Archie, This is a very nice scan. I can see it's the chip I scanned, so either you played with my scan or you waited in the bushes late at night in the dark and quietly crept into my house with another scanner after I went to sleep. Knowing you, I'm not quite sure which was the case.

A few things with your scan:

1) I'm at my office and don't have the chip in front of me. It's very important to me to have a true representation of the actual chip. I don't want to increase color saturation or brightness making the scan different then the actual chip. I would have to compare the scan to the actual chip to see if this is the case.

2)The dimensions of your scan are not perfectly square. I know that wasn't important to you as you were just dealing with the scan quality. All of my scans are done in an exact, perfect square. The reason for this is not my anal retentiveness, but because scans are often placed into a pre-set square frame. That's the case with my database thumbnail, it's the case on Paul's SilverStateTreasures.com, and it's the same on Greg's chipguide.com. Anything other then perfectly square will skew the image quality. Sometimes the skewing is just slightly, and other times the result is dramatic. It's like forcing a sqaure peg into a round hole.

3) I don't know how many adjustments you made or the amount of time you spent. If the process of producing the scan becomes a burden of time, then it just "ain't gonna happen". If, on the other hand, you were able to do it in a few seconds, and was a quick and easy thing, then I'm definitely very interested.

4) Also, looking at the properties of your scan, I can see that the dpi was 150. It's hard to compare my scan with your scan at this size. I did mine at 200 dpi.

I'd like to speak more with you about it...how about we talk on the phone.