So it turns out that I actually wasn't able to match Justin's results because we forgot that Justin had sent me images that had intensities on a square-root scale (square-root because it makes fainter companions stick out). Thus, all I needed to do to correct for this would be to square the original FITS array before making some contrast curves.
So: here are the new results for two different contrast curves:
(Properties: threshold=3 sigma)
Compare to Justin's results:
At radial distances of 0.25", 0.5", 1", 2", 4" respectively:
KIC109 3.7, 5.6, 7.8, 8.6, 8.6
KIC118 4.2, 5.7, 7.2, 7.6, 7.6
Unfortunately, I can't usually go past 1" on my graphs yet due to the way my point source finder works (it'll crash my computer if I try). However you can see that this is generally sufficient distance to make the contrast curve flatten out by the end.
You may also have noticed that my delta mags tend to be slightly lower than Justin's values. This could be due to the fact that Justin took a thin slice of the picture and calculated the delta mags based on distance in one direction, while I averaged the noise at a certain distance away in all directions. But overall, the graphs seem to agree with Justin's results pretty well (It seems accurate up to 1").
-I will attempt to work out some kinks in my contrast curve calculator to make it run a bit more efficiently.
-Will continue working on a way to find point sources, as fitting 2D-gaussians still doesn't seem to work.