magazines. I've had a couple of mine used too on web sites. So be aware as others say. Tineye is good to find copies on the net, but how to find usage in magazines and books? If they are making money from your shots, shouldn't you be?

0 upvotes
Victor Engel
By Victor Engel (Feb 13, 2012)

You don't think the FB interface is confusing?

1 upvote
Jorge Correia Luis
By Jorge Correia Luis (Feb 11, 2012)

In Facebook, I put my pictures with the maximun of 800 px, its only for "friends" to see what i´m doing. There are several others sites, were we can post pictures with better quality and they take photo very seriusly... like Dpreview.

(sory my English)

0 upvotes
Mr Fartleberry
By Mr Fartleberry (Feb 11, 2012)

Facecrook is absolutely the worst photo handler out there. I guess this move is in desperation because your photos will look like postage stamps in the new iPod 3 retina resolution.

Sure like the way it takes my 12MP photos and hacks them down to 17KB changes the aspect ration and then as a further insult dumbs them down to sRGB.

4 upvotes
migus
By migus (Feb 11, 2012)

FB may serve some purpose to connect like-minded revolutionaries together, or Obama to his supporters, or enable an artist to reach her fans - mass reaching capabilities for those who really need it. Photography, however, and FB don't go together. First, the 960 size (0.9Mpix): Cheapest PS have 12-16Mp. Wrt. screens' sizes, a phone has 1280, a notebook 1920, my main screen 2560 (and at work 3840)... and Apple is preparing 2880 screens!
Then the "remove the [bright] side panel (which you can't do in Facebook)" sums it up...
FB has balkanized Internet and carved out their own island, byt abusing the trust of its users - who forgot that email and IM existed long before FB.

7 upvotes
Ceesprof
By Ceesprof (Feb 11, 2012)

In my opinion the photo's on Facebook or Google should NOT be to good.
High quality means theft, not only by individuals but also by the media.
The belief is that everything on the Internet is free of copyright.
Even a low resolution photo can be upgraded into a printable resolution through special software. Therefore: be careful what you do and what you publish, if you want to make a living out of photography.

3 upvotes
deputc26
By deputc26 (Feb 11, 2012)

Seriously paranoid individual here...

5 upvotes
migus
By migus (Feb 11, 2012)

Watermarks and copyrights were made against photo theft. While i understand the need to protect their income source (photos), i'm constantly frustrated on the WWW to see all pro images mostly in thumbnail sizes, while millions of others post 1600x1200 or higher - arguably of lower artistical/technical quality.

1 upvote
BobHowland75
By BobHowland75 (Feb 11, 2012)

Yes. But watermarks can also be distracting. I chose to put mine in the bottom corner. Big mistake. People just crop it off. My images are 600px longest side on the web.

In the past 2 weeks, by doing a reverse search (Tineye, etc.) I found FIFTY copyright infringements. 20% from bloggers, 80% commercial – including a well-known global company.
One image alone (a candid shot from India) has been used 20 times by Indian Tour Operators.
It SERIOUSLY p$$ses me off – and I can only advise anyone to NOT upload any hires files unless they're watermarked bang in the middle with big black letters. As long as it's not "private party images" but from a holiday (landscape, sunset, local culture, wildlife,...):
You WILL have your image stolen at some point.

3 upvotes
John MacLean Photography
By John MacLean Photography (Feb 11, 2012)

@BobHowland75

I have been using TinEye and the Google Reverse Image Search over the past few weeks and have encountered older images of mine from my past websites being used extensively. I sent out DMCA takedown letters and have had over 120 takedowns and collected just over $1000 USD from 3 offenders, which is nothing compared to the rates fotoQuote suggests. My biggest offender was a Howler Monkey photo http://www.johnmaclean.com/old/costarica/costaricamain25.html used over 100 times. And it sucks when other photographers and photo stores steal my used gear images to sell or promote their goods. Geez! If it's online it's going to get stolen sooner or later, fact!

https://www.facebook.com/JohnScottMacLean

1 upvote
jl_smith
By jl_smith (Feb 11, 2012)

Just tried Google's plus site - wow the interface is absolutely horrid.

1 upvote
Mr Fartleberry
By Mr Fartleberry (Feb 11, 2012)

Hey the interface on Nikon's 300 buck NX2 is absolute garbage too.

2 upvotes
QSMcDraw
By QSMcDraw (Feb 11, 2012)

How many friends see our photos and say to themselves, "Wow, that is probably a nice picture. Wish I could see it someplace other than Facebook"?

We all know pics on Facebook are mere suggestions of the actual pictures. Really just thumbnails. Pretty cheesey.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Nic Walmsley
By Nic Walmsley (Feb 11, 2012)

I reckon most of my friends think mainly about the meaning of the photos, not the IQ. Don't get me wrong, the IQ counts, but less than the personal side of things.

1 upvote
RPJG
By RPJG (Feb 11, 2012)

Hear hear. So many people on this site get blinded by gear and pixel-peeping etc, when the vast majority of photos are appreciated by everyday people in everyday circumstances for their content, not their technical prowess.

For that purpose, the low-res displays on Facebook or Google+ are often more than good enough.

3 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 12, 2012)

no one i guess? ^^

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Feb 13, 2012)

I put my photos on my Zenfolio website, where the slidewho is displayed full screen and the imagare not downlaodable. Then I post a link to the slideshow on facebook.

The added feature of Zenfolio is that if someone REALLY likes the picture..they can order a print and I can make a profit.

0 upvotes
Alfie Smith
By Alfie Smith (Feb 11, 2012)

New Facebook's viewer is crap. Look very unnatural because 2 main reasons: 1st the pic is deplaced to the left, 2nd... why a background darkening if you put a big white light in the comments and advertisinsg (oh... that is !!) just in the RIGHT (and your eyes automaticly will be directed to that...)... STINKS ! Shame on facebook, again.!... Everyday worse...

16 upvotes
Alfie Smith
By Alfie Smith (Feb 12, 2012)

Discovered a little trick: F5 key may help you, pressing it when viewing an album you get the last but one viewer...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Feb 12, 2012)

I still don't understand why so many people still are seeing ads everywhere. You simply install the free AdBlock Plus http://adblockplus.org/en/ plugin for Firefox or Chrome and your won't see any ads for the rest of your life.

0 upvotes
Alfie Smith
By Alfie Smith (Feb 13, 2012)

@oscarvdvelde: Thank you so much. Never thought about that and it seems to work, just installed it 1 minute ago. XD.

0 upvotes
michael2011
By michael2011 (Feb 11, 2012)

Most of you are missing the point. G+'s higher resolution support doesn't mean a thing if you don't have friends and family there to see them. They may like your beautiful pictures, but most won't ditch FB or open another account on G+ just so they could follow your picture posts. People who would because they are into photos are already on all on Flickr.

One of their biggest expenses for FB now is probably on the storage and transmission of photos due to huge popularity of their service, hence the recompression of images. G+ doesn't have this cost issue because not many people are using their service.

I think FB's 960px for default display size is fine. It suits most laptops and desktops pretty well. Problem is with their recompression. Although I think it's still very good for mobile phone viewing, IQ loss is a little too much for desktop viewing. I hope they improve on that going forward.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Feb 11, 2012)

Wrong. Google+ I can put *all* of my pictures on there and they can be absolutely private. I then have access to my pictures anywhere in the world with an internet device at my fingertips. Facebook however given the quality, poor interface, lack of easy syncing, and extreme bias against *not* putting everything on Facebook except simple family snapshots is *not* anywhere near Google+'s equal. It is superior at spreading your family snapshots and that is it. But guess what...if I took street photos on a trip...people would just be like who the F is that I can't tag it? on Facebook, but on Google + and anyone I choose to share it with I can have any variety of photos and appreciate it.

In the future this means I can have my smart phone hooked up with Google+ and can share it wirelessly to any HD monitor or TV and share any pictures I want at decent quality. Facebook is behind with obfuscated high resolution uploads and they aren't even displaying higher resolutions *now*.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
way2trivial
By way2trivial (Feb 12, 2012)

"G+ doesn't have this cost issue because not many people are using their service." -- even if they had the same volume of users & usage as facebook, I don't think the cost of storing that many PHOTOS would matter to the same folks that are storing video for the internet at large.

(48 hours of video is uploaded every minute http://www.youtube.com/t/press_statistics)

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
The Customer
By The Customer (Feb 13, 2012)

Agreed: the 960 pixel max is fine with me; my beefs are with manner of compression and the caption and comment window now being a trashy eyesore clinging to the side of the picture. At least G+ keeps a substantial buffer around the image. Really wish they'd move the captions and comments back to where they were prior to last week... or just copy G+ straight-out!

0 upvotes
Mike Ronesia
By Mike Ronesia (Feb 11, 2012)

FB is quick and easy and lets you share with the masses. I do a lot of underwater stuff and if you think regular photos don't do well with their compression it's much worse with underwater stuff. I just accept it because I only post there for friends and family to enjoy and they are not as picky as I am. I take pics for people to enjoy and it seems to work.

That said, please make it better!!!!

To be honest, I'm not a real fan of the DPR compression either. My stuff always looks better if I upload to my website and link to here.

mikeronesia on FB.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
skytripper
By skytripper (Feb 11, 2012)

Actually, Facebook does not let you share anything with "the masses". No one can see your Facebook content unless they log in to Facebook. The beauty of photo sharing options like MobileMe Galleries (which are going away, alas) is that nobody needs to create any account or log in to any website to view your photos. All you have to do is send a link. Facebook is crap squared... Make that crap cubed.

1 upvote
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Feb 12, 2012)

@skytripper: not true, if you make a page public and post your photos there, everyone can see them logged in or not doesnt matter

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Feb 11, 2012)

PBase for me.

I post my images in PBase--yes, PBase--and LINK to them. I've had a PBase account since mid-2004, they've always worked well for me--why would I suddenly start uploading them to social networking? To "tag" people? Meh. People don't always like to be tagged anyway.

Besides, photo-hosting sites to me do a better job. I can easily load multiple images by ZIPping them first. Metadata is shown. There are far more size options. I can control the layout far more.

Maybe other people like Facebook for photos more--I have no desire to do like them just to follow what's currently "the thing."

What I really like about PBase, though, is one of the things others criticize them for--they have changed very little in the 7-8 years I've had them, but frankly, I LIKE it that they have stayed the same. Facebook changes everything WAY too often. Something works, leave it alone and quick tweaking it every 5 seconds.

And--NO STINKING ADS!

Thank you PBase for that.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Feb 11, 2012)

Interesting what people gravitate to. The gallery appearance and functionality on pBase are clearly far superior to any other host, including SmugMug and Flickr, but such is life ...

0 upvotes
panikspace
By panikspace (Feb 12, 2012)

Good point about constant change vs stability. Pbase is predictable, customizable, and I have yet to find any photo sharing webpage that looks as good and is as easy to use.

0 upvotes
Jeff777
By Jeff777 (Feb 11, 2012)

I only upload low res anyway to fb but mostly use it to point to my website, so from there you can see the hi res image.

https://www.facebook.com/wavesofhopebali

0 upvotes
techmine
By techmine (Feb 11, 2012)

I don't like Facebook's new Image viewer (I am a heavy FB user). Google's idea is similar to Flickr where everything turns just like a slideshow. FB's overlay type viewer is distracting because sometimes its does not cover the whole background (in case the image res is lower).

And whats with showing ads in the comment column Facebook? It is the worst place to put your dumb ads. Please change it.

1 upvote
Nic Walmsley
By Nic Walmsley (Feb 11, 2012)

Oh no, that does sound terrible. People could turn off just as fast as they turned on, I reckon.

0 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
By oscarvdvelde (Feb 12, 2012)

install http://adblockplus.org and your online life looks much cleaner... I honestly don't understand how websites can still earn income from advertisement.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 11, 2012)

You missed the only thing I care about: both strip EXIF data, and so, are worthless.

2 upvotes
techmine
By techmine (Feb 11, 2012)

Google+ retains some of the EXIF data. See options menu at the bottom of the photo. Obviously it won't show anything if it is stripped at the source.

6 upvotes
Stefan Fuhrmann
By Stefan Fuhrmann (Feb 12, 2012)

Very important indeed. Haven't checked with Google+, but facebook strips all copyright and author information from the EXIF! That should be intolerable by any pro photographer.

0 upvotes
Charrick
By Charrick (Feb 12, 2012)

I'm pretty sure that if you go to your "PicasaWeb" site (which is where the Google+ photos are uploaded to), and click on your pictures, the EXIF data will be there. At your picture, on the right, click on "full details page" and the EXIF data will be there.

1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Feb 13, 2012)

This is very important since a lot of pirates who know how to crop out or clone out a watermark might not think to strip the EXIF, and if your EXIF copyright info is in there, you have more legal basis to sue them.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 18, 2012)

...strangely, whatever facebook is using reads the data, but doesn't include it in the files it presents. I don't know if it is retained anywhere else, but my copyright is automatically inserted into the image description field when I or anyone else upload. It's easy enough to delete, but it shows that it is at least read.

0 upvotes
John38E
By John38E (Feb 18, 2012)

I spend some time geotagging photos, adding meaningful tags and captions. If you upload a photo to FB and download it again, all that is gone FB is great for sharing drunken bar pix though LOL

0 upvotes
RoyGBiv
By RoyGBiv (Feb 11, 2012)

JAlbum...check it out.

1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Feb 11, 2012)

i don't like the side box...

max size of 'low' resolution is 960 x 960 but now display scaled down.

max size of 'high' resolution was 2048 x 2048, but only the lower version is displayed and scaled down depending on browser view or any magnification set.

however, the higher resolution url-link 2048x2048 no longer is available separately (i cannot find it anywhere)... but then, it was noticeably compressed after it was uploaded, so the quality is iffy.

i do like the darker framing; earlier i had to 'black frame' my favorite scenic images to best see them, and at least now, it is default frame color instead of that bright white framing which i hated.

:\

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Kilrah
By Kilrah (Feb 11, 2012)

The "Download" link is now in the little "gear" menu at the top right of the viewer.

0 upvotes
ShelNf
By ShelNf (Feb 11, 2012)

Now with Facebook you get to look at a mass of ads and comments next to your photos. Totally ruined.

3 upvotes
thebloke
By thebloke (Feb 11, 2012)

Both are a great way to share your images if you're not to concerned about copyright and general lack of control. My preference is for total control over my images and who has access to them.

4 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Feb 11, 2012)

Total control over your images? No web site provides that unless you aren't sharing with anyone.

3 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Feb 11, 2012)

Freak.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Feb 11, 2012)

JavaJones the Facebook screen grabs above are the new look photo galleries and not the old ones. They have already started to role the new system out. My own profile page and business page started to show them yesterday. I have not tested putting up new photos yet to see if there is any difference in quality but what is very noticeable is the gallery works much better than the old system. No waiting for the photo to fully load over a couple of seconds. It's also much quicker going from photo to photo. Overall the upgrade works much faster than the old system.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Feb 11, 2012)

No matter how good or bad the interface would behave...

It still boils down to WHO is the industry leader in social networking.

This new sweetener only adds to the obesity that is now clogging up the original application and will one day be a de facto fare.

2 upvotes
FredericG
By FredericG (Feb 10, 2012)

On Facebook the displaying of ads alongside images when clicked to view full size is just awful. I regularly 'hide' the ads and cite the reason as being 'offensive'. It is the crass commercialisation of what is supposed to be a personal, somewhat private experience, like, say, when viewing photos of your freind's newborn or pictures of an elderly relative posted by a family member. Just awful.

3 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 11, 2012)

What ads? There are ads on facebook? OHHH...you must be one of those people that doesn't know about adblock or fbpurity.

3 upvotes
FredericG
By FredericG (Feb 11, 2012)

Thanks for that. Actually thought had adblock installed on my browser. Turns out I didn't! Still, the white sidebox is annoying and distracts from viewing images. A move towards a more 'photographic' facebook it is not!

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 18, 2012)

White sidebox? You mean the new ADD perpetual feed? I don't see that anymore either. I can't remember if I axed it with a greasemonkey script or fbpurity.

Sorry for my tone. Glad I could help!

0 upvotes
kevin camera
By kevin camera (Feb 10, 2012)

facebook does not excel in picture quality, but it has the ability to present it to all your friends.

it's kind of like asking the question... if a tree fell and no one heard it. did it make a sound?

similarly, if a picture was taken but nobody viewed it, was the moment really captured?

2 upvotes
kbozen
By kbozen (Feb 10, 2012)

FB jpeg compression algorithm is possibly the worst on the web, dark areas become awful artifacts

8 upvotes
jquagga
By jquagga (Feb 11, 2012)

Aye, exactly. It doesn't matter how big the photos are, or in what shape they are when you upload them, Facebook washes them out horribly. Even if I go to the effort of jpegmini'ing the files first. They're destroyed.

I tend to put my photos on SmugMug and just post links to my Facebook wall. Then people can click over and have a much better experience. On twitter, I use instagram for photos I don't care about and push up to my twitter stream. Sometimes I push SmugMug links there as well.

About the only photos I'll post directly to Facebook are the one or two photos of me (using the patented self-timer, tripod, and jump in front of the camera method) from when I'm out shooting. I cringe at what FB does to them though.

tl;dr: Post links to reputable image hosting sites instead of files to be destroyed.

2 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Feb 11, 2012)

Unfortunately, the average person only cares about tagging, and not how we are brought to tears by noise being amplified and broad flat areas gaining ugly textures.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Feb 11, 2012)

I don't care about tagging, and besides, Flickr (among others) has tagging. It doesn't tag to their Facebook page, but who cares? Besides, maybe they'd like it better that way if the photos are of them having fun at strip clubs etc. Their bosses don't need to see that, what they do outside of work is not their boss' business and NOT tagging helps see to that.

0 upvotes
xtoph
By xtoph (Feb 10, 2012)

For me, facebook simply doesn't earn enough trust for me to upload photos there. It is outrageous that fb does not put the photo owner in control of whether the "download high resolution image" option is displayed, and we all know that fb not only changes privacy policy frequently in deliberately obfuscatory ways, they also do a poor job policing its own policies--i often find that i can access friends-of-friends photos even when i know that they have tried to keep them private; and using the "report" button, *any* photo can be viewed, regardless of settings.

At least google doesnt just delete pages upon pages of comments criticizing their photo pages, the way fb does.

7 upvotes
Total comments: 142
12