[Lev]

I simply ignore social media other than this forum and Flickr. Lol. I don’t post photos on Instagram, Facebook, etc. I barely use Facebook, I don’t use Instagram etc.

My square crops are square because that’s what looks right for that shot. My 16:9 or 16:10 are similarly conceived to fit a subject and mood. Some only get this treatment in post production by exploration, some I know going in before pressing the shutter release.

Great choice, it is like two most important, pinned tabs in browser - Facebook and Youtube :d
When I set my picture aspect ratio to 16:9, somewhere in my mind I see an audience looking at it in a theater

---------- Post added 11-21-21 at 20:05 ----------

Are we social media?

Yes, kind of, but here we are responsible for what we are saying

[normhead]

All my images are 16:9 if possible (like my TV), and I intentionally frame loosely so I have room for cropping. Like mentioned by Steve ^, you have to shoot with the crop you want in mind.

[Lev]

If these forums count as social media then I post an occasional resized image here, cropped and processed as seemed appropriate to the image, not to suit the Pentax forums. Other social media are for looking at other photographers’ work in my book; I’m not looking for likes or followers.

o what I wanted to say by the way, if I put [IMG] tag in PF which is referring to a high resolution image (more than 1280 pixels), the forum engine shrinks it to 1280, resulting in image quality loss. To avoid this I have started to downsample it myself to 1280 pixels. Well, I can't blame PF for this, it's more browser rendering. Problem is that I have to prepare an additional image for PF to be nice and sharp.

[normhead]

o what I wanted to say by the way, if I put [IMG] tag in PF which is referring to a high resolution image (more than 1280 pixels), the forum engine shrinks it to 1280, resulting in image quality loss. To avoid this I have started to downsample it myself to 1280 pixels. Well, I can't blame PF for this, it's more browser rendering. Problem is that I have to prepare an additional image for PF to be nice and sharp.

I just post 3840-x2160 on Flickr. If people want to see more detail, all they need to do is click on the image then click on the plus sign. I don't prepare for anything but my 3840 x 2160 TV.

[Lev]

I just post 3840-x2160 on Flickr. If people want to see more detail, all they need to do is click on the image then click on the plus sign. I don't prepare for anything but my 3840 x 2160 TV.

Yes, I like the way it is on Flickr, also seems to me that their data processing is best, images uploaded there to me look sharper than anywhere else.

[BarryE]

As most SM sites are geared up to mobile app usage - and increasingly most web activity for social use - the quality and style of the images mobile devices display are always going to have less IQ/quality/subtly than "proper" camera can create. This means that taking images for SM is a wholly different approach to taking images for, say, print and 4K display, especially in terms of composition and tonal considerations. So for many of us whose SM output is secondary to seeking the best quality image, we (myself and others) will re-purpose our photos if we can be bothered. The originating process and mindset is just different.

When the auto edits to saturation/sharpening etc is so over the top and has become the norm, why carry a FF camera and * grade gear around for Instagram? Why, for that matter K3iii? I recently compared a printed photo magazine published last month with the same publication from two years ago and the current images were overly saturated, excessively sharpened etc (to me) and were just mirroring SM style. This from a quality creative photo mag that is targeted to serious/experienced photographers.

The battle for nuanced images is all but lost. Soon curated prints in galleries will follow.

[Lev]

Besides the forum, I have accounts on Flickr and 500px and recently began posting some photos on instagram. Before the later, I had never processed an image especially for SM , as I always give all the perspective on the shot itself. But it’s definitely frustrating to realize how much it compresses and affects the quality.
I have to admit that in some cases I edited the photo in their editor, just to make sure the tonality is close to the original. But my general rule is a master copy of 4-6mp resolution. It’s manageable enough.
As for cropping, every photo has its preferred ratio, but always something standard (5:7, 2:3, 4:5, 16:9 or sometimes 4:3 , 16:10), I enjoy this framing game a lot. For Instagram I create a white background (1:1 or 4:5) and give my photo some breathing space. Other than that I always sharpen for screen viewing because I don’t print that much. If I had the time and money I would definitely concentrate on printing more than anything else. It’s beautiful, rewarding and it fills my wall and photographic spirit.

I'd like to say, postprocessing/publishing is completely different field. And unfortunately my nature and birth date work against me and I'm very slow in this process. I can spend whole day for a single image.

---------- Post added 11-22-21 at 01:04 ----------

As most SM sites are geared up to mobile app usage - and increasingly most web activity for social use - the quality and style of the images mobile devices display are always going to have less IQ/quality/subtly than "proper" camera can create. This means that taking images for SM is a wholly different approach to taking images for, say, print and 4K display, especially in terms of composition and tonal considerations. So for many of us whose SM output is secondary to seeking the best quality image, we (myself and others) will re-purpose our photos if we can be bothered. The originating process and mindset is just different.

When the auto edits to saturation/sharpening etc is so over the top and has become the norm, why carry a FF camera and * grade gear around for Instagram? Why, for that matter K3iii? I recently compared a printed photo magazine published last month with the same publication from two years ago and the current images were overly saturated, excessively sharpened etc (to me) and were just mirroring SM style. This from a quality creative photo mag that is targeted to serious/experienced photographers.

The battle for nuanced images is all but lost. Soon curated prints in galleries will follow.

Abolutely agree! And funny is that they have already passed a point of all sorts of technical requirements. They are producing phones with 10 cameras with 50 and more megapixels, for what? to display these photos on the phone again. Does not make any sense. It's sad knowing that maybe more than half of your audience looking at your image using just a cell phone rather than a proper monitor.

[Lev]

For capture, I compose to the subject based on mind's-eye intent with potential crops in mind.

Steve this sounds to me that you're a prime shooter

[Serkevan]

I usually export to a reasonably-compressed (~7-9 MB, works out to about 92 or 93% quality on RawTherapee) JPG file. I've found it strikes a very good balance between file size for sharing and quality for zoomed in viewing. Somehow feels like it works best for social media, as well - exporting directly for Instagram-size leaves you with a small image for computer viewing, and directly uploading the max quality JPG makes the compression engine of Instagram crush the photo into a mushy mess.


I keep the raw developer file handy if I'm going to make a print - when I do I almost always up the sharpness from what I use for screens, and additionally I might tweak the shadows/highlights depending on the medium etc.

[Michail_P]

I let my 500px paid membership expire because I don't like the way that site is going. They really push stuff that to me is not appealing at all, technically good but no appeal.

Sadly, I agree. Very disappointing truth. They push things away from originality. Composites and fake/ staged shots images have taken over the place.

[UncleVanya]

Sadly, I agree. Very disappointing truth. They push things away from originality. Composites and fake/ staged shots images have taken over the place.

I suspect that the users responding to those polished turds are driving the change in what they show. Sadly.

[ehrwien]

directly uploading the max quality JPG makes the compression engine of Instagram crush the photo into a mushy mess.

Ain't that the truth?! I've had to delete a few images right after uploading them because they looked horrible...

[Serkevan]

Ain't that the truth?! I've had to delete a few images right after uploading them because they looked horrible...

Not only that, I've seen the engine edit a couple astro photos - the noise reduction and contrast were all wrong (namely: pushed up well into the realm of "ugh, what's that blotch"). And I had made sure that all the sliders were untouched

Honestly, for being the single most popular photo sharing platform, its photography hosting is abysmal.

[Lev]

Not only that, I've seen the engine edit a couple astro photos - the noise reduction and contrast were all wrong (namely: pushed up well into the realm of "ugh, what's that blotch"). And I had made sure that all the sliders were untouched

Honestly, for being the single most popular photo sharing platform, its photography hosting is abysmal.

and what makes it most popular? The picture quality definitely is not a reason. So why these companies fighting to each other and producing cameras to be able to create higher quality images possible?

[Serkevan]

and what makes it most popular? The picture quality definitely is not a reason. So why these companies fighting to each other and producing cameras to be able to create higher quality images possible?

Social features, mostly. It's more about the sharing than the ultimate IQ.