Good, all purpose film, perhaps a little grainy, but very sharp

grain can be a problem some of the time, but i like the pronounced grain structure.

A good all purpose film, that produces sharp, somewhat grainy images. Not suited to portraiture, but i like it for landscapes. Also works fairly well when pushed to 1600.

Customer Service

don't know

Similar Products Used:

loads of b+w films

A classic film with a classic look. Very forgiving - almost always looks good.

Broad exposure latitude.

Nice, expansive tonal range.

Grain pattern is pronounced compared to newer 400-speed b&w films. You can love the grain, though.

A good basic b&w film, and certainly easy to work with. But, I prefer Ilford HP-5 Plus, which shares many favorable characteristics of Tri-X, with somewhat finer grain and creamier tones. If you like one, it's worth it to try the other. I prefer Tri-X to T-Max.

Customer Service

Kodak's website has lots of good information awaiting those with the patience to find it.

Similar Products Used:

Ilford HP5 Plus (similar tonality, but finer-grained). Also, Kodak T-Max 400 and Ilford Delta 400 (both finer-grained with higher contrast).

* nearly 50 years of experience (same age as me)

* nearly 50 year-old-technology

I’ve used Delta 400 for a couple of years, but now that I’ve discovered Xtol developer I went back to take another look at the competition.

I did a comparison of 35mm Agfa APX 400, Kodak T-Max 400, Tri-X, Ilford HP5 and Ilford Delta 400. G2; Zeiss lenses; TTL exposures at 400 with brackets at 200 and 800. Processing in Kodak Xtol for Kodak’s recommended times minus 10% (which has been my standard for Delta in the past). Negs were examined as a 2700 dpi scan (equivalent to a 37” x 56” enlargement on screen) for graininess, sharpness, overall tonality and the proverbial highlight “blocking.”

TMax and Delta 400 were very slightly sharper than the “traditional-chemistry” films, resolving extremely fine detail like distant tree branches or clothing threads just a tad better than the others. They had grain that was extremely fine, but also very visible.

Tri-X and HP5 had the smoothest (almost invisible) grain, but resolved a little less fine detail, almost as if they had been slightly blurred by a PhotoShop™ filter - maybe just their thicker emulsions acting as diffusers during the scan? (Actually the HP5 fell sort of between Tri-X and Delta 400 - with more visible grain/sharpness than TX and less than the T-grain films).

The Agfa 400 had the most grain, and slightly less sharpness than TMax/HP5, but it was not as grainy as Tri-X developed in D-76, and certainly acceptable.

All the films exhibited SOME compression of highlight tones, but this is typical of my scanner. The TMax and Delta 400 highlights were slightly more compressed, but not all that different.

The biggest difference I saw was in shadow separation - Tri-X and HP-5 were clearly better than the others at drawing out shadow details, with AGFA APX 400 right behind them. Based on shadow detail, I’d have to rate TMax and Delta 400 at 200, Tri-X and HP5 at 400, and Agfa 400 at 320 using this developer/meter combination.

Conclusion: At print sizes of 6x9 inches or 9x13 inches you will probably see very little difference in sharpness or grain among these five films. The best of these films with poor developing (especially overdevelopment) will look a lot worse than the worst of these films with good processing, especially with Xtol.

At least processed in Xtol, Delta 400 and T-Max will have either a little less highlight detail or a little less shadow detail depending on exposure, while the “old technology” films will have somewhat more tonal range and smoother grain at the cost of a little sharpness.

Based on these tests I'll be experimenting more with HP5, but the differences really were very small.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

Tmax 400, Ilford Hp5 and Delta 400, Agfa APX 400

You can shoot it at virtually any EI with the correct choice of developer and get great results. It is the right speed for available light photography. It's Tri-X, for god's sake.

None.

Tri-X has weathered the changes in Kodak's film line-up, and for good reason: it is simply the most versitile, most natural and forgiving high-speed film made.

Customer Service

Usually good. Bad experiences lately complaining about their horrid mounting tissue (got the brush-off).

Similar Products Used:

Tri-X Pan in 4 X 5. A heavy estar base and a retouchable surface. Hated it. Not the same emulsion at all. Use something else in 4 X 5.

versatile, tonal range

grain, resolution

Highly overrated. Too grainy in 35mm. I only use it when I need EI 800+. Tmax & Delta are much better when exposed & developed properly. Using Tri-X as a general purpose film is just lazy.

Customer Service

who knows

Similar Products Used:

Delta, Tmax HP5

affordable/versatile/great negative and print quality

None

Absolutely the best black and white film there is out there. Especially for the photographer who is wanting to shoot artistic nudes or natural enviornments. When I use this film, I get the best results when printed on a multigrade-3, matte finish photo paper from Ilford. I started out using this film when I first got into photography and have tried several of the other b/w films and Tri-X tends to be the most versatile for whatever the situation. I'd vote this one as Kodak's best film too. It's been around since your grandpa was born. Why do you think?

Similar Products Used:

None

Latitude
Smoothness of greyscale
Grain

None, if it does what your looking for.

So people b***h because it's not as fine grained as Tmax-Fp-whatever! So use the other film, no one's holding a gun to your head. But TriX remains Kodaks best selling B&W film (fact) because it is extremely forgiving, has a wonderful contrast range that T-grain films can't match, and has a very pleasing grain structure. Why can't some people get it -- grain is not always a bad thing. Otherwise we should all shoot 4X5 tech pan developed in Rodinal at about 1/1000 ;-) For all the naysayers I rate this film

Customer Service

Great web-site

Similar Products Used:

All of them!

Overall film

Always a second to some other film

Some people would think it's legendary; I don't agree. It's an overall film, but I'll never call it professional cos it always comes second to something:
In acutance & grain, it's second to ILFORDHP5
In tonality, it's second to Fortepan & AGFA APX400

Similar Products Used:

Ilford HP5
agfa apx 400
fortepan 400

As close as anything can be to a universal film.

Incredibly forgiving of incorrect exposure or development.

Holds highlights and shadows and works well for virtually any lighting, both high and low contrast.

Inexpensive and very easy to process.

Highly predictable in results.

Has a distinctive look often associated with commercial photography and photojournalism. People recognize the look without knowing why.

Grain can be obtrusive and tends to rule out cropped enlargements (in 35 mm). Better make sure you have it framed the way you want it when you shoot it.

Slight weakness at red end of spectrum may be a concern for some applications.

Still my favorite black-and-white film. Shoot it any old way, under just about any conditions, develop it casually in whatever you have on hand (assuming you don't always have a bottle of D-76 sitting around), and you still get great results. I regularly try other stuff, but I keep coming back to Tri-X. The ability of this film to handle extremes of contrast while still looking great in low-contrast shots never ceases to amaze me. You think the shot is ruined, and yet it comes out better than you had hoped. You get spoiled by the latitude of this film.

The only time I would not use Tri-X would be if I needed invisible grain, very high resolution, or extremely faithful spectral sensitivity (especially extended red response). It only exists in ISO 400 for 135 format, but its latitude is so generous that this can be made to work for anything, night and day.

Customer Service

Web site is very thorough.

Similar Products Used:

T-Max 100
T-Max 400
T-Max P3200
Ilford FP4
Kodak Black+White (C-41)

beautiful gray scale. if exposed and developed properly, it's the easiest film in the world to print.

processing at home is a big pain(but worth the trouble if you're serious)

i've tried just about every film there is, and i keep coming back to tri x. people are complaining about grain and contrast -- maybe they're just not developing it right? unless you overexpose AND overdevelop, your highlights shouldn't block up. and as for grain -- i routinely print up to 20x24 and yeah, the grain is visible but prints that big aren't meant to be looked at from 2 feet away. at 11x14 -- my standard size -- you'd need a maginifying glass to see the grain. tri-x is the only b&w film i use anymore. i love it. it's the closest thing there is to a perfect film.

Customer Service

i've never needed it.

Similar Products Used:

hp5, tmax400, apx400, plus-x, txp (iso 320) 120 and 4x5(i prefer the 400 for 120), ilford delta