Kodak Tri-X 400 Film Review

Tri-X is one of Kodak’s best-recognized films, a former journalist favourite, and a black-and-white emulsion that has been around for over 85 years (though not without changes along the way).

Many photographers swear by Tri-X today, loading it almost exclusively into their cameras, while the price-conscious have benefited from the global average price of Tri-X declining significantly in 2024/2025.

In this review, I’ll introduce you to the history that lends significance to this film as well as the technical aspects, like the grain structure and dynamic range, that make it an excellent choice for home and lab scanning.

I will also briefly compare Kodak Tri-X to the other long-standing ISO 400 black-and-white photographer favourite, Ilford HP5+ and explain the difference between Tri-X and T-Max.In this review: A brief history of Kodak Tri-X. Dynamic range and contrast. Grain structure, resolution, and sharpness. Developing Kodak Tri-X. Scanning Kodak Tri-X. Kodak Tri-X vs. Ilford HP5+. Kodak Tri-X vs. Kodak T-Max. More samples shot on Tri-X. Price and availability. Support this blog & get premium features with GOLD memberships!

A brief history of Kodak Tri-X.

The emulsion was first introduced in 1940 for large-format cameras only, in sheets rated at ISO 200¹ for daylight and ISO 160 for tungsten (indoor lighting).

After fourteen years of success, the film was finally made available for 35mm and medium format film cameras. Today, you can even find it as motion picture stock for Super 8 and 16mm cameras, as well as in 4×5, 5×7, and 8×10 sheets. The modern formula has also undergone recent alterations, making it less toxic to the environment.

Today’s Tri-X is manufactured exclusively by Kodak in Rochester; it remains one of the most popular black-and-white films ever created: “World’s best-selling black-and-white film,” according to Kodak Alaris’ page (which was first published in 2023).

Before film usage dramatically declined, Tri-X was also made in Canada and the UK to meet the huge demand from photographers like Vivian Maier, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and the millions of amateur and press professionals, who shared their preference for this high-contrast, fast black-and-white film.

You’ll find it behind many newspaper and magazine covers from before the 2000s. The film’s popularity is certainly owed to Kodak’s phenomenal brand, which has remained a valuable asset for over a hundred years since its founding. Beyond that, you may get all kinds of answers, as black-and-white film’s “look” is elusive, and the appearance is just one part of many that determine the best monochrome film for the occasion. Yet there’s one quality that sets Tri-X films apart from others, which most users agree on: the defining contrast of this film, and, recently, the ease of scanning.

¹ — The change in film speed from ASA 200/160 to the modern ISO 400 (or 320 in sheets) was due to the major revision to the ASA standard in 1960.

Dynamic range and contrast.

Modern digital cameras are generally engineered to have an increased dynamic range for more post-processing flexibility. As film photographers, we have a great choice of wide dynamic range films, including the Kodak Portra 800 with its staggering DR of 12.5.

However, the downside to having a wide dynamic range is often lower contrast, which may require editing to better match how the photographer saw the scene or as a requirement for printing.

High-contrast films, such as Kodak Tri-X, are more difficult to edit because the shadows have fewer details, as is the case with the highlights. But if no edits are required, high-contrast films can significantly speed up the process by skipping an entire step.

 ☝︎ Further reading: “How to Edit Film Scans.”

Whereas with most films, I make several changes before publishing on this blog that require firing up Photoshop, I breeze through the process with Tri-X. I use film Q to automatically invert all the frames in each roll with no contrast or colour changes. I simply sit and watch my images appear, ready to share.

Fighting the Tri-X’ defining contrast can make the images look more grainy or fail completely. But as the film’s popularity illustrates, that’s just fine for most users — why spend time editing when an image looks great straight out of the tank?

That said, Tri-X’ dynamic range is not so low that it would accept no edits at all. Plenty of detail may be recoverable in the highlights, especially on larger formats, where an increased grain size from manipulation would not be as noticeable.

With about 10 stops of dynamic range (when converted from 3+ lux-seconds) in D-76 developer, Tri-X can tolerate some overexposure and capture high-contrast scenes.

Tri-X accepts push-processing and various developers. As you would expect, pushing film can increase its contrast. However, in the case of Tri-X, those changes are either timid or, in some cases, desirable.

The Wikipedia page for this film links to the New York Times magazine article, published in the 1970s, that suggests that Tri-X will produce “a definite increase in contrast… [and] loss of shadow detail.” However, the developer chemistry and the Tri-X composition itself have changed over the past 50 years, along with the introduction of scanners like the Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000ED, which can extract a significant amount of detail from dense negatives:

Grain structure, resolution, and sharpness.

Uncropped scans of Tri-X shot in any format look grainless on mobile devices. Zooming in on 35mm film (everything in this article) will reveal some granularity, which increases with developers like Rodinal and becomes softer in specialty chemistries like Ilford DD-X or Ilford Microphen.

Kodak’s tests rate Tri-X to have an RMS granularity of 17, which is relatively fine-grained for ISO 400, but not outstanding when compared to modern films like Kodak T-Max 400, with an RMS of 10.

(Keep in mind that the RMS granularity index is an imperfect measure of how grainy the film may appear for you.)

Find more graphs and specifications about Tri-X in this PDF.

Developing Kodak Tri-X.

Thanks to its popularity, Tri-X has been developed in just about any chemistry set you can find. Massive Dev Chart has a huge list of times and dilutions.

Some photographers suggest that this film may be a little challenging to develop due to its high contrast. While Kodak HC-110 will generally work well with this film, other developers may benefit from reduced agitation and a slight increase in the development time to ensure that the shadows retain sufficient detail.

Scanning Kodak Tri-X.

I’ve spent a significant portion of this review explaining how Tri-X retains its ready-to-publish contrast through the development, scanning, and printing process. This makes things simple, and so does the film’s impressively clear base. Whereas other films, including Ilford HP5+, will have a certain amount of base fog (colour in the most transparent parts of the developed film), Tri-X has almost none, which makes scanning it even easier.

Film inversion software that does not automatically deal with base fog will still yield consistent results, which you can replicate with any image editor that lets you invert colours — this will not work for most other films.

The clear base also makes the reversal process (i.e., making black-and-white slides) viable with Tri-X.

Kodak Tri-X vs. Ilford HP5+.

Ilford HP5+ is another classic black-and-white film, made by Kodak’s competitor in the UK since 1931. I’ve shot a tremendous amount of this film, developed it in weed/other random substances, and even pushed it to ISO 100,000 with usable results.

HP5+’ incredible versatility that allowed so much experimentation is in part due to its greater dynamic range of 12 stops (recall that Tri-X is 10 stops). HP5+ can withstand more edits, especially when pulled; in fact, it can be pulled to ISO 3 for greater flexibility and shorter development times.

But HP5+’ flexibility comes at a price: there’s less designer contrast (if you need that), and the base fog can make scanning a little more challenging. You would actually need to use tools like film Q to avoid washed-out shadows.

Kodak Tri-X vs. Kodak T-Max.

Kodak T-Max films use a relatively new technology that utilizes a special type of grain, which is much finer, similar to what Ilford’s Delta range offers.

In addition to the finer grain, Kodak T-Max films offer a somewhat wider dynamic range with a flatter contrast profile. Together, those qualities make this film a lot easier to edit with good results, but less recognizable and less punchy (unless edited) than Tri-X:

More samples shot on Tri-X.

Throughout the years of shooting film, I’ve shot a relatively small amount of Tri-X. For the longest time, it was one of the most expensive ISO 400 black-and-white films, and thus I felt that it had to be reserved for special occasions.

That, combined with the film’s out-of-the-box great contrast, seems to have given me more images that I’m happy to keep and share here with you.

Shooting some of them in Hasselblad XPan may’ve also helped:

Price and availability.

Kodak’s Tri-X is not a budget offering. The film is part of the company’s Professional range, alongside premium films like Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Ektachrome E 100. Even if you order Tri-X in bulk, there wouldn’t be much of a discount.

Lucky for us, Kodak announced a 30% price drop for Tri-X in 35mm in January 2024, which appears to still be in effect today (July 2025). The average price for Tri-X in 135 is $11.07USD (compared to $14.84USD in 2023).

❤ By the way: Please consider making your Kodak Tri-X film purchase using this link  so that this website may get a small percentage of that sale — at no extra charge for you — thanks!