Analog film photography and cameras

mechanical vandal.
i'm going to cut to the chase here. those images you have posted don't show any of the benefits of compensating development. maybe you have run out of paper and only have some grade5 left?
the prints are ott cos those negs are thin and contrasty as if there's no long toe and shoulder and the neg is badly exposed.
i think going back to basics and trying tri-x in a 'normal' dev with adjusted times for the asa would be a good place to start.
there's something amiss in the chain of exposure-development-print-scan.

sorry if this sounds harsh but you obviously have an interest and a desire to get it nailed and i don't think working with advanced processing when the exposures are off is the best way forward.

feel free to tell me to fuck off if that's the desired affect in your prints as it's water off a ducks back but i have done plenty of B&W in the past to a reasonably high level (5x4/10x8/cold cathode/lith printing/rodinal and hc110 at funny dilutions/agfa record rapid/oriental seagul/tech-pan/selenium and all that stuff).

maybe post a pic of your negs on the lightbox to give some idea how they are turning out?

I'm going to have to support what Mr.Smyth has said I'm afraid. I thought the first image showed bags of promise, but was developed and printed in a way that I couldn't understand at all. Because it confused me, I said nothing, but I did think it was an image that had promise, but had been somewhat ruined. Maybe it was actually the effect you were going for..........which as an image with such extremely blownout highlights, was everything to me that a good image isn't. I wished the end of the street had at least been visible, instead of being whited out. The image needed to move the eye away from the great expanse of blownout street and moved onto something more viewable. The second image for as little it shows, may as well have been all black. If it was actually what you wanted to achieve, in photographic terms, they're not successful. There should be some detail in the shadows and some detail visible in the highlights. This would remain true even if taking astronomic images of the sun. I may be all wrong, and I confess to having zero practical experience in labs......as I was lazy and farmed out all my work to Joe's Basement, Metro, and others all around London, and passed the costs onto clients. I sometimes made up to £3000.for a weekends work, and rarely less than £1000 a day. I don't work as a photographer anymore, but still think I know a little bit about the game. Pardon my input if it appears rude.

Input is much appreciated.
I am aware that pic 1 is blown and 2 is underexposed but I have put this down to my exposure rather than the development of the film of the printing. Well it has been suggested that printing the street scene again and giving a second or 2 at grade 1 after them main exposure might bring the highlights back a bit.
I am now currently reading the Zone VI book mentioned upthread to try and get my exposures better anyway.
Sounds like you both think the images are too contrasty though so maybe the printing is at fault.
What do you think of the levels of grain?
I joined up at a public darkroom yesterday so I will be getting more practice and hopefully can only get better.