Thanks to everyone that expressed your opinions on my scan sizes. I plan to have a web site soon, and I want to make it something people will enjoy.

First off, "small" is out. I think too much detail is lost at 96 dpi. Andy showed an inage midway between my medium and large. Here's another Peppermill chip with a lot of fine detail in 120 dpi (my previous medium), 135 dpi (about the same resolution as Andy's chip), and 150 dpi (my previous large). You are welcome to again vote for your favorite of these 3 scans.

I find it interesting That some people assume a direct correlation between the size of the image and the size of the file. That's not necessarily true. The large image above would be over 250K without compression. JPG, the most common image format on the web, is a "lossy" compression method, meaning you sacrifice image quality to reduce file size. In the earlier 3 scans I posted, I saved the large image with more compression than the small one, making them both about 12K in size. The medium image was 9K. By comparison, Andy's image that was between my medium and large in image size was a 26K file.

The following 3 images are the same size on the screen, but were saved with different levels of compression. These images are 7K, 11K, and 21K file size, in that order. The question here is, do you see any benefit to increasing the file size to get better image quality? By how much?