Adobe Bridge, raw, image size??????

I notice when I'm working in Bridge on my raw files a drop down box that lets you choose Mega Pixels or effective file size. If I'm shooting with the 20D 8.2 MP would it make sense to choose any of those other sizes listed that are larger? I sometimes choose the 1 mp option if I want to send some quick smaller files to my friends but I'm a bit preplexed is to if choosing a bigger MP size could benefit the final print in any way. I know how to upsize by 10% in photoshop in steps but I was wondering how bridges interface worked or didnt work?

Thanks for anyone who cares to give their explanation..

Blessings

That drop down list which you refer to will either upsample or downsample if you pick any resolution (size in pixels) other than the default for your camera.

The dangers of downsampling are essentially nil, whereas the dangers of upsampling are that the image will be somewhat degraded, because you are creating information out of nothing through interpolation.

The good news is that none of this affects your RAW (CR2) file in any way. In fact, nothing you do will modify your RAW file, because all of your RAW processing is simply stored in the Adobe database and in the sidecar files.

The consensus of opinion on upsampling is that it gives better results if you use many smaller steps rather than one gigantic step. I have not yet found a way of verifying that, but I never hear any argument on it.

Thanks Robert !! I enjoy all of your post you are a smart man!! I went to see your "technical site" the other day!! You are kind of like Alber Einstein without the wild hair!!

Blessings

For Poster Sized Prints I follow S. Kelby book's CS2 for Dig Photog (pg. 108 )...

using image size - change your width & height to your desired output size and change resolution to 360 and change resample image to Bicubic Sharper

I've upsized one size in ACR, and can't really tell the difference between that and the Kelby trick. In fact, I've read differing opinions whether to use bicubic sharper or bicubic smoother for the Kelby trick. I haven't heard any logical argument for or against using either method, raw/10% or smoother/sharper so I'd be curious if anyone has any real data besides my personal experience. I basically do both, and compare each image, coosing the better version. It's a little like pin the tail on the donkey, though.