HP5 vs Tri-X: Contrast, Grain, Pushing and Price Compared

HP5 Plus

Neither film wins outright. Wikipedia names Tri-X 400 as the main competitor of HP5 Plus, and Casual Photophile calls both "reportage" films, designed for uncontrolled light and given wide latitude. Reformed Film Lab, which says these are the two black-and-white films it develops most, calls the question of which is best subjective and dependent on many factors.

The real split is the look and your workflow. Tri-X is the high-contrast, punchy film; HP5 Plus is the flatter, more forgiving one.

A short rule: start with Ilford HP5 Plus if you are still learning exposure or you print in a darkroom, and start with Kodak Tri-X 400 if you scan and want drama straight from the negative. Then shoot one roll of each in the same light and compare.

Yes, by most accounts. Analog Reference sorts the classic 400 films this way: Tri-X is high contrast with traditional grain, HP5 is low contrast with traditional grain, and Kodak T-Max sits in the middle with smoother grain. Analogue Wonderland describes Tri-X's contrast as punchy, giving a dramatic and bold look, and HP5's as more balanced. The Ilford product description repeated on Glazer's product page calls HP5 Plus a medium-contrast film.

That contrast has a cost in the shadows. A darkroom printer who has used both extensively, posting in Flickr's I Shoot Film group, finds Tri-X very smooth in the midtones but says it loses out to HP5 in shadow detail, and Analog Reference found that Tri-X's harsh contrast lost the shadow detail completely, while HP5 and T-Max both kept good shadow detail.

HP5 Plus is not a shadow miracle either. EMULSIVE's review notes that at box speed it holds highlights better than it captures shadow detail. Both films also change a lot with chemistry: owners in the Flickr thread stress that developer choice affects both films significantly, so compare them in the same developer before you decide.

Opinions split, and the spec sheets can't settle it. Ilford calls HP5 Plus fine grain and Kodak lists fine grain as a Tri-X 400 feature, but only Kodak publishes a number: according to its datasheet, Tri-X 400 has a diffuse rms granularity of 17 (fine), measured in HC-110 (B) at 68F. The Ilford HP5 Plus technical sheet we read gives no granularity figure, so there is no like-for-like spec comparison.

Shooters disagree. The Kash Photo blog usually finds HP5+ the grainier film, and its author shoots both about equally. Analogue Wonderland says the opposite, that HP5 has a more subdued grain than Tri-X. An EMULSIVE contributor who pushed both to EI 1600 loved the evenness of Tri-X's grain but found the negatives too dense in places.

Two things matter more than the brand. Grain grows as you push and changes with developer, and a 120 negative is enlarged far less than a 35mm one, so either film looks finer in medium format (see 35mm vs 120 film). Also discount comparisons from before 2007, when Kodak re-engineered Tri-X with finer grain.

Both are built for it. Ilford says HP5 Plus responds well to push processing and can be rated up to EI 3200, and its technical sheet promises good image quality anywhere from EI 400 to EI 3200, with the best results at 400. Kodak recommends Tri-X 400 for push processing, and its datasheet says you can underexpose it by three stops with longer development, at the cost of more contrast, more grain and less shadow detail.

For Tri-X, Wikipedia sums up the usual experience: EI 800 in a standard developer gives very good results, while EI 1600 needs more careful processing. One owner in the Flickr thread says Tri-X pushes better at 1600 and above. EMULSIVE's side-by-side at EI 1600 in HC-110, shot on a Mamiya 7II in the Moscow Metro, went the other way: the contributor wrote that "Tri-X just didn't give me the depth that HP5 did."

In darker scenes the gap can vanish. Kash Photo pushed both to 1600 for night-time views of busy Central London on a Hasselblad XPan and got very similar results, mostly because the frames were full of black space. At the extreme end, EMULSIVE's EI 12800 shootout found both films held up, but the author would pick HP5 Plus to push that far again, and its HP5 review calls 5 to 6 stop pushes (EI 12800 to 25600) surprisingly workable.

If you plan to push most of your rolls, read our guide to pushing and pulling film and test at the exact EI you will use.

Kentmere 400

HP5 Plus usually gets the nod. Camera Jabber calls it arguably the easier film for complete beginners, and Analogue Wonderland says Tri-X is not as forgiving, though it praises Tri-X for predictable, consistent results. Kodak still lists wide exposure latitude as a Tri-X feature, and Casual Photophile describes both as wide-latitude films. Not everyone agrees on who is easier: one Flickr owner finds Tri-X a bit more adaptable and forgiving overall.

The difference shows in the shadows. Analog Reference found HP5 kept good shadow detail where Tri-X lost it, which leaves more to recover in a scan or a print if you underexpose.

If price matters more than the name on the box, compare the other ISO 400 options in our best black and white film guide, including Kentmere 400, before you buy a brick of either.

The two films don't share a development time. According to Kodak's datasheet and Ilford's technical sheet, Tri-X 400 needs 6 3/4 minutes in D-76 stock at 68F (20C) in a small tank and HP5 Plus needs 7 1/2 minutes at EI 400 in a spiral tank, so a fair side-by-side uses two tanks. The table has the pushed and DD-X times. Kodak's sheet is dated October 2021 and the Ilford copy we read is undated, so check each maker's current sheet before you mix. If you are new to tank work, our guide to developing film at home covers the full process.

Tri-X negatives have a reputation for curling. Two owners in the Flickr thread complain about it, and one who loves Tri-X's tonality said the curl was what would drive him to Ilford.

Storage advice differs by source. Kodak's October 2021 datasheet says to keep unexposed Tri-X at 75F (24C) or lower in the sealed package, while Camera Jabber recommends 55F (13C) or lower. Anything at or below 55F (13C) meets both.

This is where workflow beats reputation. A printer in the Flickr thread preferred Tri-X while he only scanned, then switched to HP5 once he started printing in a darkroom, because HP5 gives a flatter tonal range that is much easier to print and needs less dodging and burning.

The same printer says Tri-X's much wider range of tones is great for scanning but not for printing. Analog Reference makes a related point about HP5 in scans: it wanted slightly more contrast off the scanner, but says adding contrast in post is really easy. Judge both films in the workflow you actually use, not in someone else's scans.

It depends on the store, so don't pick either one as the budget film. On October 28, 2026, a 36-exposure 35mm roll of HP5 Plus was cheaper at Glazer's ($9.99 vs $10.25) and Reformed Film Lab ($8.75 on sale vs $10.25), but Tri-X was cheaper at Richard Photo Lab ($9.29 vs $10.99) and Legacy Photo Lab ($12.99 vs $13.99). In 120, Tri-X was cheaper at Glazer's ($8.79 vs $9.99) and HP5 Plus was cheaper at Legacy ($9.99 vs $11.99).

Bulk rolls are the exception. At Glazer's, a 100 ft roll of HP5 Plus was $167.99 and a 100 ft roll of Tri-X was $239.95, and the Tri-X roll was sold out.

Older forum threads, such as a 2016 Flickr discussion, call Tri-X the pricier film, but that changed. In January 2024 Kosmo Foto reported that Kodak Alaris cut the price of 35mm Tri-X by up to 30%, depending on the region, and Analog.cafe's US price tracking saw the average Tri-X price fall from $14.56 to $10.82 over the following months. Analog.cafe also found in July 2025 that every Ilford film cost more than it had six months earlier.

Availability may be patchy while Tri-X changes boxes. Eastman Kodak took distribution back from Kodak Alaris (Wikipedia dates it to January 2026; Camera Jabber says the handover was complete by March 2026), and Tri-X now ships in a new yellow-and-black box. At Glazer's, the new-box 35mm roll and 120 5-pack showed as coming soon, and the old-box 35mm roll was unavailable. Our list of where to buy 35mm film has more US stores to check.

No. Ilford's HP line is as old as Tri-X: EMULSIVE dates the original HP in 35mm and 120 to 1935, nearly two decades before Tri-X reached those formats in 1954. HP5 launched at Photokina in 1976 and became HP5 Plus in late 1989.

Tri-X started around 1940 as a sheet film rated ASA 200 in daylight. Its jump to ASA 400 around 1960 came from a change in the ASA standard, not a new emulsion. In 2007 Kodak re-engineered it as 400TX with finer grain and less silver, so today's Tri-X is not the same emulsion as the 1960s film.

Kodak Alaris handled Tri-X from 2013 until Eastman Kodak took it back in 2026, and the name survived, unlike T-Max, which Eastman Kodak now sells as Ektapan.