Google+ gets improved Raw-to-JPEG conversion

i hope the data is transferred to the cloud, before rav -> jpeg conversion begins..

I should have made clear that I am not a pro, just an end user. I don't need to upload torrents of data and I did experience slow uploads this summer while traveling. But Gdrive tan store a lot of data!
Google, Picasa and G+ are for users. Pro photographers have to shell out $$$ to obtain the adequate and robust software that a pro needs. If you are going to spend 5K on full frame tralala photo equipment, don't be whining about something that is basically still beta. Give it time. We are in the "Wright Brothers" stage of cloud computing.

pedroboe100:

It's pretty easy to shoot several GB of stills with say a Sony RX100. And it's not like one can simply upload 5GB of jpegs or raws in a few minutes over even a reasonably fast connection--perhaps in South Korea or Finland.

I agree, I would do it in small batches, until I get there. But the point is that it can be done, G drive can hold a lot of RAW files and it would be a great backup on the road, even with crappy internet connections.

@HowaboutRAW - it's not a problem just looking through them on a computer, then dumping the non-keepers, before uploading the rest of them up to the cloud.

Every new, transitional, or non-status-quo idea is considered a "dumb" idea by people like yourself. Browsing the web on a smart phone was considered a "dumb" idea. Having a smart phone without a physical keyboard was considered a "dumb" idea. The iPad was considered a "dumb" idea ("it's just a giant iPod!"). Putting video in DSLRs was considered by many to be a "dumb" idea. Yep, so many "dumb" ideas. But frankly, I think it's important to see which companies are pursuing, supporting, and developing these "dumb" ideas before labeling them as "dumb." With big names like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Adobe, etc, all pursuing cloud storage, computing computing and cloud services in one form or another, maybe its the naysayers who are the "dumb" ones. Maybe such ideas are too ahead of the times for some people.

T3--

Clearly you don't understand this point: Many people keep several GB of photos from just shooting for a couple of hours. The idea of picking the ones you want and dumping the rest is a really dumb idea particularly if you're doing that picking based on what's on a tiny camera screen.

Then this whole cloud thing for big files remains a dumb idea as long as upload speeds are so incredibly slow.

That upload speeds will increase yes, but so will file sizes.

There is a way of fixing this mess, but it would put most communications companies out of business in 5 minutes and is not tech that would likely be released to the general public.

Your claims read like someone who's never thought about this for ten minutes or ever tried to either upload or download a gigabyte of data.

The video in DSLRs thing isn't even a good misdirection.

Microsoft is run by fools, Google is an ad and tracking company. Adobe is being really stupid. And Amazon is just a contractor, renting space.

Like I said in my original post: as of today, Chromebooks are for end users, not power users. If you are a pro, or shoot 5 to 8 gigs of keepers, then you need a more robust alternative. For me, I don't shoot that many keepers. It's nice to know that, if I am in the middle of Indonesia and I have an internet connection, no matter how bad, I can upload a couple of keepers in RAW and will be there in the event that I lose my chromebook or my camera drops in the water, etc. It's good insurance, albeit still needs to be better, I admit. I used it this summer and with very frustratingly bad internet connections. But I was able to upload something to Gdrive.

Even if somebody wants to use Google simply for storage, there is nothing preventing people to store much smaller jpeg for viewing.

David asked why people would upload Raw files to G+. Backup is one of those options. I don't speak for Google but they never advertised this update as replacing your Raw editor of choice; they were saying, "Hey, look at all these Raw files you've been storing; well their thumbnails are going to look better now."

Legalities aside, Flickr is not a viable backup option since you cannot store RAW files on there and you cannot easily download all your JPEG files at once without using a third party application.

If you're storing the full-sized D800 JPEG, why not take it one step further and backup the original Raw file? If storing the JPEG is your cup of tea, then G+ gives you unlimited storage for pictures of 2048px on the long edge, good enough to view on just about any device except 4K monitors. But if you're only storing JPEGs and you want to store the full version, then Flickr may be a better option. Choices are great, no?

Richard Shih,

D800 RAW files are 40MB each. Can't see myself bothering with Google. I would pay $99 for a 3T HD with USB 3. Much easier to upload, search with a standard file editor, view and download.

P.S. I have no doubt that Google will analyze your images to help sell you things.