Index: branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/psLib/src/fits/psFitsScale.c
===================================================================
--- branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/psLib/src/fits/psFitsScale.c	(revision 35750)
+++ branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/psLib/src/fits/psFitsScale.c	(revision 35751)
@@ -204,5 +204,5 @@
     psTrace("psLib.fits", 5, "Mean: %lf Stdev: %lf", mean, stdev);
 
-    long range = 1 << options->stdevBits;  // Range of values to carry standard deviation
+    long range = 1L << options->stdevBits;  // Range of values to carry standard deviation
     *bscale = stdev / (double) range;
 
@@ -217,5 +217,6 @@
         // Put (mean - N sigma) at the lowest possible value: predominantly positive images
         imageVal = mean - options->stdevNum * stdev;
-        diskVal = - (1 << (options->bitpix - 1));
+        // diskVal = - (1 << (options->bitpix - 1));
+        diskVal = - (1L << (options->bitpix - 1));
         break;
       case PS_FITS_SCALE_STDEV_NEGATIVE:
@@ -224,5 +225,5 @@
         // Put (mean + N sigma) at the highest possible value: predominantly negative images
         imageVal = mean + options->stdevNum * stdev;
-        diskVal = (1 << (options->bitpix - 1)) - 1;
+        diskVal = (1L << (options->bitpix - 1)) - 1;
         break;
       case PS_FITS_SCALE_STDEV_BOTH:
@@ -850,5 +851,5 @@
     }
 
-    *blank = (1 << (options->bitpix - 1)) - 1;
+    *blank = (1L << (options->bitpix - 1)) - 1;
 
     switch (options->scaling) {
Index: branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/psphot/src/psphotSignificanceImage.c
===================================================================
--- branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/psphot/src/psphotSignificanceImage.c	(revision 35750)
+++ branches/eam_branches/ipp-20130509/psphot/src/psphotSignificanceImage.c	(revision 35751)
@@ -102,7 +102,9 @@
                 smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i] = 0.0;
             } else {
-		// XXX the value of 100 here (or 1000 before) must depend on the FWHM of the smoothing kernel, right??
-		float v2 = value + PS_SQR(value/100.0);
-                smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i] = factor * PS_SQR(v2) / smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i];
+	      // XXX the value of 100 here (or 1000 before) must depend on the FWHM of the smoothing kernel, right??
+	      //	      float v2 = value + PS_SQR(value/100.0);
+	      // CZW 2013-06-20: I don't think this hack was helping.
+	      float v2 = value;
+	      smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i] = factor * PS_SQR(v2) / smooth_wt->data.F32[j][i];
             }
         }