Wouldn't you still have dense negatives using this method? Even though Tri-X is so wonderfully versatile as to land ISO 100/200 in the straight line?
Seems like your highlights would still need some burning and you could save yourself some trouble by reducing development.
I would just take the film out and use a slower one.
But even though I think the contrast of the negatives would be the same, I see your point. Overexposed film might make better quality negatives with less developing. Other qualities of the negative would be improved compared to an overexposed and normally developed negative.
Have shot many many rolls of TriX400 at the beach and am choosy over time of day. Try at 400 or 320 and enjoy.
Thanks for all your suggestions.
My orange filter eats 2 stops. That would put my 1600 back down to 400.
I think it's worth investing in another 2stop ND filter to stop it further down if necessary.
I have a strong feeling that with a blue sky and white sand, even at iso 100 i'd be very close to the 1/500th shutter speed most of the time.
The GR1v stops down to f22 although I haven't shot it at that aperture much I assume it'll be fine at f22.
The only problem being it's aperture priority only.
sunny 16 for blue sky:
f16 @iso100 1/125th
f22 @iso100 1/60th
But with sand at the beach I am probably looking at something brighter than that.
Sand reflects light, yes. For ISO100, f/22 @125 will give you the correct exposure with blue sky. You won't need 1/500 unless you open the aperture to f/11. If you're wanting to use wide apertures at the beach, a point-and-shoot is almost certainly the wrong tool. :P
I don't know if anyone has mentioned pulling your film yet. Pulling is overexpose/underdevelop, the opposite of a push. Tames contrast, increases tonal resolution.
Tri-X looks very nice at EI 200 in bright light.