please wait, site is loading

Posts Tagged Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘Facebook’

Best Sizes to Post Images to Social Media

Posted on: January 3, 2016 by Chris | No Comments
best sizes to post images to social media

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year one and all!


This is the time of year when we post our holiday pictures to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the rest, only to be dismayed by what appears to be randomly assembled, cropped and ordered displays. I’ve been infuriated by this and decided to do a little research. Inevitably, a little research turned into a lot. There are many rules governing image sizes and they are not shared by all outlets. It’s a shame because nothing fails bigger than a randomly cropped photograph on Facebook. Because of this it’s probably more important to have the photograph displayed as it was intended than it is to post it in the first place.


The thing to understand is that the formats chosen by the various social media outlets are chosen to suit their purposes, not ours. To this end, it’s worth having a look at the feed so that you can see how the picture will be displayed – you’ll notice that Instagram favours square crops, Pinterest and Google+ favour portrait orientation and Facebook and Twitter landscape. They have their reasons and ours is not to reason why.

What Sizes?

So these are the best sizes to post images to social media, in pixels favoured by the six most popular social networks…

Facebook – 1,200 x 628

Twitter – 1,024 x 512

LinkedIn – 800 x 800

Google+ – 800 x 1,200

Pinterest – 735 x 1,102

Instagram – 1,080 x 1,080

I’ve only dealt with the posting of images to the feed – things get more complicated when you want to post an image as an icon or as a background – I can recommend this post on the Buffer blog for detail on the complexities of that!


There are some useful caveats to know about Facebook feeds. Facebook is aware of the orientation of the photograph and uses this to determine which rule it applies to an image in the feed. For example a square image will always be displayed at 470 x 470 regardless of the size of the uploaded file – I upload larger sizes than this to ensure the resolution is good when the viewer clicks on the image and sees the larger display. Landscape images will be scaled to 470 pixels wide in the feed and portraits will be scaled to 470 high.

Multiple Images in Facebook

Posting multiple posts to Facebook is something we all do at one time or another and I’ve seen some great pictures horribly cropped because the owners of the page didn’t understand the rules governing multiple picture displays. The key to multiple picture displays and updated albums in Facebook is the concept of the lead image. This is the first one you upload by default, though you can drag another one to that position when the upload is finished. Whatever the combination, Facebook will try to fit them into that 470 x 470 square in the feed. So two landscape pictures will go on top of one another utilising the whole 470 pixel width, the lead image getting 236 pixel depth and the second, 232. If I post two images with the lead image a square crop, then the 470 width will be allocated 236 to the lead and 232 to the second. Both will be equally cropped at 235 height.



If you post three pictures, with the lead picture a landscape, then the lead will be allocated 470 wide and 236 height, the second 236 x 232 on the second row and the third, 232 x 232 on the second row. This arrangement is consistent across all orientations of the lead image – the only exception is when the lead image has greater depth and the secondary image less depth, but still remaining within the 470 x 470 grid – Facebook will then allow more height as required for the lead image.

Now this is probably too much detail if your primary purpose for publishing multiple images is to maintain a gallery – it only makes sense to pay attention to these rules if you absolutely need to upload multiple pictures at once and you need them to appear to be a planned diptych, triptych or whatever.

read more & Facebook

Posted on: April 11, 2012 by Chris | No Comments

The news that Instagram has been acquired by Facebook leaves me with mixed feelings I’m afraid. I’m pleased for the guys at Instagram obviously, their hard work over the last few years has given them prime position in the iPhoneography space and now they are getting the tangible rewards. Long may they party…

As a user however, I must admit to being profoundly disappointed. I liked Instagram a lot, preferring it to Hipstamatic and as a compulsive iPhoneographer I found it more convenient, more user friendly and more fun. I liked it just the way it was. As a Facebook user, I rarely use the photosharing capabilities. I don’t like the way it randomly clips the picture to shoehorn it into your stream and I’m not overly keen on the terms and conditions that suggest my pictures may not be entirely under my control.

Displaying photographs on a website is very different to displaying them on a mobile phone and as a photographer I want to exercise some control over the look and presentation of my photographs. I don’t get that from Facebook, which is why I use 500px, this website and Flickr.

I’m also having misgivings about the lack of choice that corporatism is beginning to inflict on us. The tendency is to consolidate, which means less competition and often, since corporates are driven entirely by the need to satisfy shareholders, a reduction in quality as costs are rationalised. And, being a gentleman of a certain age, I prefer my outsiders. I was always a Rolling Stones fan rather than a Beatle!

So this is why I’m cancelling my Instagram account. I’m not convinced that the mobile phone only model is sustainable as the tablet market expands. I don’t necessarily want to share my mobile phone pictures with an internet audience, but when I do, I will send them to EyeEm, the increasingly popular German start up. They have good presentation, a more vibrant community than Instagram (in my opinion) and a nice user friendly way of categorising and tagging pictures. I can share the pictures I want to share with my Facebook friends by linking, without handing the pictures over to Facebook.

Plus, I like to think that I’m doing my bit for the independents, the mavericks, the square pegs. That’s just me I’m afraid.

read more

Pinterest – problem or solution?

Posted on: February 28, 2012 by Chris | 2 Comments

Cards by Chris WrightPinterest, in case you hadn’t heard, is a new, fast growing, image-centric community that encourages users to curate their own collections of pictures. Its taken off like wildfire and in the manner of most overnight successes has attracted a shit load of criticism.

There are two issues that keep rearing their heads. The first is the terms and conditions of the site, particularly around copyright. Pinterest delegate the responsibility for clearing permission to use photographs to the user, whilst simultaneously asserting that any picture uploaded to their site may be resold by Pinterest. Not surprisingly this has wound people up in a way not seen since Facebook tried to assert ownership of all pictures uploaded to their site.

The second issue is perhaps more interesting. The user experience at Pinterest does not impose any checks and balances on the pinning of a picture. The user can add a “Pin it” widget to their browser and just “pin” at will, any picture from any web page they like. How many of these users have even read the terms and conditions is a moot point, by using the site, users agree to the terms and conditions. Ignorance is no defence. It can be argued that by making the experience so simple, Pinterest are encouraging the magpies amongst us to steal material to which we are not entitled. Certainly, most of the images on the site today were not created by their curators.

This second issue taps into one of the enduring features of the internet. The world wide web facilitates and encourages a rapid exchange of data. Journalists can research from their desks. The PC has become the Library of Alexandria in that aided and abetted by Google it opens the door to all human knowledge. It has become a hot house for innovation, never has the saying “standing on the shoulders of giants” rung more true. Of course where there are giants, as every follower of the brothers Grimm will know, there are also goblins. For every researcher investigating the tangled web of intrigue that surrounds News International, there is somebody downloading one of my pictures from Pinterest without asking permission or giving credit, never mind a fee.

This is where I stand on the issue. I take photographs with the intention of showing them to other people. This should not come as a surprise! I also create photographs for sale as high quality prints or for editorial use. I need as much exposure as I can get in order to be successful. I have had enquiries and sales through Deviant Art, Flickr, Eye Em and this web site in the last few months. The traffic to my web site has increased due to people following the links from Pinterest. Its another shop window. The internet has provided a fantastic boost to photography – as a result there is both opportunity and competition. I don’t care if a few people copy my low res prints from the web site, its a small price to pay for the increased exposure.

And Pinterest? They are a business and in order to be successful need to find a balance between exploiting their audience and providing a service. A good deal is one in which both sides walk away satisfied. If I felt I was being exploited than I would not be satisfied. If Pinterest were unable to make a living they would not be satisfied. At the moment, I’m a supporter.

check me out at

read more