Camera Dojo

Kodak Tri-X 400: what it looks like and how to shoot it

The short answer

Kodak Tri-X 400 is an ISO 400 black-and-white negative film with classic grain, strong contrast and wide exposure latitude, and a 36-exposure 35mm roll cost $8.99 to $10.41 at US shops on October 28, 2026.

Owners and reviewers praise how it forgives a missed stop and pushes to EI 1600 or 3200. The trade-offs: visible, sometimes rough grain in 35mm, a harder look than Ilford HP5 Plus, and results that depend a lot on the developer.

Speed
ISO 400
Process
Black-and-white (not C-41)
Formats
35mm, 120
35mm roll
$8.99-10.41 (Oct 2026)
See sample photosWhat shooters say

Built from 116 opinions from 32 pages and videos. Not yet tested by Camera Dojo. Updated .

Yellow box of Kodak Professional Tri-X 400 (400TX) black-and-white negative film on a white table
Photo: Håkan Dahlström, CC BY 2.0

The short version

Tri-X is the black-and-white film people load for street, documentary and available-light work. Kodak recommends it for low light, fast shutter speeds and greater depth of field, and owners describe a darker, punchier negative than Ilford HP5 Plus with midtones they love. It is a traditional black-and-white film, so it needs a lab that runs black-and-white chemistry or home developing, not a C-41 mini-lab. If you want smooth files or open shadows in harsh sun, HP5 Plus or Kodak T-Max 400 is the easier choice; HP5 vs Tri-X covers the head-to-head.

Good fit if

  • You shoot street, documentary or portraits and want contrasty negatives that look finished straight from the scan.
  • You need to push: a newspaper staffer and a live-music shooter both rate it at 1600 or 3200, and Kodak's 2016 data sheet allows a three-stop push to EI 3200.
  • You are learning black and white: The Phoblographer calls it a fantastic film to learn on, and a Photodom blog writer says it tolerates two stops over or under.
  • You like visible grain as part of the picture, or shoot 120 and want the same tones with smoother grain.

Think twice if

  • You want open shadows in harsh light. Trovatten calls HP5 Plus the easier starting point there, and Amy Elizabeth's three-way test for Shoot It With Film found it handled harsh light best.
  • You want the most shadow detail at ISO 400: Taylor Blanchard found Kodak T-Max 400 keeps more shadow detail and a wider tonal range.
  • You only have a C-41 lab nearby. Ilford XP2 Super is a black-and-white film that runs in color chemistry.
  • You dislike grain. Several owners find 35mm Tri-X grain rough or distracting, especially when pushed or underdeveloped.

Photos shot on Kodak Tri-X 400

Photos shot on Kodak Tri-X 400 in 35mm and 120, shared under free licenses on Wikimedia Commons.

What owners and reviewers say, topic by topic

We sorted 116 opinions about the Tri-X 400 from 32 pages and videos on 15 websites and channels. Each row shows how many people raised a topic and how many of them were positive. Open a row to read short quotes, each linked to its source.

These opinions come from photographers' blogs, comment sections, Parallax Photographic's reviews and customer reviews, and five YouTube reviews. Reddit, Photrio, DPReview and big-retailer reviews could not be read, so everyday owner voices are thinner than ideal. Nobody discussed halation, so that topic is missing.

  1. Overall look65% positiveof 26

    Most describe a classic, contrasty look with rich midtones, darker and punchier than HP5 Plus or T-Max 400. Critics prefer HP5's midtones, found their first rolls gray, or could not pick Tri-X out of a blind lineup.

  2. Grain60% positiveof 20

    Most call the grain classic and organic, a reason to shoot the film. The mixed and negative voices find 35mm grain rough or distracting, especially when pushed or underdeveloped, and several note it looks much smoother in 120.

  3. Pushing and pulling70% positiveof 20

    Its best-known strength: most say it pushes to 1600 or 3200 and pulls cleanly, with contrast holding up. Mixed voices note empty shadows and blown highlights by EI 1600 to 3200, and one owner could not get usable negatives past EI 800 to 1600 with stand development.

  4. Exposure latitude82% positiveof 17

    Strong agreement that it forgives a missed stop or two and holds detail in harsh sun. The few dissenters found highlights and shadows less predictable, or preferred HP5 for harsh light and a sunset cityscape.

    • “If you miss by a stop, Kodak Tri-X will forgive you.”

      Neil Milton, Shoot It With FilmOwner

    • “Medium contrast with medium grain structure and great highlight details”

      TAHUSA 2020-02Owner

    • “The deep shadows are rich blacks, the highlights retain their detail and the mid tones are what makes it for me.”

      Matt Osborne, MrLeica.comOwner

    • “If the light is already harsh or you want open shadows, HP5 gives you an easier starting point.”

      Frederik TrovattenOwner

  5. Sharpness and detail89% positiveof 9

    Nearly everyone finds Tri-X sharp with good detail, helped by its contrast. One reviewer places it in the middle: not fuzzy, but not super sharp.

  6. Scanning and printing33% positiveof 6

    Few comment, and they lean negative: lint on thin pushed negatives, curl in 120 and grain that makes clone-tool retouching harder. Two YouTube reviewers say it scans with rich detail.

  7. Consistency60% positiveof 5

    Owners call it a dependable everyday film that rarely fails them. Two commenters point out that it has changed over the decades, and one says not for the better.

  8. Skin tones100% positiveof 4

    All four sources that mention skin like it: faces separate clearly from the background, soft indoor light gives them gentle depth, and one owner prefers pushed Tri-X on skin over HP5.

  9. Price and availability50% positiveof 4

    Split and mostly dated: one reviewer called it expensive, while others found it cheaper than Delta 3200 or Kodak's other films. The quoted prices are from 2020 or the UK; see the price table for October 2026 US prices.

  10. Low light and night100% positiveof 3

    Three voices use it for gloomy weather, night scenes and dim interiors, one of them pushed to 1600.

PositiveMixedNegative

How to shoot Kodak Tri-X 400

Tri-X is easy to shoot at box speed. The main decision is which EI to rate it at, then keeping that EI for the whole roll.

  1. 1

    Set the meter to ISO 400

    Most reviewers simply rate it at 400: The Phoblographer set ISO 400 and went about its day without problems. Matt Osborne of MrLeica.com shoots it anywhere from ISO 200 to 1600.

  2. 2

    No meter? Use Kodak's daylight table

    According to Kodak's 2016 data sheet, bright or hazy sun with distinct shadows takes 1/500 second at f/16, a cloudy bright day f/8, and heavy overcast or open shade f/5.6. It works like the sunny 16 rule at ISO 400.

  3. 3

    Give a little extra in fading light

    In dim or fading daylight, Emulsive gives Tri-X half a stop to one stop more exposure than the meter suggests. Neil Milton, who shoots 10 to 15 rolls a month, mostly street work, says it will forgive a stop of error.

  4. 4

    Load in subdued light

    Kodak's data sheet says to load and unload the camera in subdued light.

  5. 5

    Keep one EI for the whole roll

    If you push, rate every frame at the higher EI and develop the whole roll for it. Trovatten says keeping the same exposure index for the whole roll lets the lab process it consistently.

  6. 6

    Send it to a black-and-white lab

    Tri-X needs black-and-white chemistry, not C-41. Dwayne's Photo develops 35mm from $7.50 and adds $4 per roll for a push of up to two stops (checked October 28, 2026). Tell the lab the EI you shot at.

Sources: thephoblographer.com, mrleica.com, business.kodakmoments.com, emulsive.org, shootitwithfilm.com, trovatten.com, dwaynesphoto.com, dwaynesphoto.com

Pushing Tri-X 400 to 1600 and 3200

Pushing is what Tri-X is famous for. Kodak's 2016 data sheet says you can underexpose by one stop (EI 800) with normal development and only a slight loss of shadow detail. Going two stops under (EI 1600) takes push processing, and three stops under (EI 3200) takes more of it; at both, prints show more contrast and graininess and further loss of shadow detail, and Kodak calls the results acceptable for many applications at two stops but only some at three.

Sources disagree on the ceiling. The Film Photography Project Store and Trovatten say Kodak's maximum is EI 1600, but Kodak's data sheet goes to EI 3200, which Emulsive also reads as Kodak's limit. Emulsive pushed Tri-X five stops to EI 12800 and called the results very usable, though the author admitted to a development mistake. Parallax Photographic's shop page splits the difference: easy to 1600, usable at 3200.

Owners back that up. A former newspaper photographer says his staff pushed Tri-X to 3200 for indoor sports and it held up, and Neil Milton rates it at 1600 as standard for live music. The cost is in the tones: Aly of Aly's Vintage Camera Alley saw shadow information start to disappear at 1600 and highlights start to blow at 3200, and one Emulsive reader could not get usable negatives past EI 800 to 1600 with stand development.

Labs limit how far you can go. Dwayne's Photo pushes up to two stops, so EI 3200 means developing at home or finding a lab that offers a three-stop push. For home development, Kodak and Emulsive publish these starting times. The general method is in how to push and pull film.

Starting development times for pushed Tri-X 400 (small tank)
EID-76 stock, 68°F (Kodak data sheet)HC-110 1+39, 21°C (Emulsive)
400 (box speed)6 3/4 min5:00
1600 (2-stop push)9 1/2 min8:00
3200 (3-stop push)11 min9:30
6400 (4-stop push)Not listed11:30

Meter carefully and expose a test roll first: Emulsive's author says careful metering keeps fine shadow detail when pushing, and Kodak recommends test rolls to find the speed that suits your work.

Sources: business.kodakmoments.com, filmphotographystore.com, trovatten.com, emulsive.org, parallaxphotographic.coop, shootitwithfilm.com, alysvintagecameraalley.com, alysvintagecameraalley.com, dwaynesphoto.com, emulsive.org

Kodak Tri-X 400 vs Ilford HP5 Plus and T-Max 400

Tri-X 400HP5 PlusT-Max 400
ContrastHigher: a darker, punchier negative (Trovatten, Amy Elizabeth)Lower, an easier start in harsh light (Trovatten)Flatter straight from the scan (Taylor Blanchard)
Shadow detailFine, but T-Max 400 kept more in Taylor Blanchard's test and HP5 Plus in Amy Elizabeth's harsh-light shotsKept detail in shadows and highlights in harsh light (Amy Elizabeth)More shadow detail and tonal range than Tri-X (Taylor Blanchard)
GrainClassic grain, a bit rougher than T-grain (Parallax)Aly preferred Tri-X's grain to HP5's at EI 1600Modern T-grain, finer than Tri-X (Parallax)
Extreme pushesHandled EI 12800 very well (Emulsive)Emulsive's choice over Tri-X for another EI 12800 pushPushed and pulled well in Taylor Blanchard's test
Emulsive's format pick35mm120, about 8 times out of 10Not compared

Pick the Tri-X 400 if

  • You want contrasty, finished-looking negatives with little editing, as Taylor Blanchard puts it.
  • You shoot 35mm street or documentary work and like visible grain.
  • You push to 1600 often: The Phoblographer says pushed Tri-X mainly gains grain while contrast stays about the same, though Kodak and Trovatten expect more contrast too.

Pick the HP5 Plus if

  • You shoot in harsh light or want open shadows (Trovatten, Amy Elizabeth).
  • You shoot 120 and like HP5's clarity, as Emulsive's author does most of the time.
  • You plan extreme pushes: Emulsive would pick HP5 Plus for another EI 12800 push.

Sources: trovatten.com, shootitwithfilm.com, shootitwithfilm.com, parallaxphotographic.coop, alysvintagecameraalley.com, emulsive.org, emulsive.org, thephoblographer.com

Developing Tri-X 400: labs, developers and times

Tri-X is a conventional black-and-white film, not C-41, so a color-only mini-lab is the wrong place for it. Dwayne's Photo develops it from $7.50 for 35mm and $10.00 for 120 (develop only). The Darkroom in San Clemente, California, processes black-and-white film by mail from $13, and its page also mentions scanning and online upload (both prices checked October 28, 2026). For more options, see best mail-in film labs.

At home, owners mostly use D-76, HC-110 or stand development. The Tahusa reviewer disliked the grainy, grayish look of his first roll and recommends D-76; Aly gets the clean look she wants from HC-110 dilution B; and Parallax stand-developed rolls in HC-110 that kept detail in harsh sun. One commenter on Aly's blog says he has never had good results from Tri-X in HC-110, so expect some trial and error. The basics are in how to develop film at home.

Watch the short times. According to Kodak's data sheet, D-76 stock in a small tank at 68°F takes 6 3/4 minutes, but HC-110 dilution B takes only 3 3/4, and Kodak warns that tank times under 5 minutes may develop unevenly. Parallax found the recommended 3.5 minutes too short and went to 5, and Emulsive's table uses the weaker dilution D (1+39) at 5:00 for EI 400.

Finish with a Photo-Flo rinse and dry the film in a dust-free place, as Kodak instructs: thin, pushed negatives show lint easily.

Sources: en.wikipedia.org, dwaynesphoto.com, thedarkroom.com, tahusa.co, alysvintagecameraalley.com, parallaxphotographic.coop, business.kodakmoments.com, parallaxphotographic.coop, emulsive.org

Long exposures, night and filters on Tri-X 400

Tri-X needs extra exposure at long shutter speeds. According to Kodak's data sheet, anything metered at 1 second or longer needs more light and a little less development, as in the table below.

The Phoblographer calls Tri-X fantastic for pinhole cameras and suggests pulling it to a lower ISO there, and Photodom's reviewer says it keeps deep gradients of black at night.

Like other black-and-white films, Tri-X responds to colored filters. Kodak's data sheet lists daylight filter factors of 2 (one stop) for a No. 8 yellow, 2.5 for a No. 15 deep yellow and 8 (three stops) for a No. 25 red. A Shoot It With Film reader notes that T-Max is less blue-sensitive than Tri-X, so Tri-X needs a yellow filter more to darken skies, and an Emulsive commenter says its weak response to yellowish tungsten light costs tonal separation in pushed indoor shots.

Kodak's reciprocity corrections for Tri-X 400 (2016 data sheet)
Metered timeOpen upOr use this timeDevelopment
1 second+1 stop2 seconds-10%
10 seconds+2 stops50 seconds-20%
100 seconds+3 stops1200 seconds (20 minutes)-30%

Sources: business.kodakmoments.com, thephoblographer.com, photodom.blog, shootitwithfilm.com, emulsive.org

Tri-X 400 formats, 35mm vs 120, scanning and storage

Kodak's 2026 product page lists Tri-X 400 in 24- and 36-exposure 35mm cassettes, 100-foot bulk rolls and 120 five-roll packs. The US shops in the price table list only 36-exposure 35mm and 120. There is no Tri-X 400 sheet film: the sheet version is Tri-X 320, in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. The Film Photography Project Store hand-rolls Tri-X 400 onto 620 spools for $18.99.

Format changes the look. Parallax found 120 Tri-X less gritty than 35mm, with rich midtones and highlight detail, and Matt Osborne, a wedding and portrait photographer, became an easy convert to 120 because the grain is less apparent on the larger negative, though a 35mm roll at a wedding pleasantly surprised him. A roll of 120 gives 15 or 16 frames at 6x4.5, 12 or 13 at 6x6 and 10 at 6x7. More in 35mm vs 120 film.

For scanning, David Hancock's YouTube review says Tri-X digitizes exceptionally well and holds detail and tonality in raw editing, though its grain can make clone-tool retouching difficult. Two quirks come up: thin, pushed negatives show lint, and one commenter says 120 Tri-X curls enough to make scanning a chore. Dwayne's Photo adds 35mm scans for $4 (1037x1565), $6 (2075x3130) or $8 (4492x6774). See how to scan film at home.

For storage, Kodak's 2026 page recommends 55°F (13°C) or lower but says it is not required; the 2016 data sheet said 75°F (24°C) or lower in the sealed package. The data sheet also says to keep film, exposed or unexposed, in a cool, dry place and to process it as soon as possible after exposure.

Sources: kodak.com, kodak.com, filmphotographystore.com, parallaxphotographic.coop, mrleica.com, en.wikipedia.org, alysvintagecameraalley.com, alysvintagecameraalley.com, dwaynesphoto.com, business.kodakmoments.com

What a roll of Tri-X 400 costs

On October 28, 2026, a 36-exposure 35mm roll of Tri-X 400 cost $8.99 to $10.41 at four US camera shops, and a single roll of 120 cost $8.99 to $9.76. B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, KEH and Walmart could not be checked, so they are not listed.

  • Film Photography Project Store

    New, 35mm, 36 exposures, single roll

    $8.99

    See listing

  • Procam

    New, 35mm, 36 exposures, single roll (listed as limited stock)

    $9.99

    See listing

  • Pro Photo Supply

    New, 35mm, 36 exposures, single roll (availability unclear)

    $9.99

    See listing

  • Camera West

    New, 35mm, 36 exposures, single roll

    $10.41

    See listing

  • Film Photography Project Store

    New, 120, single roll

    $8.99

    See listing

  • Pro Photo Supply

    New, 120, single roll without the box

    $9.75

    See listing

  • Camera West

    New, 120, single roll

    $9.76

    See listing

  • Film Photography Project Store

    New, 120, 5-roll pack

    $44.99

    See listing

  • Pro Photo Supply

    New, out of stock, 120, 5-roll pack

    $44.99

    See listing

  • Procam

    New, 120, 5-roll pack

    $49.99

    See listing

  • Film Photography Project Store

    New, 620, single roll, hand-rolled onto a reusable 620 spool

    $18.99

    See listing

  • Film Photography Project Store

    New, Tri-X 320 (not 400), 4x5 sheet film, 10 sheets

    $39.99

    See listing

Prices checked on October 28, 2026. They move every week, so treat them as a range, not a quote. Per frame, the $8.99 roll of 35mm works out to about $0.25 a shot ($8.99 / 36), and an $8.99 roll of 120 shot at 6x6 (12 frames) to about $0.75 a frame ($8.99 / 12). Five-packs of 120 did not save money: $44.99 for five at the Film Photography Project Store is $9.00 a roll, and Procam's $49.99 pack is $10.00 a roll. The [film cost per photo calculator](/tools/film-cost-per-photo/) runs the same math for other prices. Pro Photo Supply's 35mm page showed both sold out and in stock, and its 120 five-pack was out of stock.

Technical data

Film

Type
High-speed panchromatic black-and-white negative film
Speed
ISO 400/27°
Process
Conventional black-and-white developers; not C-41 or E-6
Emulsion
Traditional cubic-grain panchromatic film
Kodak's description
Classic grain structure, exceptional edge sharpness, high resolving power
Granularity
Diffuse rms 17 (fine) in HC-110 dilution B, per the 2016 data sheet

Formats

Kodak catalog (2026)
135-24 (7518517), 135-36 (7518509), 35mm 100 ft (7520869), 120 five-roll pack (7518558)
Sheet film
None in 400; Tri-X 320 comes in 4x5 (10 or 50 sheets), 5x7 (50) and 8x10 (10)
Frames per 120 roll
15 or 16 (6x4.5), 12 or 13 (6x6), 10 (6x7), 9 (6x8), 8 (6x9)
620
Hand-rolled onto 620 spools by the Film Photography Project Store

Exposure

Daylight, per the data sheet
1/500 at f/16 in bright or hazy sun with distinct shadows; f/8 cloudy bright; f/5.6 heavy overcast or open shade
Latitude, per the data sheet
1 stop under at normal development; 2 or 3 stops under with push processing
Push limit, Kodak 2016 data sheet
EI 3200 (3 stops)
Push limit, Film Photography Project Store
EI 1600
Reciprocity, per the data sheet
+1 stop at 1 s, +2 stops at 10 s, +3 stops at 100 s, with shorter development

Development (small tank, 68°F)

D-76 stock, EI 400
6 3/4 min, per the data sheet
HC-110 dilution B, EI 400
3 3/4 min; Kodak warns times under 5 min may be uneven
D-76 stock, pushed
9 1/2 min (EI 1600), 11 min (EI 3200), per the data sheet

Storage

Kodak's page (2026)
55°F (13°C) or lower recommended but not required
Data sheet (2016)
75°F (24°C) or lower in the original sealed package

History

Introduced
About 1940 as sheet film, rated ASA 200 in daylight
35mm and 120
1954
Rated 400
Around 1960, because the ASA standard changed, not the emulsion
Reformulated
2007, renamed 400TX, with finer grain and less silver
Distribution
Kodak Alaris from 2013; Eastman Kodak directly since January 2026 (per Wikipedia)

Video reviews worth your time

  • Kodak Tri-X 400 Black and White Film Review | All about Film

    David Hancock, 2017

    Kodak Tri-X 400 is an extraordinarily versatile, reliable, and forgiving black and white film that delivers exceptional image quality across a wide range of lighting conditions and developers.

    • 0:37 Introduction to Kodak Tri-X 400 and film formats
    • 1:08 Explanation of rated ISO and exposure latitude
    • 3:36 Sample images showing sharpness, grain, and contrast
    • 7:10 Analysis of spectral sensitivity curves

  • The Lowlight King with Unmatched Classic Charm | Kodak Tri-X 400 Review

    Aperture Dundee, 2023

    Kodak Tri-X 400 is an iconic, highly versatile black-and-white film praised for its strong contrast, exceptional push-processing capability, and classic gritty character.

    • 0:26 Overview of Kodak Tri-X specs and available formats
    • 1:19 Historical timeline of Tri-X film stock reformulations
    • 3:29 Analysis of image quality, contrast, and grain characteristics
    • 7:01 Evaluating push processing capabilities at 800 and 1600 ISO

  • Tri-x 400 really is that good ... film review and darkroom prints

    Ribsy, 2021

    Kodak Tri-X 400 is a versatile, classic black-and-white film praised for its wide latitude, strong detail retention, and distinctive grain structure.

    • 0:00 Introduction to the Kodak Tri-X 400 review
    • 1:27 35mm street photography samples demonstrating film grain
    • 3:14 City landscape example highlighting exposure dynamic range
    • 4:46 Examining darkroom prints to evaluate highlight detail

  • Kodak Tri-x 400 FILM vs Digital B&W Photography

    Camera West TV, 2021

    Kodak Tri-X 400 is a classic, highly versatile black-and-white film praised for its wide exposure latitude, medium contrast, and attractive grain structure.

    • 00:54 Introducing the comparison between Leica Monochrom and Kodak Tri-X 400
    • 01:43 Loading Kodak Tri-X 400 film into the Leica camera
    • 02:40 Comparing sample shots taken with Tri-X 400 and Monochrom
    • 06:43 Changing film rolls to shoot at a different ISO rating

  • Tri-X 400 & TMAX 400 B&W Silver Gelatin Prints!

    The Darkroom Film Lab, 2021

    Kodak Tri-X 400 is a legendary black-and-white film celebrated for its classic grain structure, rich tonal range, and punchy contrast.

    • 0:03 Showing Kodak T-Max 400 and Tri-X 400 film boxes.
    • 1:16 Comparing silver gelatin prints made from both black-and-white films.
    • 2:20 Showing processed film negatives stored in protective sleeves.
    • 3:08 Reviewing side-by-side photographic prints to compare image characteristics.

Questions people ask about the Tri-X 400

Is Kodak Tri-X 400 good for beginners?

Yes, by most accounts. The Phoblographer calls it a fantastic film to learn on, and a Photodom blog writer says it tolerates two stops of overexposure or underexposure and still gives a quality picture. The catch for beginners is processing: it needs black-and-white chemistry, not a C-41 lab.

Sources: thephoblographer.com, photodom.blog, en.wikipedia.org

What ISO should I shoot Tri-X 400 at?

Start at 400; most reviewers rate it there and shoot. Matt Osborne of MrLeica.com uses anything from ISO 200 to 1600, and Kodak's 2016 data sheet allows EI 800 with normal development and EI 1600 or 3200 with push processing. Whatever you pick, keep the same EI for the whole roll.

Sources: thephoblographer.com, mrleica.com, business.kodakmoments.com, trovatten.com

How does Tri-X compare to Ilford HP5 Plus?

Tri-X gives a darker, more contrasty negative; HP5 Plus is lower in contrast. Trovatten calls HP5 the easier starting point in harsh light, and Amy Elizabeth's three-way test found HP5 handled harsh light best, with detail in both shadows and highlights, while Tri-X had more contrast and tonal range in studio and diffused light. Emulsive's author picks Tri-X in 35mm and HP5 Plus most of the time in 120.

Sources: trovatten.com, shootitwithfilm.com, emulsive.org

Is Tri-X better than T-Max 400?

Neither wins outright. In Taylor Blanchard's side-by-side test for Shoot It With Film, T-Max 400 kept more shadow detail and a wider tonal range, while Tri-X had more contrast and a punchier look with little editing; she gave T-Max a slight edge. Amy Elizabeth's three-way test went the other way on tonal range, with Tri-X wider than T-Max in studio and diffused light. The Phoblographer sums it up as Tri-X getting more from the midtones and T-Max going for either end of the range.

Sources: shootitwithfilm.com, thephoblographer.com

What developer should I use with Tri-X?

D-76 is the safe default: Kodak's data sheet gives 6 3/4 minutes for D-76 stock in a small tank at 68°F, and the Tahusa reviewer recommends it. HC-110 is popular too, but Kodak's dilution B time is under 5 minutes, which Kodak warns may develop unevenly, so Emulsive publishes dilution D (1+39) times instead. Kodak also lists times for XTOL and T-Max developers.

Sources: business.kodakmoments.com, tahusa.co, emulsive.org

Is Kodak Tri-X 400 still made?

Yes. Kodak's 2026 product page lists it in 35mm (24 and 36 exposures, plus 100-foot bulk) and 120, and US shops had it at $8.99 to $10.41 for a 35mm roll on October 28, 2026. Kodak Alaris distributed it from 2013, and, according to Wikipedia, Eastman Kodak has distributed it directly since January 2026.

Sources: kodak.com, filmphotographystore.com, camerawest.com, en.wikipedia.org

Is today's Tri-X the same as the old Tri-X?

Not exactly. According to Wikipedia, Tri-X started as a sheet film around 1940, reached 35mm and 120 in 1954, and was re-engineered in 2007 as 400TX with finer grain and less silver; its rating rose to 400 around 1960 because the ASA standard changed, not the emulsion. One longtime user on Shoot It With Film says it has been reformulated at least twice, and another commenter says it has changed over the years and not for the better.

Sources: en.wikipedia.org, shootitwithfilm.com, shootitwithfilm.com

Can I use Tri-X for portraits?

Yes. Trovatten uses it for street portraits because faces separate clearly from the background, and Aly prefers pushed Tri-X on skin over HP5 at 1600. Tanya Barrow found it gave faces a gentle depth in soft indoor light. For smoother grain, Matt Osborne, a wedding and portrait photographer, switched to 120, though a 35mm roll at a wedding pleasantly surprised him.

Sources: trovatten.com, alysvintagecameraalley.com, mummybarrow.com, mrleica.com

What people compare it with

  • Ilford HP5 Plus

    The usual rival: lower contrast, more shadow detail and easier in harsh light. Emulsive's author would pick it in 120 most of the time.

  • Kodak T-Max 400

    Kodak's T-grain 400 film: finer grain and more shadow and highlight detail, but flatter straight from the scan.

  • Ilford XP2 Super

    A black-and-white film developed in C-41, so any color lab can process it; Wikipedia says it scans well.

  • Ilford Delta 3200

    For very dim light. Aly compared it with Tri-X pushed to 1600 and found it lower in contrast, with low grain on both films, at about $5 more a roll in 2020.

Every source behind this page

Read them yourself. How we pick and count them is in our methodology.

Show all 56 sources

Manuals and references 24

Editorial reviews 17

Independent blogs 9

Video reviews 5

Retailer customer reviews 1