fish_shooter wrote in post #18001594
I edited the post from how it was originally posted. The point I was making is not that jpegs per se are bad but that SOOC jpegs are deficient in ways that I think are critical for general internet use (exceptions mentioned already). Everyone seems very excited by the high quality of 1Dx2 SOOC jpegs but to me they are almost useless without metadata (see above for specifics) and watermarking.
I edited the post from how it was originally posted. The point I was making is not that jpegs per se are bad but that SOOC jpegs are deficient in ways that I think are critical for general internet use (exceptions mentioned already). Everyone seems very excited by the high quality of 1Dx2 SOOC jpegs but to me they are almost useless without metadata (see above for specifics) and watermarking.
I think the pro sports/journalist photographers and their agencies will be the most excited about the SOOC JPEG improvements (and they are perhaps the single largest market for 1D/D5-level cameras). The deficiencies are not an issue for them and they can't wait around while RAW files are being transferred over.
See http://gizmodo.com …hers-capture-s-1521746623, and in particular:
The second a photographer fires the shutter on a camera, the resulting image—a high quality JPEG, not an uncompressed RAW file—is transported by ethernet to Getty's central editing office in about 1.5 seconds. There, a team of three editors processes the photo. The first selects the best image and crops it for composition; the second editor color corrects; and the third adds metadata. The whole editing process is done in 30-40 seconds. Once the last editor is done, the image is blasted to the world. It takes about 90 seconds for the images to travel over redundant 100 Mbit/s dedicated lines to Getty's data servers in the the United States.
She served me well and helped me capture many priceless memories.
