Previous news story    Next news story

Facebook adds higher resolution photo viewing

By dpreview staff on Mar 22, 2012 at 16:00 GMT

Facebook has added high resolution photos and full screen photo viewing. From today, the photo viewer will show the highest resolution image available, rather than offering a download link for higher-res images (up to 2048 pixels along each edge). An option to expand the photo to fullscreen has also been added. The changes also include adding a simplified version of the sRGB color profile to each image, increasing its chances of displaying color correctly.


Press Release:

Improving the Photos Experience

Today we’re announcing a few enhancements to our photo viewer, including high-resolution photos and fullscreen viewing.

High-Resolution Photos

Now the photo viewer will automatically display photos in the highest resolution possible. On a large display, this can be up to 4 times bigger than before.

Fullscreen View

Starting today, you can expand the photo viewer to take up your entire computer screen.
If you’re using the latest version of Firefox or Chrome, click the arrows at the top-right corner of a photo to expand to fullscreen.

To read about more photo updates, visit Facebook Engineering.

To learn about the tools you can use to make your photos look better, visit the Help Center.

Comments

Total comments: 70
gravediggingaditch
By gravediggingaditch (Sep 20, 2012)

Following up on a Prior Post several months ago:
I enjoy using LR4 's ability to publish directly to Facebook, to skip the extra step of exporting the file and then uploading to Facebook.

HOWEVER, in doing so, my photos are not utilizing Facebook's Hi-Res photo capabilities. Is there a way to do this without exporting the photo and uploading it? Please let me know.

Thanks!

0 upvotes
J_H
By J_H (Mar 27, 2012)

I wouldn't advise anyone to post high-res pics on FB

every content posted on FB belongs to FB even if you delete it or close your account

therefore, FB can sell your pics at will...

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Mar 29, 2012)

Sure there's talk about Copyfraud, but we'd be hearing a lot more from people who have actually experienced FB selling off their music, pictures and content etc.
I don't like/trust FB a good lot myself, though there is no explicit statement that says anything uploaded is automatically theirs, though truth is, anything you put up anywhere on the web can be abused ~

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Mar 24, 2012)

Expanding the resolution of images displayed on facebook only increases the likelyhood of those images being stolen by others for republication outside of facebook and/or commercial usage.

I am reluctant to post any images of any monetary value on facebook until facebook clarifies its privacy and usage policies and removes any clauses that allow them to resell the images.

While many will say that there is no evidence that facebook is actually reselling images, through the user agreement we have all granted fb the right to do so if it should choose to expand it's business in that direction.

Given the number of images that are posted on fb, such a move would be devestating to stock photographers , and anyone who earns income by providing visual content for online use.

The internet and companies like facebook and Google are always changing. Even though they are not actively engaged in reselling, the potential to do so exists.

2 upvotes
psilore
By psilore (Mar 26, 2012)

Facebook doesn't force its users to upload pictures, let alone valuable hi-res pictures... if someone does it's a deliberate choice, a.k.a. free will.
Besides, "stock photographers, and anyone who earns income by providing visual content for online use" usually don't upload their precious stuff on FB, unless they'd applied recognizable watermarks to their works in the first place.
Again: free will.
Therefore, IMHO "expanding the resolution of images displayed on facebook only increases the likelyhood of"... whining people to complain even more than before.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
martyvis
By martyvis (Mar 27, 2012)

Anybody would think you don't like photographers giving away their images. There are many photographers that quite willingly allow their art to be enjoyed by others, whether under a public domain or creative commons licence. If commercial stock photographers feel it is encroaching on their business, they just have to do better. It's the same lame argument commercial software companies have had for years about free and open-source software.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Mar 27, 2012)

psilore..You are quite correct. It's out choice and as I already stated above "I am reluctant to post any images of any monetary value on facebook."

But even if those of us who don't upload to facebook could potentially be impacted by the content that is uploaded by the many hundreds of thousands of talented non professional photographers who just want to share their images. THAT content could potentially undermine the value of all stock content, even that produced by professional stock photographers who do not upload to facebook.

It's not a matter of any one photographer's work being stolen. It's more a matter of the whole market for stock photography being flooded with cheap content. The stock market, which used to be lucrative, has already been undermined by royalty free and cheap content.

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Mar 27, 2012)

@ Martyvis...I understand what you are saying. There has always been a pro/non pro market dynamic and they were able to exist side by side. It's not the non pros that are the problem, it's facebook.

I used to make 25% of my income from stock and it provided a steady cash flow in between assignments. Now I would have to spend 100% of my time shooting stock to earn less than half what I used to.

Even if most of the content comes from non professionals, the idea of selling other peoples work and not sharing the earnings is just plain wrong. Even an amateur would be upset to learn that someone was profiting from their work without their consent and a share of the profit. I know because this happened to me before I became professional. I was not too happy seeing my photo in a magazine ad without my permission. I had originally submitted the image for magazine photo contest.

Then I learned to read the fine print before submitting or posting anything.

1 upvote
DaytonR
By DaytonR (Mar 27, 2012)

I have no sympathy for stock agencies. Try signing up to a stock agency and see how much of the "cut" they make from a photographers image! By the time all that has been done the actual photographer makes cents if they are lucky a few measly dollars depending on how often n image is downloaded. If you put a picture on a stock someone can legitimately buy it for a few dollars for a book and use it to make millions and the photographer gets a few cents despite the great lengths and expense that goes into taking some photos. The only peiople who make money from stock agencies are stock agencies themselves and some famous photographers whose images are downloaded in thousands otherwise they are a non starter for up and coming photographers who will only realistically make peanuts. If facebook kills stock agencies then good ! some of the stock agencies have had a detrimental effect on photography and I wouldnt shed a tear for them|

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Mar 28, 2012)

DaytonR- Stock isn't what it used to be. Everybody wants content but nobody wants to pay for it. But nobody's making millions selling books either. That market's the same as photography..everyone wants books for cheap and Amazon sells them for cheap. It's not about quality anymore, it's all about quantity. If any of my images end up in books there in the $7.99 specials a Barnes and Noble LOL!!

I have a rule...don't go to great lengths and expense for cheap stock...save that for the clients who appreciate what goes into good photography. I can knock out decent sallable stock images without breaking a sweat! If I put my all into the work I expect fair compensation. Stock is a good way to keep busy when I'm not doing something for a real paying client.

My concerns about facebook is small compared to the threat that Pinterest poses to my usage/resale earnings.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
psilore
By psilore (Mar 28, 2012)

Dvlee, I find your speech more than reasonable, but the point is: times change.
Just look at music industry... the "industry" part is becoming increasingly less relevant (with the notable exception of famous artists who apparently still need old style mainstream support), while unknown musicians are now able to promote themselves through the internet.
Most of them are inevitably miserable wannabes... but some aren't, so all things considered it's a good thing if we all have the chance to express ourselves.
I understand why professionals (photographers, musicians) are so worried: less income, more competition.
Well, if you ask me it's good news.
The only evident downside may be the lower quality average (as you said, the market is being flooded with cheap content)... that's a sad and undeniable phenomenon, however I agree with Martyvis: professionals just have to do better.
Pros usually outperform amateurs, amateurs sometimes prove to be as good as pros. It's a win-win situation!

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Mar 24, 2012)

Thanks Google+.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 23, 2012)

Big size does not help if they compress everything with 10% quality. All my photos have "nice" lines and squares on the color gradients.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Octane
By Octane (Mar 23, 2012)

are you talking about past experience or did you actually try to upload new photos *after* they made the change?

3 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes, i did it *after*.

1 upvote
atlien991
By atlien991 (7 months ago)

It is a year and a half later and the quality of Facebook high resolution photos is still horrible.

0 upvotes
Rutterbutter
By Rutterbutter (Mar 23, 2012)

chrome loads it just fine. did it several times. perhaps its just your comp

0 upvotes
rondhamalam
By rondhamalam (Mar 23, 2012)

Google CHROME problem...
It freezes from the start opening it up.

And the link to helpdesk doesn't work

Nowhere to report to Google

Uninstall and install several times the same problem kept coming back

I just uninstalled and use Firefox

Don't get me wrong, I love chrome, but it now suck
I will comeback to chrome if google fixes it.

0 upvotes
rondhamalam
By rondhamalam (Mar 23, 2012)

Anyone had same problem and solved it please share how to solve it.
Appreciated huge.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
mfj197
By mfj197 (Mar 23, 2012)

Hmm - works fine with Google Chrome for me. It's by far the main browser I use and it works seamlessly with Facebook.

Michael

1 upvote
rondhamalam
By rondhamalam (Mar 23, 2012)

Excellent

0 upvotes
munro harrap
By munro harrap (Mar 23, 2012)

You upload free of charge hi-resolution images to a server, and then what. ?
I refuse to give my work away. I do not even keep my work on this internet machine-to prevent theft-enabled in the OS and in the various software packages with their own "caches" of material you cannot even see. Anything of yours can be sold somewhere and you none the wiser, ha, ha!

0 upvotes
dave_bass5
By dave_bass5 (Mar 23, 2012)

LOL, you need to get out more.

18 upvotes
krebss
By krebss (Mar 22, 2012)

I hope everyone is AWARE OF THIS before sharing any or higher res images:

Directly from Facebook T&C:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

3 upvotes
Robert Hoy
By Robert Hoy (Mar 22, 2012)

Without granting those things, facebook could not legally show your uploaded photos to those you choose to share them with. The royalty free is so they don't have you pay you for a license to distribute (show to your friends) your images as requested. Zenfolio, Smugmug, Flicker will have the same type of language because they are doing the same things with your photos for you as the service they are providing you. Here, facebook is free so thus the royalty free.

7 upvotes
tarnumf
By tarnumf (Mar 23, 2012)

You're not correct at least for Zenfolio.
http://www.zenfolio.com/zf/terms.aspx

Photographer Content
Photographers retain their full rights to Content they upload to this Website, including photographs, videos and digital products, biographies, and business information created by Photographers and Zenfolio shall not acquire any rights of the Photographers by virtue of the uploads.

Other Content
Except for Photographer Content described above, Visitors grant to Zenfolio a royalty-free, perpetual license to use all rights, including copyright, in content that they upload to the Website, such as comments about this Website or about content uploaded by Photographers, or comments submitted as guest entries. Zenfolio reserves the right to amend, redact and/or delete comments for any reason.

- As you can read, the differences are quite obvious and HUGE. But if you want to make FB even richer, then go ahead, populate their images bank for free :))

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tosvus
By tosvus (Mar 23, 2012)

I hope you seriously don't think Facebook is planning on scouring user-content and selling it to the highest bidder....

The wording is in there to make sure they are not getting in trouble over people sharing photos with other users etc. It may sound scary, but if you think they are building a stock-photo service, you are way off....Worst case, they may show your picture during a commercial/ad for facebook where they show off the users/photo's that people upload.

1 upvote
tarnumf
By tarnumf (Mar 23, 2012)

The whole business for FB is to scour user's (and about users patterns) information and sell it.

Forcing "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license" is quite different from "we are not liable for what happens to your content".

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Mar 24, 2012)

In the language of "rights grabs" you will find a statement that says the photographer retains the full copyright,. Then the user agreement requires the copyright owner grant facebook all right normally afforded to the copyright owner.

Facebook does not need these permissions to distribute within it's own system. They are asking for more than they need.

Facebook holds the same position that a photo lab, copy center or print shop would in relation to the photographer. They do notunlimited usage rights in order to print distribute on behalf of the artist. They only need cpnfirmation that the photographer is the rightfull owner of the copyright.

As a printer I would have clients sign a "waiver" stating that the photographer was the copyright owner or had permission from the copyright holder to to reproduce the work. That's all facebook needs to distribute the work on facebook. It does not need the right to 'sub-license" or transfer the work."

0 upvotes
Dvlee
By Dvlee (Mar 24, 2012)

Also-Sites like Zenfolio and YouTube enable an RSS feed so visitors can post a link to the image or gallery that displays a thumbnail image.

When a third party posts a link to that page on facebook, the thumbnail image will be displayed. All images, including RSS feeds will be stored on facebooks servers and facebook claims all these rights to any information that is stored on their servers. As a result they are claiming the usage rights to images posted by 3rd parties, who by virtue of the RSS feed have been granted the right to post the link and it's associated thumbnail on other websties. These individuals however do not have the right to grant any rights to another party except those implied rights to transfer and dsplay the RSS. That would include the right to transfer but not the right to sub-license. A sub license allows the licensee to sell the license to another party. Fb can't claim rights from 3rd parties who don't have the right to grant them.

0 upvotes
boyzo
By boyzo (Mar 22, 2012)

I use the Lightroom FB plugin to upload images will I get the Hi RES adavntages ??

0 upvotes
vlad_b
By vlad_b (Apr 12, 2012)

The LR plugin (both the in-box and Jeffrey Friedl's excellent plugin) has a resize option. I'm not sure what happens if resize is off - I've set it to the maxiumum Facebook dimensions as they progressed (604, then 720, then 960, now 2048). It's a bit annoying that my old photos are stuck at their smaller sizes...

0 upvotes
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 22, 2012)

when i first found out they had their previous hi-res max of 2048x2048, i discovered they compressed them quite a bit, and images looked full of digital artifacts... so i avoided it by resorting to the lo-res max of 960x960, which suffered less compression (albeit a much smaller 'view')

i just hope this time round, the new 2048x2048 max will not suffer severe compression it did last time.

1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (Mar 22, 2012)

ok... i just did a test... the 'display' even if stretched to full screen still only shows the 'compressed' max of 960x960 (unfortunately, it is 'stretched' to fit the screen in 'full-screen mode'); but the download, if uploaded as a hi-res... is compressed for 2048x2048, but not as bad as before. (the 'display' version is still badly full of digital artifacts... a 960x960 is now stretched to as large as you monitor can handle up to max 2048x2048, but i think it looks terrible; and one can only see the 'good' one from the download itself, only.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
michael2011
By michael2011 (Mar 22, 2012)

Images look pretty good now. Even better than the 1024px on Flickr, I might say. Will be interesting to see how this affects Flickr's popularity.

1 upvote
pfzt
By pfzt (Mar 23, 2012)

I read a while ago that Flickr is redesigning their Website. So they seem to be aware of the competition. Let's see how that turns out.

0 upvotes
jtwz8975
By jtwz8975 (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm going to stick with uploading to Flickr and then just sharing with my Facebook account. I curse at the Facebook UI every time I go on there so it would take a LOT to get me to stop using Flickr.

0 upvotes
sugardaddy
By sugardaddy (Mar 22, 2012)

They're trying to catch up to Google+ in terms of photo displaying/sharing. Even if Facebook is more popular than Google+, Google + has been favored by photographers due to the ease and fidelity of images.

Even if resolutions stay intact, we'll see if file sizes stay intact. Facebook has been known to severely compress jpegs to the point of digital artifacts.

2 upvotes
michael2011
By michael2011 (Mar 22, 2012)

It seems they quietly fixed the recompression issue recently. I see recently uploaded pictures look much better than before. They still compress a bit but hardly noticeable anymore. (Note that they *have* to compress a bit for faster rendering. Otherwise it would take too long to render 3M-5MB images people upload regularly.)

0 upvotes
Mark Forman
By Mark Forman (Mar 22, 2012)

Facebook needs to keep the metadata and copyright information intact of all posted images.
Until they do this they will still not be the friend of any photographer.
They also need to allow image protection from the point of view of the image owner in a way controlled by the photographer and not facebook.
Image theft on the web is rampant and facebook has done little or nothing so far to stem this problem.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
fastlass
By fastlass (Mar 22, 2012)

Why does metadata, other than time and location of the shot matter on facebook? In the thousands of views of mine and my wife's images (and our viewing other people's shared pictures) no one has ever cared about fstop or if the flash fired. Nor have I ever seen a third party request such information.

And how is it even conceivable that FB "not be the friend of any photographer" if it's the worlds largest photo hosting site?

0 upvotes
NJMurphy
By NJMurphy (Mar 22, 2012)

Many people (myself included) add copyright information to their metadata. On my Canons I place it in the 'owner's name' space.

As for this 'improvement' I say "meh"; I don't put up anything wider than 900 ppi as it is.

2 upvotes
Mark Forman
By Mark Forman (Mar 22, 2012)

Metadata contains a lot more than camera shooting info.
It establishes what camera was used with it's serial number and also puts a time stamp and GPS info if so equipped.
Ownership of images in many cases can be established from that metadata.
If you do not care about what you shoot and post, then not having metadata might not be a concern.
But if you make your living from images then ownership of those images becomes vital.

1 upvote
Indigo Eye Photography
By Indigo Eye Photography (Mar 22, 2012)

Incidentally, some photographers do make friends (shocking, I know), and Facebook is a good way of encountering and/or keeping track of people with similar interests.

Besides the issue of credit/copyright, there are a few FB users who actually appreciate and learn from the details of photographs.

0 upvotes
Mark Forman
By Mark Forman (Mar 22, 2012)

Networking on facebook does work.
My concern is image protection where they could do a much better job.

0 upvotes
SBoudreault
By SBoudreault (Mar 22, 2012)

Copyright & ownership ? Isn't FB the actual legal owner of everything folks put on it anyway ?
S.

0 upvotes
Indigo Eye Photography
By Indigo Eye Photography (Mar 23, 2012)

"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

Given permission? Yes. Passed ownership? I think not.

0 upvotes
DaytonR
By DaytonR (Mar 27, 2012)

To be perfectly honest anyone worried about the copyright of their images and whether they can be illegally used ; I would say try avoid putting them online. There are so many ways to "lift" an image and once you put it online there is no way you can fully take it back and be sure no one has a copy somewere in the world. Maybe at the very least FB should have feature to prevent downloads or right clicks of images if the uploader so wishes but even that can be circumvented by a determined copyright infringer

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Mar 22, 2012)

I wonder why they chose 2048 as the maximum pixel count, and this as the month to announce it?

1 upvote
michael2011
By michael2011 (Mar 22, 2012)

2048px has been the max for optional downloading. Now they just use it for displaying as well, that's all.

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Mar 22, 2012)

Michael, yes, but I still suspect that the change on viewing resolution is because Facebook expects that displaying on a 2048x1536 screen is becoming more common, starting last weekend. ("2K" was a curious choice though, since it is not a common one for cameras or for standard downsizing options.)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Mar 22, 2012)

Yay!

2 upvotes
John De Bord Photography
By John De Bord Photography (Mar 22, 2012)

Trying to play catch up to G+ are we once again facebook? Good luck with that.

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Mar 22, 2012)

What is G+?

12 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Mar 22, 2012)

G-what ? ^^

2 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Mar 22, 2012)

Google Plus

0 upvotes
dylanbarnhart
By dylanbarnhart (Mar 22, 2012)

It's a welcome change. A little competition from Google made things better for both worlds.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
wkwan
By wkwan (Mar 22, 2012)

Google+ , the other facebook that very few use...

4 upvotes
Robert Hoy
By Robert Hoy (Mar 22, 2012)

Yes I've heard Google Plus is a ghost town.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Mar 23, 2012)

Google+ is the abandoned construction you see on the wayside as you swoop down the superhighway where the big Facebook sign looms in the horizon...

(just switch Google+ and Facebook around in that sentence, depending on what camp you come from...)

.

1 upvote
John De Bord Photography
By John De Bord Photography (Mar 23, 2012)

Very few? 100 million is very few and it has the largest photography community on the entire internet. While you aren't using it, photographers are meeting in real life, holding photo meetup's and photowalks all around the world. Go ahead, have a read http://www.amazon.com/Google-Photographers-Colby-Brown/dp/0321820401

0 upvotes
John De Bord Photography
By John De Bord Photography (Mar 23, 2012)

@robert Hoy A ghost town? I don't know what you are reading but for photographers it is anything but a ghost town. There is NO other site that allows for the interaction among photographers as G+ does, not to mention it is now the largest community anywhere online for photographers. I invite you to read Thomas Hawk's photoblog, specifically this article written 5 months ago titled "GOOGLE+ IS SOOOOOOOOO NOT DEAD!" http://thomashawk.com/2011/11/google-is-sooooooooo-not-dead.html I have close to 40,000 people who follow me for my photography on there. If that is a ghost town, then that is a lot of zombie's.

0 upvotes
ninjawil
By ninjawil (Mar 22, 2012)

Great.

How about some more camera reviews?

1 upvote
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Mar 22, 2012)

i know! in the time it took our news editor to post this small story i'm sure he could've produced at least one 20 page review!

30 upvotes
trungthu
By trungthu (Mar 22, 2012)

Very good.
Thanks.

2 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Mar 22, 2012)

A good thing I guess.

But I'll keep uploading at 900px max.

2 upvotes
Vovk
By Vovk (Mar 22, 2012)

why only 900px max?

0 upvotes
Pedro Moreira
By Pedro Moreira (Mar 22, 2012)

to prevent people from stealing his pictures...my guess

1 upvote
Robert Hoy
By Robert Hoy (Mar 22, 2012)

I usually upload at 650 or 675 and watermarked.

0 upvotes
naththo
By naththo (Mar 23, 2012)

Hi all,

Thats a great news to hear about those. It is an optional for people to upload 2048 across with better picture quality and using sRGB colour profile. I also consider that facebook should try the miniJPEG server if they can afford to. It is a licence they have to pay for which is a bit of problem but if they place ads there and keep them royalty free, that would be very helpful since that miniJPEG can compress big time and never lose quality by that much. Most max JPEG quality with normal setting from photoshop would be around 1-2mb each for 6mp size, larger size in bigger than 6mp. I am hoping if facebook notice this I mention about miniJPEG it would be great to have that. Oh, it would be wise for everyone to add watermark to it with your meta data with your name. That way people cannot steal but they can still get away with it to remove watermark/meta data but romoving watermark will leave smear and ugly mark on it.

Anyway, well done facebook. :)

Nathan.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 70