JPEG Fine vs JPEG Normal

I'm new to the Canon Rebel. So far I've not tried to go the RAW route. I have taken a number of test pictures to compare the different settings. When comparing JPEG High Fine vs High Normal pics taken of the same subject from a tripod, I'll be darned if I can tell the difference between them. I am looking at them with Photoshop Elements and blowing the heck out of them. What am I missing? At what point will I be sorry if I use normal mode?

For general viewing you will not see very much difference. The difference comes with the detail that is retained in the shadow and highlight areas. Essentially the more you compress the jpeg the less information the image can contain, and highlight / shadow areas are lacking this info in the first place so to compress your image more risks loosing that detail forever...

One of the fastest ways I can think of to notice the difference is to take a picture of a leafy tree and sky (or bush and sky) then look at the edges of the leaves, and the sky or leaves on leaves and in the shadows.

The odds are good you will be able to see the jpeg normal breaking down into noticeable 8x8 pixel blocks faster then the fine. If not then bring into your software change the contrast slightly the same amount on both and resave as jpeg at the same compression level for both (I recommend using level 7 in PS). You may have to do this twice to see the difference for sure.

Me I can notice it in the originals. But then I am a trained Imagery Analyst.

I was puzzled myself some time ago; why waste all that space on RAW? And if you
1) will not process your images in Photoshop much
2) will not print any larger than 5by7
then you mau not need none of that RAW nonsense. But if you are planning on doing some tweaking, and printing large, my advise to you: START SHOOTING RAW.

You won't see much difference on the screen.

Blow it up to a print size of about 16x20 inches and see the difference.

---Bob Gross---