Attrition (Paint.NET).jpg

I think the Paint.NET one looks better- I can discern the details just a tiny bit better, or at least I think I can. Out of curiosity, which program gave you the smaller file size? I recall thinking that MS Paint created abnormally chunky JPEGs, compared to GIMP or Paint.NET.

Miniscule differences, but this is what I see:

MS Paint Conversion image has better clarity, but Paint.NET image has better detail to me.

I think the Paint.NET one looks better- I can discern the details just a tiny bit better, or at least I think I can. Out of curiosity, which program gave you the smaller file size? I recall thinking that MS Paint created abnormally chunky JPEGs, compared to GIMP or Paint.NET.

Thank you for the input! I was thinking the same thing about quality, but I think the difference is more apparent when I view the images in Photobucket. As for the file sizes, MS Paint gave a smaller size conversion at 556 KB. Paint.NET's conversion was 1.35 MB... So I believe that it might just be abnormally skinny JPEGs?

Miniscule differences, but this is what I see:

MS Paint Conversion image has better clarity, but Paint.NET image has better detail to me.

Thank you for the input as well! I think I can see the same thing, but as I said above, it is more apparent to me in the Photobucket links.

Now that I think about it, my quality/compression settings are probably why I had less chunky results with Paint.NET. I never save my jpgs at max quality- I typically opt for 95-98% instead, because it seems to dramatically reduce file size without much quality loss. Typically after taking a screenie, if I end up going buckwild with postwork (filter hijinks, lots of layers, etc), the PNG ends up being around 2-3 mb. Converting to jpg at 100% quality usually results in a 1.2ish mb file, but at 95-98% it ends up in the 350-700 kb range with Paint.NET. Anyway, I'm rambling now. And missing screenshooting terribly now, too!