Hello Folks, Apologies for the newb question. I am facing the following dilemma. I just came back from several weeks travelling in various countries where I shot about 20 rolls Tri-X 400 in both 120 and 135 formats. I realized later that I somewhat miscalculated my exposure on sunny shots during that trip. The way I tend to work out exposures is to remember a certain EV value for a certain condition, such as EV 13.5 for Velvia 50 on sunny scenes. ("sunny 16", here you are). Now the thing is, I shot pretty much all my B&W sunny pictures with an orange filter at EV13 whereas 14.5 would have been a more adequate value (I know, I know, I should have listened more during arithmetic class!) The next problem is, those pictures are randomly spread over the 20-ish rolls, therefore if I develop the Tri-X for ISO 200 or 160 I run the risk of underexposing the other pics. I used a meter for those, therefore they will likely be correctly exposed. Now the question: how bad is overexposing Tri-X by 1-2 stops? I think it is certainly better than underexposing, correct? Is it easy to recover when printing? I could possibly reduce development time a bit (I don't have the developer yet, but I think I will use the "standard" D76). On the other hand, as suggested by this thread, longer development time brings more contrast, which I like. Therefore I think I will develop the film using the recommended conditions for ISO 400 and just quit bothering about it. I hesitated a long time before posting, as I think I am just over-analyzing a non issue. Thoughts? Thanks!