Facebook/Flickr export quality

The built in sharing features for Facebook and Flickr appear to be using a different resampling method than other exports, and produce a lot of nasty artifacts and over-sharp looking junk pixels.
Are there no editable controls for these built-in sharing features?
The quality of the 3rd party Flickr and Facebook plugins (which use the primary export feature for their resizing) is clearly higher than the built-in method.
Anyone else noticed this?

Highlight the images you wish to export.
Ctrl-Shift-E to open the export dialog.
Change the top drop-down list to Hard Drive.
Choose a location for the files in the Export Location section.
Adjust file naming if necessary.
In the File Settings section make sure you have the correct output format selected and choose a quality (85 is fine for most things and keeps file size manageable).
Make file size changes as appropriate in the Image Sizing section.
If you are downsizing a lot then consider adding some output sharpening.
Click Export.
Hopefully that covers most things.

Similar Messages

Facebook & Flickr Export Problems

One of the new features of Aperture 3 I was excited about was the Facebook & Flickr integration. I had previously been using a free Flickr plug-in and exporting my Aperture images to iPhoto to make use of the Facebook integration.
After preparing a project with 26 adjusted/edited "keeper" images, I tried the Flickr upload button. It worked away and after a few minutes said that the process had completed. When I checked Flickr, only a portion (18 out of 26) of the images were displayed. I then clicked the "Publish" icon beside the album in Aperture, and instead of trying to re-add the missing photos to Flickr, it synced the album to Flickr and gave the Flickr images preference, thereby deleting the images that were not loaded on the initial upload. I have tried this several times and get various behaviours including a case where I got duplicate images in the Flickr set.
I tried the same thing with Facebook and had very similar problems. It does not load all of the selected images onto Facebook and a second sync then deletes the non-uploaded ones from Aperture. On another try, it loaded most (23 out of 26) of the images to Facebook, but instead of showing the images, just had empty "image not found" symbols.
Is anyone else having problems with Facebook and Flickr integration in Aperture 3?

I'll second the "stacks" issue...
I had the same issue as the OP, but once I removed stacks from the event that I was uploading from, all of my images made it into Facebook.....
HOWEVER.....a new issue turned up....for whatever reason, now my people/face tags don't make it into Facebook, even though it worked before removing the stacks. To make matters worse, if I manually tag the images in Facebook and re-synchronize A3, the people/face tags are removed on the Facebook size....I can't f-ing win.
So it looks like I have to select from the lesser of two evils:
1. If I want to preserve face-tagging, I have to be prepared for A3 to omit certain images
2. If I want all of my images to be exported to Facebook, I have to live with no face/people tags
....fanfuckingtastic.

Any hope for Adobe Bridge's Flickr Export feature?

Hi,
I've been using Adobe Bridge CS5 for a few years now and I love it's features. However, only recently have I decided to explore posting pictures to on-line albums, in particular, Flickr.
Having experimented with Bridge's Flickr Export Panel, I notice that it always asks me to log-in and then it can re-authenticate. I had started a discussion on Flickr's help forum, and the best suggestion was that CS5's Flickr Export module may be using http: instead of https: I always get an error and cannot upload any photos to my Flickr account.
Any chance that this is the problem and that there is a fix for it?
Is there an updated Flickr export module?
Are there other export modules, say to Google+?
I am currently not interested in opening a Facebook account, so I don't want to use the Facebook export module.
Please reference the below link to read the Flickr forum discussion.
Flickr: The Help Forum: Flickr Export Module always asking for authentication in Bridge CS5
Thanks,
Randy

I called the Adobe 1-800 support number yesterday and went through the phone prompts and found that I could no longer connect to CS support. It just told me that phone support is not available and to go to the web site for support. It then ended the call. Since the phone message I got on Friday told me to call them back I called the number again and simply hit the prompts for Creative Cloud support and told them that I had an open case. I gave her my case number and see looked it up and immediately asked me if she could take control of my computer. Wow! They obviously have a much higher level of support staff for the Creative Cloud subscribers as I doubt if the Level 1 staff I talked to for regular CS-6 support could even do that, (or would know how). I told her that a Level 2 Tech had already done that earlier with no results. She put me on hold while she checked with the next level of support. After a minute or so she came back on and said that a Level 2 tech would call me back to troubleshoot my issue. I stayed home all day yesterday waiting for the call but nothing. I just hope that when they do call me I am actually home this time or we could be playing telephone tag forever. This is the second time I have called them back when they left a message on my answering machine.
You would think that when they call and get an answering machine that they would try to call back later, instead of making you call them back at the general support number and ending up talking to a different Level 1 person each time, who then has to research your case and then tries to fix the problem themselves when they can’t, or else I wouldn’t have been sent up to Level 2 in the first place. I’ve dealt with other support issues with other companies and they will dedicate one person to your case and that’s who you deal with each time. It’s much more efficient for them and for the customer. I hope someone from Adobe actually reads this forum once in a while. There customer support could definitely use improvement.
The next time I talk to them I am going to point them to this forum thread to prove it’s not just me.
Can I ask everyone to post what operating system they are using. Maybe that will narrow things down, or prove that it’s not an operating system problem?
I have the same problem on both my desktop and my laptop. Both are running Windows 7, 64 bit.
Photoshop CS-6, 64 bit only on both.

Aperture 3: Watermarks with Facebook, Flickr, and MobileMe

I am pleased that Apple has released Aperture 3. I have not had the chance to download the 30-day trial or play with it in an Apple store yet. For those of you who have, do you know if Apple has enabled (visible) watermarking as part of the sharing on Facebook, Flickr, and MobileMe? I don't post images without visible watermarks to the Internet without one.
What I currently do with Aperture 2.x is export the images (as .jpg) into a folder adding a watermark as part of the export preset, then import them back into Aperture and then post to MobileMe, Facebook, or Flickr. I am hoping that Aperture 3 eliminates the need for these extra steps.
If it doesn't have this ability, does anyone do anything similar that might be more streamlined?

Thank you folks for your suggestions. I just purchased Aperture 3 and needed to create a watermark. I was able to accomplish this using the steps below.
1. Scan the watermark into the computer or create it with an editing application. (I scanned my signature into my computer and saved it as a jpg. If you are worried about someone having your signature you may want to use a printed watermark.)
2. Open the scanned image in a photo editing application. (I used Photoshop even though I am very uncomfortable with its complexity.)
3. Adjust the size of the image using the," Image Size", tool under "Image" column in the Menu. (Do not use the Canvas Size tool. It did not work for me.)
4. Place the Layers palette on the desktop by selecting, "Layers" in the Window column at the end of the Menu.
5. Double click on the background icon in the Layers palette to open a new layer. It should be Layer 0.
6. Click, "OK".
7. Next select the Magic Wand in the tools palette and touch the background of the image. Click on the background to select the background. Click delete to make the the background disappear. The watermark should remain without the background.
8. If there are any areas enclosed in a loop, like a zero or, "O", take the magic wand and select the enclosed area to highlight it. Remove this area with the delete button. You can put the copyright mark on the image if you like by typing it next to your watermark.
9. Go to, "Save As", and save the image as a psd file where you can find it.
10. Quit the application and open Aperture and go to the preference folder for Aperture.
11. Select the Export icon and activate the, "Email photo export", preset button.
12. Select edit and go to, "Choose Image", to select your watermark with the transparent background.
13. Select a new preset on the right and name your new watermark.
14. The new watermark will appear in the, "Email photo export" options.

Any Flickr Export plugin available for Aperture 3?

I was happy to see Flickr included in Aperture 3, but to say the least, it really *****.
The worst thing is that it applies my own keywords to all the uploaded images. I don't want the (full) names of peoples in my pictures to display at Flickr and having my local-language keywords on my images probably doesn't help Flickr where most users are speaking english (compared to my local language).
Basically I wish the Flickr export feature would allow me to either "not sync keywords" or modify my keywords to determine if I want them exported or not - like Lightroom does.

Thanks for the warning Martin. I already know from iPhoto's flickr export that you gotta be careful. I guess the iPhoto/Aperture flickr export is great for those wanting REAL simplicity, but if you want to adjust just one or two settings, it's a no-go and it kinda *****
I hope there's an AP3 flickr export plugin out there? I would be willing to spend $10 on it.

Creating space in Aperture Library & Deleting unwanted Facebook/Flickr...

After updating Aperture via the most recent update, Aperture synced ALL my photo libraries from Facebook and Flickr... I didn't want this. Now I keep getting the message "insufficient space in Aperture library" I want to delete the Facebook & Flickr albums that have been added to my Aperture WITHOUT deleting them online. Am I able to do so just by deleting the albums that were synced to my library OR will deleting them from my Aperture will cause them to also be deleted online?
I have deselected the "sync" option from preferences, but whenever I select an album, Aperture proceeds to go into "sync" mode.
HELP please, I have pictures I need to import, edit and get out...
Thank you

I called Apple and first I was told that if I delete a Facebook or Flickr album from my library that the album would remain on Facebook or Flickr so I proceeded to delete them. As soon as I did a message came up that said something to the effect of "Deleting this album will delete the album on Facebook" I went into my Aperture, file, web accounts and disabled all of them to be sure...
Regarding the other question... I just needed more space on my internal hard drive.

So what's the export quality like???

Hi, after the 'pain' of i-movie 8, what's the view on the export quality in 9?
Does it export high enough quality to look good when burnt to dvd and played back on tv?

Welcome to Apple Discussions!
It looks the same as iMovie 08.
I did a compare one day using the same clip burned to DVD from iMovie 06 and from iMovie '08.
The iMovie 06 clip looked like it came from the DV camera directly and the iMovie 08 clip looked much worse. The difference is the single field processing used by iMovie 08/09 and the fact that it throws out every other horizontal line.
Because the two softwares handle the imported video differently - single field processing is how iMovie 08 / 09 handles the video, meaning that one of every two lines of the image is ignored. iMovie 06 uses ALL of the image to form the video.
If your primary workflow is editing DV clips and making DVDs, iMovie '06 is better suited. Your movie will arrive at iDVD in DV format, which is an ideal match for making a DVD: same resolution, same pixels aspect ratio, and original quality. If you share your movie from iMovie '08 / 09, it gets re-rendered at 640x480 or less, and then iDVD upscales it back to 720x480. The end result is obviously not as good.

Export quality grainy for TEXT / TITLE

Hello there,
Am kind of a newb, but am getting used to the basics and am happy with the video export quality. For some reason, the TITLE objects are coming out grainy, even when viewed at 100% size. I tried different output types, bitrates, changed fonts, font size, position, etc. Put black background behind, removed background, no matter what am still getting the fonts looking crappy once exported.
Some screenshots of what I see in the Premiere Pro output preview / workspace, and then a second shot showing the resulting output (same result in diff bitrates, just chose one as example)
In Pro:
http://fms.whoajack.com/textIssue01.png
Exported:
http://fms.whoajack.com/textIssue02.png
Any ideas?
Thanks for any suggestions,
Greg

DV is far from the best codec for text. But the real problem is that you're using FCP's built-in text generators. Instead, use the Boris Title 3D and Boris Title Crawl generators. They produce much cleaner vector-based text and have a ton of more options for creativity.
-DH

Poor export quality Aperture 3

I've been searching all over the internet and can't seem to find any answers in regards to export quality in Aperture 3. When I finish editing an image and I export it in either TIFF, JPEG or PNG all of them look the same regardless of if I change DPI, File size etc and none of them look even close to as detailed as the original. I'm exporting "version" and changing the options in presets with no luck.
Can someone help me? I can't accept the poor quality of the exported images as they make my portraits look fuzzy and not sharp (when they're very sharp and vivid in Aperture!). Is it possible to get the same quality in an exported image as I see in Aperture. It seems like it should be a no brainer!
Thank you!

I had the same problem. While in a One-to One the Creative told me to do this. What ever you are planning to export the file/files to have pluged in (flash drive, hard drive) or loaded (DVD/CD) before you start the process.
Chose the file or files by highlighting them then choose File - Export - Version. In the center of the window that will pop up there is a "Export Preset"" tab. He told me to choose TIFF- Original Size (8-bit). He did say that any higher than 8 bit is pointless. I did this and it worked great. I had a large beautiful file that I was blowing up to 30 by 20 and it looked so bad printed before I learned this trick. I printed it again after exporting the new way and it really looked great!
I hope this solves your problem, it was VERY frustrating for me also.

Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX

I read this article today and considering I do all my rendering through Premiere or AME it made me a little concerned. What does Adobe think of this? and has any else experienced this problem?
Cheers,
Moja.
I took this article from: Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX & Premiere?
A rational person might assume that the program from which you export your media wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the quality of the final image, especially if the export settings are identical in both programs. A recent test by filmmaker Noam Kroll might just teach us to think twice before making assumptions.
First, a little bit of background on Kroll's test. Having noticed that exporting from Adobe Media Encoder yielded quicker results than using the same settings and exporting from FCPX, he tended to use Media Encoder for the bulk of his exporting. When a recently exported project came out with some nasty compression artifacts, blocky rendering of certain areas, and a noticeable change in color quality, Kroll put on his detective's hat and tried exporting again from FCPX. To his, and soon to be your, surprise, the exported result from FCPX yielded significantly higher image quality with the EXACT same export and compression settings.
Don't believe it? Have a look for yourself. According to Kroll, "both FCP X and Premiere Pro were set to output a high quality H.264 file at 10,000 kbps." The image on top was exported from FCPX and the bottom was exported from Premiere Pro.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
In the shots above, you'll notice more blocky compression artifacts in the version exported from Premiere, especially on the lower part of the woman's face, and there's a fairly significant reddish hue that's been introduced into the midtones and shadows of the Premiere export. Here's a version of the same shot that is cropped in on the woman's face by 400%. This is where the difference between the two starts to become painfully obvious. Again, FCPX is on top, and Premiere on the bottom.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
Here's the conclusion that Kroll came to in his post.
After seeing this I can confidently say that I will not be compressing to H.264 using Premiere Pro or Adobe Media Encoder any more. [sic] The image from Premiere is so much blockier, less detailed, and muddy looking, not to mention that the colors aren’t at all accurate. In fact I even did another output test later on with Premiere Pro set to 20,000 kbps and FCP X only set to 10,000 kbps and still the FCP X image was noticeably higher quality, so clearly something is up.
It's really difficult to speculate as to what's going on behind the scenes that's causing such a drastic difference in results between the two programs. However, what is clear is that you should take caution when exporting to h.264 from Premiere and Media Encoder. Regardless of the program that you're using, perform your own tests and make sure that the export process is leaving your media with a visual quality appropriate for the delivery medium.
The good news here is that Adobe is extremely receptive to feedback from their user base, and their Creative Cloud subscription model allows them to roll out updates with a much higher frequency than they could with the boxed version of the Creative Suite. If more people are experiencing these problems and reporting it to Adobe, chances are that we'll see an update with fixes sometime in the near future. With that said, I have no idea how Adobe handles the technical process of exporting, so it could very well take a complete overhaul of how the program encodes h.264 to fix the problem.

Well, I did my own little comparison with a shot from my A7s (XAVCS 50mbps) and seeing as I don't have FCP X I used FCP 7. The AME H264 looks nicer than the FCP one in this instance.
Dropbox - WALKING 444.jpg
Pro Res 444 from Premiere
Dropbox - WALKING AME.jpg
H264 from AME at these settings:
Dropbox - WALKING FCP.jpg
H264 from FCP 7 at these settings:

Setting default export quality for PDFs in Pages 5.0

Hi,
Anyone know if it is possible to set a default export quality for PDFs in Pages 5.0. Even if it remembered the last used setting that would be helpful.
Thanks,
Nick

OK, I have managed to get higher quality images from the PDF renderer. Here is what I have found:
1) The PDF renderer in Reporting Services 2005 will size all images that it is given at 96 DPI no matter what DPI the image is when you pass it to the renderer. That means that a 300 DPI image or even a 600 DPI image will be sized in the PDF as if it is only 96 DPI. That means your high DPI image will render much larger than you expect.
So you might expect a 300 DPI image that is 6.5 inches wide to render properly at 1950 pixels. Yet, the PDF renderer will size it as it were 96 DPI which would make the image 20.3 inches long!
2) There is good news though. Despite sizing the images as if they were 96 DPI, the PDF renderer appears to render higher DPI images at a higher quality than 96 DPI. So despite the sizing being wrong, the image actually is rendering at a higher quality.
This means that you should size the image to the proper number of inches based on 96 DPI calculations. Then you can use Bitmap.SetResolution to set your images to at least 300 DPI. That should give you a higher quality image that is the proper number of pixels to fit properly in your report.
I am able to do all of this sizing dynamically because I am using objects as my data sources, but I am sure there are VB functions you could use in the report itself to accomplish the same task.
It is late, and I've been at this project all day long, so forgive me if I have explained anything poorly or gotten any concepts long. Yet, at this late hour, I believe this is what the renderer is doing.
I hope this helps someone else in the future, or at least points them in the right direction.

Removal of Flickr Export after expiration

I have the Flickr Export plug in for Aperture 2.0. It's the trial version. How do I get rid of it after it has expired?

Delete it from you /Library/Application Support/Aperture/Plug-Ins folder. It will be there or in your ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/Plug-Ins folder.

Export quality in After Effects

I'm using After Effects CS4 and have exported as an MPEG-4. The quality of the final movie is very poor. It looks like a low quality JPEG. In After Effects preview, it looks fine.
I'm familiar with exporting quality videos out of Premiere. Is the usual workflow to open AE projects in Premiere and use the options there to export? Or am I missing something in AE?

That may be, but I'm just not a fan. I did some tests a few years ago and decided that Animation
wasn't worth it and that it was in fact creating artifacts in my renders.
Just to show my work, I am pulling some info from wikipedia as a reference:
"For complex 3D rendered scenes or digitized film of real-world footage, it barely compresses at all and also can add visible noise."
Now I know, wikipedia isn't highly reliable, anyone can edit it, blah blah blah, but this statement runs congruent to my own findings. Add to that the weighty file size, and then the fact that this codec is officially my ENEMY because my students, who are instructed to use Sorenson 3, often forget to change the codec for their .mov renders, and so sometimes I get these bloated files that I have to trash and they have to re-render, and I just don't really care for this codec at all.
I just don't render video any more. Haven't for a long time now. So many advantages to using img sequences, I haven't looked back to big bloated video files.

Flickr export problem with iphoto 6

Hi, I been trying to uninstall flickr export but I can’t seem to do it. The program keeps locking up my macbook and crashing it. Because of this it is currently handicapped my iphoto 6 because I can’t export jpegs. When I go file export it loads automatically crashes it.

Hi Scott
It's tricky to find the plugin... try the following:
Go to iPhoto in your Applications folder (or whereever you have it) and click on it once.
Control (or Right) Click to get the contextual menu
Select 'Show Package Contents'
This opens a new window with a Folder called 'contents'
Click on this and find the folder called Plugins, open it and inside...
Search for the FlickrExport one and trash it.
Close the window and launch iPhoto
hope this helps
Regards
TD

Youtube Export Quality

Is the youtube export quality improved in iMovie 09? Is 640x360 still the maximum size for direct upload to youtube?
Thanks,
Shawn

Is the youtube export quality improved in iMovie 09?
iMovie has little to do with the end quality of files other than determining the size/duration/quality of the files sent to YouTube. All files sent to YouTube are converted to FLV by Youtube. This conversion by Youtube itself determines the final resolution/quality of your files. If quality is what you seek, then it is probably best to create your own website and post your video at the resolution and level of quality which you can manage yourself. YouTube and similar sites aim for compatibility of viewing -- not quality.
Is 640x360 still the maximum size for direct upload to youtube?
I don't believe there are restrictions on resolution -- just duration (10 minutes) and file size (1 GB). Whatever you upload will be re-compressed to fit in the 1 GB file size limit. Higher quality means shorter times. Larger files usually mean more compression to fit it within the YouTube file size restriction. Your best bet is to review the Help resources area at Youtube.

Facebook/Flickr export quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for