Thanks for the responses so far, points well taken, but they are already taken care of before posting this question.(posted 8089 days ago)I exposed D3200 at 1600, and the neg I showed was from the clip after doing some experiments with formula and processing time, and therefore I think the neg is pretty good. Not too dense or thin, DU probably about 2 range. My scanner can go up to 3.3 on catalog spec, and it handles very dense HP5+ very well. It was a good cost performer when I bought it (spring 2000, about $1k). Scanners in 2002 market has improved Dmax but I think 3.3 is still good considering my negs aren't that dense. The dynamic range is still much wider than any paper I know of. My requirement was to scan medium format films so there aren't many options below $2000 either.
The scanner software I use (VueScan) has a set of film curves, and I just disregard the name they have given to each curve but try to find one that matches the best with the film-developer combination. The software also adjusts the light output (exposure) for scanning. This software is inexpensive, and the guy who makes it is probably not an expert (or as picky as us) in b&w photography, but the way it handles issues like this is pretty intelligent. Again, changing the curve or black point threshold make a big difference in how the image looks but they won't eliminate the mottled shadow unless I make very high contrast image, of course.
Regarding the IR fogging, I think you are talking about different problem. READABLE D-max is determined by combining all color channels (usually RGB) and cutting R simply cuts roughly 1/3 of total readable optical power. However, I'm talking about low opacity region where the optical density is nowhere near the scanner's limit.
Well, if it looks like plain grain to both of you, maybe there is no harm in showing them to other people :-)