Thanks for your considered reply, and I fully take your point about scanning. As you entirely correctly say, a lower contrast, thinner negative is generally better for scanning than for enlarging, but is is unlikely to give more details in the shadows: really, that's just a matter of 'correct' exposure and development, i.e. "whatever works for you." With some scanners, the highlights (darkest bits in the neg) are likely to be the hardest bits to see through, and under-development will often help here. You don't need a drum, though: my old Konica Minolta Dimage scanner is all I've ever used at home. I'll still fight the corner for EI vs ISO, but really, I'd not place much faith in ISOs based on "in my experience" or in recommendations based on AA's tortured prose. ISO is almost invariably quoted honestly, and can with optimum metering be relied upon, but as in the quote you give from my own site, "because you like the tonality better" is the best reason. It's when people try and get "scientific" about it, and quote "real" speeds that I get antsy. By all means recommend lower EIs -- as I do, and as you do -- but don't conflate that with a 'real speed'. The beard varies. Right now it's more like Hemingway length: I wear it shorter in summer. Cheers, R.