Hi,
My only thought on the DPI issue may be any dithering of the image due to "creation" of more image dots in combination with applied compression. Frankly, I saw only very very small differences in the uploaded photos I tested. Only inspection with Picasa and Paint told me there were real differences in the stored quality. A quality of 90 or higher should have very little artifacts, so sticking with the Aurigma uploader is a better choice for very high quaility images.
Bypassing the resize done by the Aurigma uploader might avoid any artifacts induced with that odd DPI change observed. My suggestion is to use Picasa (or other product with similar capability) to do the resize and preserve the quality factor at the level of the original image, then use the Auctiva/Aurigma Uploader (not the HTML).
I've been checking on that 411 in the quality number, e.g. 90(411). I believe that's the jpeg format number. I tried a test with my camera set to "Fine" and got a quality index of 95(422) from the raw 6.1MP image (and a larger file size). 422 is also a jpeg format number. I tried uploading the image without resize and the stored image was converted by Aurigma to 90(411). No artifacts or problems, but it does give me one more possible avenue to explore for the reported distortion problems. I'm aware there is a jpeg 111 format number, maybe more.
Danno
Edit: The jpeg number is apparently the sampling decimation factor, e.g. 411 is YUV 4:1:1.