Thanks to a tweet from my follower Techgeek, I looked into the results you get when you tweet a picture using the new sharing app offered by Nokia recently. I’m welcoming this new possibility of sharing a lot, since now it’s so much easier to send your shot to your timeline on Twitter, Facebook or Flickr.

When you send it to Twitter however, you can’t send the original size of your shot. In my first test the picture was both resized and compressed - from 2,65MB (3264 x 2448) to 93KB (1024 x 768). 93kB, that’s about 28 times smaller! It’s remarkable however, that the quality remains pretty good.

Here on Twitter, you´ll find the first simple shot I shared to test. Now here is the original shot on Flickr, and here you´ll see a resized version (640 x 480 as usual)

As you can see: nothing special – not even completely horizontal actually. Oh well. Here’s a crop from the original, 640 x 360.

Next, a crop from the shared result, first also 640 x 360. The original is smaller, so you’ll get more in the crop:

Still, although it’s only 93kB in total, it’s amazingly  detailed!

To conclude, I zoomed in on the Twitter result, to get about the same part as the previous crop from the original shot. Than I blew that up to a similar size (640 wide). And you’ll still see much more detail than I actually thought would be possible.

I guess you are seeing stars by now, like I am. But I thought it was quite an interesting comparison that shows how the Twitter sharing app will use way less from your dataplan (like I wrote: about 28 times less!) without losing much of the original quality. In other words, you’ll get your message across in a very effective way.

On Flickr, you will be able to send the original size. So if you need to, you can always send it to Flickr first and than tweet that link. In generally it doesn’t look necessary though.

PureViewClub is on Twitter and Facebook