The only problem with sending a film to a lab is that you may well like the results—but it will not tell you why there has been an improvement. I'm not particularly pro or anti stand development. I can see its usefulness in certain circumstances. I've tried it a few times with reasonable results. But it is always good to have some grounding as to why you do things the way you do.
Eg: why a RF; why that lens? Why Tri-X? Why Rodinal?
Now before I upset a bunch of RF shooting, Voigtländer loving, Rodinal developing Tri-X fanatics (because yes, some people are definitely fanatical about shooting Tri-X) let me add you could also ask: Why not....
But the issue is why are you using this workflow and what are your goals from it? Your goals or preferences for image characteristics, should inform your choice of inputs.
Any chance you can get some D-76/ID-11? Stand development can yield good results, I have seen plenty of evidence of that, but, if you are trying to nail a general quality problem—go back to basics. You can eliminate Tri-X as a "fault". It's not a film I shoot a lot of (though I'm using it more than I did) but it is a high quality film. Keeping things simple with Tri-X, in my and a lot of people's views, means developing it in D76 for the recommended times.
Then there's the matter of exposure. You're using the camera meter. What's it set to and how are you metering? Are you exposing for the shadows? This will nearly always yield the best results for black and white, unless your scene or creative preferences dictate otherwise, of course.
I have never used a Bessa and am not privy to its metering peculiarities (average, matrix, spot etc.). What I will say is that shot includes a lot of sky. The light in the frame for this can potentially induce a lot of different camera meters to underexpose as the substantial light from the sky can bias a meter to underexpose relative to the remainder of the frame that is not as bright. I don't know how susceptible a Bessa meter is to this issue. But it's quite common across decades of TTL metering systems. If you have the ISO set to 400 and the sky is feeding too much light into the lens it could be simply an under exposure issue.
I'm a firm believer in understanding the basics of how meters work, where you should point them to take a reading and why. Yes, you can certainly get by with Sunny 16 and with practice get by very well. It's a good skill to nurture. But it's also good to meter effectively with your choice of meter for certainty of results, particularly when you're finding your way initially. I'd encourage you to do some reading on exposure and metering theory and technique for black and white. In the interim you may wish to adjust the meter of your Bessa to 200 or even 125 in order to "force" it to increase the exposure given.
Having ensured your Tri-X is adequately exposed, and correctly developed in D76 you can the assess the results. You may well like them so much you lock in these variables. If however you wish to pursue Rodinal/Tri-X the next step is: same exposure, different developer. Ideally not stand. Assess as above.
You can clearly see where I'm going with this. Start at the basics, then, change one, and only one, input at a time. It's really the only way to definitely nail almost any prob and we haven't even discussed your scanning methodology, which is another input in your workflow.
