Thanks for all the replies and helpful advice. I will pay a little more to have my films developed by more reliable outfits. It's probably been five years or so since I needed to document some of my 'daytime job' work, and grabbed my seldom used 9000 for the job. I needed the prints quickly, so ran them to Walmart and the results were just fine (also, buying/finding Kodak 200 ISO whatever (Gold, I think) was no problem).

Things have really changed since then.

My family thinks I've gone off the deep end in moving back into film (my digital efforts involve the Sony A700), but, as mentioned before, I was always looking to move up to the 9 from my 9000, and, by golly, I saw this cam on ebay and just went for it.

I've purchased video cams from Ebay with very mixed success, but this 35mm camera came in pristine condition as advertised, and, as I expected, it has breathed new life into my desire to shoot film.

I did rescan the negs from my last roll at 2400 dpi as suggested, and, for whatever reason, they look better than those scanned at 4800 dpi. I spent the time required to 'heal' all the 'parasite' spots (these white spots in each frame resemble the round parasites I used to pick out of newly caught small mouth bass on my fishing trips to Canada, LOL).

Other than the dust and those spots, it is quite refreshing to work with an image that needs very little in the way of PS. No need to tweak levels or sharpness - chores that seem routinely required of my digital images.

I'd love to learn to do my own processing . . . where/what might I read to see how involved that might be?

Caruso