Since I do not have the capability to print my own, and have had too many disappointments with optical lab prints (er, back when optical was the normal way of lab printing), I prefer scanning and minimally color-correcting (and sending out the files, if I want prints). I will agree that there can be quite an overlap, although in most cases I still think Reala stands out as different than the 160 films (I haven't tried 160C...haven't seen a compelling reason to). However, I will also say that I believe (and may be wrong) that I know what these films SHOULD look like, and try to bias any corrections toward that.

Unfortunately, I have had surprisingly better results from 400H than 160S (strange, because I assumed they would be similar and slower is usually nicer), and I have much more 160S lying around than 400H.

Oh, and I think I bias things in exposure as well, because I've had good luck with both 160/400VC slightly underexposed but the NCs (and S/H) I like at box speed or slightly overexposed. Maybe they really are all the same .