In a previous life I built a photo sharing community and it was quite common with >10MiB uploads, the limit I set was 25.
It’s just as you say, you want the highest possible quality (within reason) for rescale purposes (and 2x monitors like the iMac)
We're evaluating this product to replace our self-hosted "resize and deliver images on the Internet" solution and we definitely do have source images over 10mb. I'm not worried about the migration, but this means that going forward we might need our app (or worse our users) have to resize images down before uploading them to the image resizing service. That's a bummer.
EDIT: I just checked, 2.5% of source images are over 10mb.
An easy solution might be to have it accept an upload of a larger file, but automatically scale it down to fit under 10mb and then only store that as the new original.
Sure the raw images are large, but websites rarely display images in their original format. Generally for display on websites images are at least compressed if not scaled down significantly.
Here is an example I just pulled off the front page of the NYT website. I'm sure it was originally a 10+MB image taken on a iphone or DSLR but it was compressed/scaled down to a 510kb webp image for display on the web.
The point here though is there’s a file size limit for images you’re uploading. With the 10MB limit you can’t upload your source image for conversion to the example image you linked. You need to do an initial conversion first, which means you’ll introduce more artifacts.
Aren’t most photos taken by recent phones > 10MB? I know my DSLR pictures certainly are.
Asking out of curiosity. I am not the target audience for this product.