Thanks for the suggestion! I suppose I have mixed feelings about post-processing my scans. I think if there was a broad discrepancy between the scan and the original I would consider doing so (although, I'm no pro at using the free Photoshop clones). Otherwise, I think I'd prefer to leave it as-is, and by doing so, invite suggestions and criticisms for consideration in revising my technique. If someone prefers to post-process their work, that's fine also; but for me, I think leaving it as faithful to the original as possible fits best with my philosophy of artistic authenticity -- especially if the original is somehow lacking.
Both me and my art friend were faced with this very dilemma. Between the two of us we both had the same idea about being faithful to the original work at first. After spending much time on several pieces only to scan them and find they always end up too light/washed-out looking we came to the conclusion that since we are making a digital copy of the work, and the hardware isn't capable of recreating how it really should look, it's okay to use software to enhance the image. If someone wants to see the original picture they can meet me in real life.
Thanks for the advice. I tried modifying the contrast in my poor man's Photoshop (Paint.NET) and it only seemed to make things worse. Of course, this may just be a testament to my lackluster photo manipulation skills. However, I do think some of the original subtlety was lost in the course of scanning, assembly and resizing. Oh well, like you said, there's always the option of "real life" if someone is sufficiently interested in travelling to see my work in person.
I think the same about camera raw, it isn't always the best. Making the image closer to what it really looks like side by side, real image and scanned, I think all we can do is make it digitally as close as possible to the actual image.