Options

Facebook Now More Pixels from 720 to 960

lifeinfocuslifeinfocus Registered Users Posts: 1,461 Major grins
edited September 2, 2011 in Mind Your Own Business
As of August 28th Facebook will now support 920 pixel wide up from 720. Also reported loading images faster and new photo viewer. This will happen over next few days reportedly.
Phil
http://www.PhilsImaging.com
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil

Comments

  • Options
    MomaZunkMomaZunk Registered Users Posts: 421 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2011
    Hurray for the friendly competition between Facebook and Google+.
    Dee Zunker

    Website
    Facebook Twitter Google+
  • Options
    GlortGlort Registered Users Posts: 1,015 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2011
    Fantastic!
    Now people that put pics on facespace can upload higer res pics for facespace's partners to rip off without paying the owner!
  • Options
    PRW_PhotoPRW_Photo Registered Users Posts: 13 Big grins
    edited August 28, 2011
    Unfortunately they probably still have that "Download" link next to the photos with no way to disable it...
  • Options
    W.W. WebsterW.W. Webster Registered Users Posts: 3,204 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    960px-sized images are far more useful for anyone scraping them off the screen for unauthorised purposes, or for Facebook to use in any way they see fit under their terms of service if you upload them bigger than 720px as previously!
    At SmugMug • On Facebook • Photo Blog • Tools of Trade
  • Options
    colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    W.W. Webster wrote: »
    960px-sized images are far more useful for anyone scraping them off the screen for unauthorised purposes, or for Facebook to use in any way they see fit under their terms of service if you upload them bigger than 720px as previously!

    I don't think the updated, current terms of service actually say they can use them "for any way they see fit," (most complaints about FB and image rights are based on an old version of the TOS), but I totally agree that I don't care how big Facebook lets you display pictures, I'm going to continue to upload a small size to limit the size of unauthorized downloads.
  • Options
    JBHotShotsJBHotShots Registered Users Posts: 391 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    15524779-Ti.gif
    Jamie
    JBHotShots.com
    Facebook
    7DII w/Grip, 50D w/Grip, 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L, 85/1.8, 50/1.8, Rokinon 8mm FE 3.2, 580EXII 430EX
  • Options
    W.W. WebsterW.W. Webster Registered Users Posts: 3,204 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    colourbox wrote: »
    I'm going to continue to upload a small size to limit the size of unauthorized downloads.
    Rather than this approach, I link in Facebook to small images I load to a SmugMug gallery I have set up for this purpose. This way, Facebook has no rights to the images but my Facebook visitors still get to see them! mwink.gif
    At SmugMug • On Facebook • Photo Blog • Tools of Trade
  • Options
    colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    W.W. Webster wrote: »
    Rather than this approach, I link in Facebook to small images I load to a SmugMug gallery I have set up for this purpose. This way, Facebook has no rights to the images but my Facebook visitors still get to see them! mwink.gif

    I often do this, but as has been mentioned by others here, some (i.e. wedding photogs) like to take advantage of the power of tagging and its marketing side benefits, which are not available on images outside Facebook.
  • Options
    W.W. WebsterW.W. Webster Registered Users Posts: 3,204 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    colourbox wrote: »
    ... some ... like to take advantage of the power of tagging and its marketing side benefits, which are not available on images outside Facebook.
    Doesn't tagging just make it easier for Facebook to find (and then misuse) what they are looking for?
    At SmugMug • On Facebook • Photo Blog • Tools of Trade
  • Options
    GlortGlort Registered Users Posts: 1,015 Major grins
    edited September 1, 2011
    Certainly won't be worrying me.

    The only time I use Face Space is to converse with models that seemingly have no other email addy and then to see when they were lying to me about pulling out of a shoot due to being sick but seeing on face space they decided to go shopping with their friends. Talk about people being Dumb!!! But, it's certainly not a requirement to be a member of MENSA to be a model. Although if there were an opposite equivalent, all models would be members!

    I have severe concerns about this whole face space thing. If ever there was a perfect way to get info on people they wouldn't normally give out, this is it. Putting pics on there is just an invitation to get them stolen and misused.

    There is a story all over the news here this morning about a guy being sentenced today that posed as an animal rights activist ( thank god he didn't pretend to be a shooter!) and loured in a young girl whom he murdered and dumped in a creek not far from me. makes you shiver when you know your own kids are using this suspect site virtually hourly.
    Makes me want to pose as a young naive girl and lure some of these sickos to meet me and my crowbar!

    I'm a bit surprised face ache isn't allowing bigger pics so they have higher quality ones to steal. But then again, the pics I have seen on there would probably make it uneconomical to host the billions of Mb's of crap " Hold my own camera" self portraits for the .000001% of shots that may be usable for something.
  • Options
    colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2011
    W.W. Webster wrote: »
    Doesn't tagging just make it easier for Facebook to find (and then misuse) what they are looking for?

    Everything online is a tradeoff. People can easily steal images off of Smugmug (just take a screen shot). Some wedding and event photographers have posted in these forums that they have gotten actual referral busine$$ by having tagged people follow the shot back to the photographer's page.

    By the way, do you have any actual examples of images that have been misused by Facebook? Because the business gained by these photogs through Facebook is real. But I'm not sure widespread misuse of images by Facebook is as real. If the real benefits outweigh the largely imaginary misuse, it's clear which side has more weight.

    Despite what I wrote there, I still don't like Facebook. I won't upload large images or unwatermarked images. But it doesn't help to have an unwarranted level of paranoia.
Sign In or Register to comment.