Not sure which part you are refering to.. but you are right.. i need to rescan it again.. the whole thing really, i've been improving my scanning/editing skills some and do notice room for improvement.. give me a few minutes.

Also, not that it's a problem for me or anything, but why are the files *so* big? Couldn't practically the same quality be achieved with a smaller file size?

Yeah i see the problem now.. kinda mad at myself for not noticing it.. ah well.

The reason I left the resolution at that size was so people could resise to what they wanted themselves. As for scanning again, i'm a bit backed up studying for finals tonight.. but i'll try it again in a day or so. You might be able to get away with cloning it out though.

Oh, no no no no. It's not that I don't like the physical dimensions of the image -- in my opinion, the higher the resolution, the better the scan. It's just that the file size is about 13 megabytes, and it seems to me that the point of diminishing returns in quality might lie at a significanntly smaller file size. That's all. However, let it be known that I would prefer a 13 megabyte file with excellent quality to a 2 megabyte file with inferior quality. I don't do a lot of scanning, and I'm unfamiliar with .png compression, so I have no doubt you know more about it all than I do.

Any progress on this...?