HEMI-Powered wrote:
[]
For the records, again I do not dispute you, I find it best on my
Rebel XT to shoot at 4 rather than 8 MP because it is too much
bother to take the pains to resample down to my usual 1400 x 1050
final size. Doing it in one fell swoop is almost guaranteed to
introduce aliasing because few resampling algorithms can take out
so much data without messing up parts of the very fine detail. In
my world of car pictures, where I see it is in slightly off-
horizontal chrome moldings on the side of the car, grille, or
windshield. We each do what we fine works best for us, yes?

[]
I was pretty surprised that my Rebel XT can't save to TIFF but
only mildly miffed that it didn't have a 3rd, higher-compression-
thus-lower-quality image. I did my usualy testing the first day
at 2, 4, and 8 MP and both JPEG settings, made an initial eval,
then went and shot some real cars at each, came home and looked
at them.

Jerry,

TIFF doesn't really help if it's only 8-bit depth - as the best quality
JPEG has so little loss. RAW would be the next step up in saved image
quality, but it has the overhead of requiring more processing which I
think both you and I try and minimise.

Have you ever gone back and revisited the resolution and quality settings?
This is something I keep meaning to do as I gain experience, but somehow I
never get round to it! I wonder if we would make the same choices a
second time, particularly on JPEG quality setting?

Yes, we agree to disagree on shooting - I go for highest resolution with
"normal" JPEG quality. I leave any resampling up to the display
software - indeed I wrote my own simple slide-show program so that I had
control over the display process.

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/s...html#SlideShow

What works best for you, is best for you, and I respect that.

Cheers,
David