JPG quality: Paint.net vs Photoshop

[Cutter]

Hello,

I've noticed that for a given file size, pictures saved to JPG by Paint.net seem to have a noticeably lower quality than those saved by Photoshop.

Here is an example: Paint.net JPG image / Photoshop JPG image (notice that the file sizes are similar).

I've used Paint.net's max setting (100), yet I couldn't get a decent colour on the orange text.

What's the problem with Paint.net's JPG implementation? Or is there a problem only with this particular image?

Thanks.

[pyrochild]

So use a lossless format like PNG. JPG is not well suited for screenshots anyway; it's designed for photographs.

[Cutter]

PNG is less efficient on high resolution pictures. I don't need such a high size file.

[pyrochild]

PNG is very efficient on images consisting of large blocks of solid color (LIKE SCREENSHOTS), especially if you use something like PNGOUT or OptiPNG, the latter of which has a filetype plugin for Paint.NET available in this forum.

[Cutter]

Thanks, but I'm still wondering what's different with Paint.net's JPG implementation and how to improve the output files.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Cutter

[Rick Brewster]

Don't use JPEG when fine grain pixel detail is important, such as in the example you gave.

[Cutter]

OK, but Photoshop does it better, why?

[Rick Brewster]

I don't know. I haven't researched the way Photoshop does it versus the way that GDI+ or WIC does it. (Paint.NET uses GDI+ for JPEG encoding. In Windows 7, GDI+ codecs were rewritten to use WIC, thus Paint.NET essentially uses WIC in Windows 7.)

[Cutter]

OK, thanks.

[jimmycthomas]

paint.net is useful for making small pieces here and there, and is a great improvement over the paint. But even compared to Photoshop in functions.