diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 263ce96..0fd7fe0 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -74,12 +74,12 @@
 stand works chemically, especially when using Pyro staining
 developers.  The edge effects show up as a line in a transition
 between a light and dark subject.  In the extreme case, it can
-actually manifest itself as a "halo" behind the transition.  This is
-one of the reasons you don't want to overdo stand development.  This
-edge effect is perceived by the human eye as higher accutance or
-sharpness.  It's sort of an illusion, but it's a useful one.  (For
-those of you who do digital post processing, this is approximately the
-chemical equivalent of an unsharp mask.)
+actually manifest itself as a "halo" behind the transition.  (This is
+one of the reasons you don't want to overdo stand development.)  This
+edge effect is perceived by the human eye as higher sharpness.  It's
+sort of an illusion, but it's a useful one.  (For those of you who do
+digital post processing, this is approximately the chemical equivalent
+of an unsharp mask.)
 
 ## So How Does It Work?
 
@@ -266,6 +266,18 @@
   How good is this?  I was able to get a perfect negative with Stand
   development (no agitation during stand period) using these hangers.
 
+* Well... *almost* perfect.  The negative shows just a slight hint of
+  bromide drag. It is at the end of that negative that was at the
+  bottom of the tank - exactly where gravity would land it.  The exact
+  same scene exposed identically but processed with EMA and Semistand
+  do not show this artifact.
+
+* In short, *I was unable to consistently get Stand processing to
+  produce artifact-free negatives*. So, even with better film
+  suspension, at least one midpoint agitation is a really good idea.
+  As a practical matter, there is no reason to do Stand over Semistand
+  or EMA.  Both of the latter techniques give good results.
+
 * I did some testing with 35mm on stainless steel reels, but dunked
   into open 4x5 tanks rather than the usual daylight tanks favored by
   small format shooters. (I did not try 120 rollfilm.)  As expected,
@@ -274,7 +286,7 @@
   reels support the film.  Again, I think strong initial agitation
   helped here.  I've also noticed a considerable difference of reel
   spacing from different manufacturers.  If you are going to do 35mm
-  this way, I'd stick with the old Nikor reels.  They're a bit
+  or 120 this way, I'd stick with the old Nikor reels.  They're a bit
   expensive but widely available on eBay.
 
 * Stand and Semistand did best with the `1.5:1:200` dilution.  EMA did
@@ -305,7 +317,7 @@
 
 * Given a normal dilution of `1:1:100` and an EMA dilution of `1:1.5:150`,
   I found that a good first order guess for EMA development time was
-  to double my Normal development time with 2 equally spaced
+  to double my Normal development time with 2 or 3 equally spaced
   agitations during the stand time.
 
 * You can do contrast control with EMA much like you do with Normal
@@ -333,10 +345,10 @@
 
 ## Is It Worth It?
 
-Yes, in certain cases.  Stand is slow and finicky.  But, it really
-shines when you want to emphasize mid-tone local contrast, but have a
-competing highlight that would get blown out (or hard to print) if you
-just did N+ Development.
+Yes, in certain cases.  Low- or no agitation development is slow and
+finicky.  But, it really shines when you want to emphasize mid-tone
+local contrast, but have a competing highlight that would get blown
+out (or hard to print) if you just did N+ Development.
 
 More generally, these techniques are great when you need to get
 maximum shadow detail, but reign in highlight placement.