> For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless
That's the sort of faux-professional hyper-contrarianism that is "bordering on detrimental".
I just checked Magnum, a somewhat professional photo agency. They use JPEG. So do the NYT, flickr, and probably the vast majority of professional and totally unprofessional websites.
It seems there is some use left in the format. Not being able to print to billboard sizes doesn't diminish this. Because (a) that use case is a rounding error, and (b) WebP is still not safe for such purposes – TIFF is.
TIFF is just a container. Doesnt say about encoding or compression (like AVI).
That you find web using hardcore old style JPEGs when they've been replaced by better formats long ago also doesn't mean that JPEG is really suitable way to store or share photos - especially when your display is good hi-dpi stuff. Also - do you find GIFs technologically OK for sharing animations today when there is stuff like h.265...?
That's the sort of faux-professional hyper-contrarianism that is "bordering on detrimental".
I just checked Magnum, a somewhat professional photo agency. They use JPEG. So do the NYT, flickr, and probably the vast majority of professional and totally unprofessional websites.
It seems there is some use left in the format. Not being able to print to billboard sizes doesn't diminish this. Because (a) that use case is a rounding error, and (b) WebP is still not safe for such purposes – TIFF is.