Developed Tri-X after years of only using HP5:

[Rorystreet91]

How would you rate the negatives density?
Developed with D76 1:1 for 9:30 minutes.
The second picture is from a portion of the contact sheet made with a 1 filter to evaluate more of the shadows details on the under-exposed ones...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Exposure-wise they look great. I would have developed a bit longer, for a bit more contrast...

 

[brian steinberger]

Yea these look good. What EI did you shoot the film at? This is close to my development time (I use ID-11 1:1). My EI is around 200.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The negatives look a little thin to me. More exposure, slightly more development (maybe 5%).

 

[koraks]

How would you rate the negatives density?

At first glance, I would agree with the others that they look a little thin. Exposure looks OK on most, although one or two would have benefited from a stop more light (this also depends on how much shadow detail you really need; this is debatable). HOWEVER...

a portion of the contact sheet made with a 1 filter

...this shows that negative densities are in fact a little higher than they look in the light table photo, which isn't too surprising: it's just hard to judge densities without a good benchmark, and a smartphone snap of negatives on a light table can easily look a little 'washed out' due to flare in the tiny phone lens, as is the case here!

So I'd say your negatives look OK and it looks like they will print fine as straight prints on grade 2-3, or higher grades with a little burning & dodging if you are going for more dramatic prints.

 

[Rorystreet91]

At first glance, I would agree with the others that they look a little thin. Exposure looks OK on most, although one or two would have benefited from a stop more light (this also depends on how much shadow detail you really need; this is debatable). HOWEVER...







...this shows that negative densities are in fact a little higher than they look in the light table photo, which isn't too surprising: it's just hard to judge densities without a good benchmark, and a smartphone snap of negatives on a light table can easily look a little 'washed out' due to flare in the tiny phone lens, as is the case here!







So I'd say your negatives look OK and it looks like they will print fine as straight prints on grade 2-3, or higher grades with a little burning & dodging if you are going for more dramatic prints.

Thanks for everyone evaluations, this is a scan of a print from the roll:

 

[koraks]

Looks great, well done!

 

[snusmumriken]

Are the negatives in a file sheet in the first photo? It's hard to judge contrast from a photo of negatives, but I think I would have been happy with what you've got, and your print supports that. Super image!

I noticed that the edge markings are quite faint. Has this film been stored for quite a while? Just curiosity on my part, the imaging quality looks fine.

 

[agentlossing]

Thanks for everyone evaluations, this is a scan of a print from the roll:

Great shot, and very pleasing tones. How do you feel about Tri-X coming from HP5? I've always leaned to HP5 myself and don't have much experience with Tri-X.

 

[IpseLux]

A bit thin. But if you are pleased with the shadow detail, that’s all that matters.
Use a polycontrast filter to boost up contrast if they seem too flat.
BTW, the little sample with the boy looks spectacular. It might just be the image of the negatives being a bit off.
Nice job!

 

[Mesabound]

Print looks great. I know they’re basically interchangeable but I prefer working with Tri-X myself — it’s simply the best imo. Cheers