Give the option to save/share pics larger than 612x612

  • 187
  • Idea
  • Updated 8 years ago
Please give the option to upload pics at larger sizes than 612x612, for people who care more about photo quality than upload speed. Or at least make the version that gets saved to the Camera Roll be full quality/full size.
Photo of Josh Bancroft

Josh Bancroft

  • 3 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
  • disappointed

Posted 9 years ago

  • 187
Photo of Kevin Systrom

Kevin Systrom

  • 56 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
This is a fantastic idea, and will be addressed in the next update or two. What size would you say you're most interested in having?
Photo of Bryan

Bryan

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Any idea when that next update will come out? I'm anxiously awaiting purposefully taking photo walks on my lunch until I can have a full-res image to show for it when done.
Photo of David Sanger (SU2)

David Sanger (SU2)

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
For photographers interested in repurposing images they make using Instagram, it would be ideal to be able to apply filters and then save locally the full res image, even if a smaller version were actually uploaded. Think stock, prints, cups, t-shirts,
Photo of Dan Brady

Dan Brady

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Why not just use each app's native size. Then by default upload the small 612x612 image to instagr.am and save the hi res version to the iPhone. Users can then opt to upload the hi res version to Flickr or Picasa if required (it's not necessary for FB and Twitter IMO).

I've tried most of the camera apps and instagram is easily my favourite. But the lack of hi res output is a major flaw for me. I have some great pix of my daughter that I'd love to print ...

... happy to pay for a pro version of the app for this functionality.

Link with mpix and photobox (UK) for in-app print ordering and you could make a fortune :)
Photo of Josh Bancroft

Josh Bancroft

  • 3 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
At the very least, I'd like "Full Quality" (the resolution will depend on the max size that each iPhone camera can save).

As an in between size, something like 1600x1600 or 1200x1200 would be nice.

And wording it so that people are clear that the high quality pics will take longer to save/upload is, of course, a no-brainer. :-)
Photo of derlinzer

derlinzer

  • 10 Posts
  • 13 Reply Likes
Yep, full quality for library saving and crosssharing to Flickr, etc...
Photo of Doug!as Cootey

Doug!as Cootey

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
I would love to cross post to Flickr while using Instagram, but haven't due to the lorries image size. I would consider this feature at the top of my wish list.
Photo of Miki

Miki

  • 1 Post
  • 18 Reply Likes
"what size would you like?"

Full native resolution for each device. Up to 2400 for iPhone 4!
Photo of Nox Dineen

Nox Dineen

  • 14 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Absolutely full resolution. Bare minimum would be 1600 x 1600, but max res on each device doesn't seem like it would be too difficult and it really enhances the app's appeal over the competition.
Photo of jayzombie

jayzombie

  • 6 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
More often than not I'll opt for the longer upload times in order to have a full resolution image on my Flickr account. This would be a way awesome enhancement. :)
Photo of Jay Farmington

Jay Farmington

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Would rather have native resolutions like 640x480.
Photo of Kevin Systrom

Kevin Systrom

  • 56 Posts
  • 42 Reply Likes
Hey Everyone.

One of the biggest reasons we focused on smaller sizes (to begin) was for fast uploads. We've heard you guys loud and clear so I can't imagine we won't get to this in the near future. Thanks for hanging with us. We're one day old after all!

You guys rock.
Photo of Steve Rhodes

Steve Rhodes

  • 4 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
That is fine as an option, but people have come to expect full resolution photos (it is the biggest criticism in comments and reviews I've seen so far).

It would also be good at some point to have the option to apply filters to non-square photos to use the full resolution of the phone.
Photo of Bill Barol

Bill Barol

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
+1. (And great job with v1.)
Photo of ik_

ik_

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I strongly disagree. Larger sizes will make the Instagram use cumbersome and will stop being a pleasure to use.

There are services dedicated to pro photography i.e Flickr.

Instagram must be actually Instant.
Photo of pttr

pttr

  • 8 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
maybe you should make it an option to upload in higher resolutions.
especially this is welcome when uploading to flickr-accounts. give it it's own toggle button or something :)
Photo of Doug!as Cootey

Doug!as Cootey

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Many apps already allow users to enable hi-res in prefs, but ship with lo-res as default. Then you and I could be happy with our different needs met.
Photo of Steve Rhodes

Steve Rhodes

  • 4 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
Then you can keep your setting at low res.

But many of us are fine waiting a few seconds more to have high res photos to print out, have published in magazines and books, etc
Photo of Filipe Varela

Filipe Varela

  • 5 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
I think this one is a double edged sword: on one hand I appreciate the easiness and speed of editing and uploading by having small images, on the other, I want full sized images.

It would be *great* if you can generate two images: one for Instagram uploading (612x612 seems to work fine) and one in Camera Roll.
Would that work?

Having said that, can't wait for full size goodness!
Photo of Bill Barol

Bill Barol

  • 5 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
lk_: I agree with Steve -- make it user-configurable and everybody wins (except maybe Instagram, which would have to bear the added weight of high-res traffic).
Photo of Ian Labardee

Ian Labardee

  • 2 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Totally agree! This app. would be pretty much perfect if it saved a full resolution version (at least to my Camera Roll).
Photo of marcello3d

marcello3d

  • 3 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
If you set Instagram to save the original to your camera roll, isn't it full resolution?

I'd suggest uploading the 612 version first, then upload the full resolution (for sites like Flickr) afterwards, in the background.
Photo of douglas.beagley

douglas.beagley

  • 5 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Important points for full quality:

1. Most of the services (flickr, Facebook, etc.) take over and make their OWN mini-image, thumbnail, or even a series of images (flickr).

2. So, instagram can still make their own useful 612x612 for their own feed and display, but we don't need it for the other services... where FULL QUALITY would be more appropriate.

3. That means the only outstanding reasons to upload 612x612 are: because I really like the cute-little square, it's a sort of branding or stylistic mark.

4. Or, bandwidth. Or time processing in the App. In which case, the choice should be up to me. We got 3G. Let's use it.

Ta da!

Warmly,
D
Photo of marcello3d

marcello3d

  • 3 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Some people pay by the megabyte, so bandwidth is still a concern.
Photo of Steve Osborne

Steve Osborne

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
As long as it's an option, it should satisfy both sides.
Photo of Lindsay

Lindsay

  • 6 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
This is a good idea. Some of my pics were too big and as a result some of the detail was
auto-cropped out. I hope the scaling feature be able to accommodate more
in the future. Thanks! Lindsay
Photo of Jack Howell

Jack Howell

  • 3 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thinking about this a bit more... isn't this a similar discussion Twitter had when they decided on 140 character limit?

I'm starting to warm to the idea that you only have 612 by 612 pixels of space to use - I think it would become a feature. Worth pondering anyway ^-^
Photo of Steve Rhodes

Steve Rhodes

  • 4 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
The square shape is a feature. The resolution isn't.

You can still publish a 140 character tweet in a magazine. It is unlikely
you could publish a 612 by 612 photo. You could publish a higher resolution photo,
Photo of matt dolan

matt dolan

  • 3 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
Full resolution to the camera roll at least. I love the square - that is the 'insta' appeal and creates some forced creativity in the user's crop decisions. Not every picture makes for a good 'insta' and thats a big part of the fun. But when you have a good 'insta' it would be great to be able to give it life at full resolution on a wall, in a magazine, on the web, in a scrap book, ect.

Also, would love to have the ablity to e-mail an 'insta' from the sharing page.

One final point, I love '1977' but it would be great if the effect could be randomized in some fashion - as is, everyone has the same wash-outs and scratches.
Photo of Josh Johnson

Josh Johnson

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Full res option to camera roll and flickr please because flickr makes it easy to archive and print. It's useless though at such low res. I'm cool with square only. Love the app, cant wait for the update to fix this.
Photo of Bryan

Bryan

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
Any idea when we can expect this to roll out? This seems like a huge missing feature. Each photo I take I find myself wishing it were full-res and then feel like I should hold off using the app until they are.
Photo of Ambrosia

Ambrosia

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
there's going to be such a larger following once you have full res. :) hope it's soon!
Photo of Bryan

Bryan

  • 8 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I can't understand rolling out an update, first update since 1.0, to the app store and NOT including this. Very disappointed.
Photo of Filipe Varela

Filipe Varela

  • 5 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
So very true.
Photo of Ambrosia

Ambrosia

  • 8 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
yup yup. the more updates you do without it, the less of a following you will receive.