Some of your frames are very overexposed (roll 3 frames 9 and 24) but most of them are pretty well exposed. They do look overdeveloped though (the rolls are in general very dense), which would explain some flatness in the highlights if you were doing traditional printing. Images shot in flat light (roll 3 frame 13) should print very nicely but those shot in harsher light (roll 3 frame 2) are going to be more difficult.
If you're scanning and getting flat results from these, the problem is entirely in your scanning workflow. They have bags of contrast and I certainly wouldn't recommend you develop any longer than you are.
They're certainly within the bounds of reasonableness for negatives and should print passably well, depending on what you're expecting from your images.
Since you have a D90, do some testing with that. Set it to the same ISO as your film, expose a shot (M mode and carefully dial the exposure in with a couple iterations) so that it looks exactly right on the DSLR and then transfer the exposure settings (shutter and aperture) to your film and reshoot. You should be able to achieve basically the same tonal range off the film as you do with the camera.
Ok, just so I'm clear. When you're talking about "roll 3", you mean the third image, I titled "neg3"? Just want to be sure. I know it's a dumb question.
Frame 24 probably looks overexposed because it is a very abstract image. That one actually scanned fine. I did do a minor levels adjustment, though. It is basically of a snow staircase up to a snow slide and partials of people waiting in line as they edge nearer to the start of the line. When I remove the dust from the scan, I can post it if you'd like.
Frame 9 did come out very flat I remember (I adjusted it though). But so did many of the others you're claiming should be fine. I guess, sometimes it is the camera, but usually it's the scanner. But in case I do wet printing in the future, the ones by fault of the camera should be able to be fixed, just like I do on the computer, no?
That's ironic that you say they have lots of contrast, because they don't look like that scanned. I'm surprised they look overdeveloped though. All I did was follow Ilford's PDF on developing your first black and white film. Based on the chart, I needed 9 minutes with DD-X + HP5, so that's what I did. I have found many of the shots have a coarser grain than I'm used to (isn't DD-X supposed to be fine grained?) but from what I've read, I can try doing less agitation to fix that (I was doing 4x every minute as per the PDF).
I might try that with the D90. I was going to use my Yashica A or F90 because I don't seem to have the same issues with them, but I might just opt for the D90 instead.
Thanks for the help!
In terms of capturing shadow and highlight detail, those negs mostly look fine. But they are on the dense (over-developed) side, as polyglot has said, and the coarse grain you mention is probably a result of that over-development. Despite this, I had no trouble making a passable image using a simple editing package from your flatbed scan (attached). So I do think your problem mostly lies in scanning and post-processing.
Yes on roll 3.
The overdevelopment could be down to over agitation or an inaccurate thermometer, etc. Or maybe you take 30s between end of nominal time and getting the stop in there? Easy to do and it's why people recommend you calibrate your development to your own processes.
The overdevelopment isn't severe or problematic though, they should print OK (if contrasty) on grade 1 or 2 especially if you use a diffusion (not condenser) enlarger. I wouldn't worry overly about your chemical process yet, it's close enough to be getting decent results. Postprocessing (OT for APUG) definitely seems to be the shortfall so have a read of the scan howto in my FAQ; ignore the colour but note the black point and "brightness" parts carefully.