Kodak Tri-X – Film Profile

Kodak Tri-X – Film Profile

2000 1125 Josh Solomon

Guitarists have the Fender Stratocaster, soldiers the AK-47, and handymen the world over have WD-40. These products have become the standard bearers in their fields; tools of the trade that are so accomplished they need no introduction. They’ve become so ubiquitous that even the inexperienced layman is familiar with their capabilities.

The craft of photography has such a tool as well. It’s done tours in Vietnam, prowled alleys and side streets in every city in the world, and documented some of history’s most important moments. It’s our familiar friend in the green and yellow get-up, Kodak Tri-X.

It’s hard to exaggerate the influence and importance of Tri-X. The best selling black-and-white film in the history of photography, it’s the constant companion of casuals and professionals alike. It’s a staple of film photography and holds a popular reputation challenged only by the deceased Kodachrome. No other black-and-white film is as famous or as widely used as this long-cherished film, and with good reason.

But what is it that makes Tri-X so loved? Let’s find out.

Introduced in 1940 as sheet film and adapted to 35mm and 120 formats in 1954, Tri-X was one of the first true high-speed black-and-white films. When initially released, it was rated at a blazingly fast ISO 200, and later upgraded to ISO 400. Pedestrian as that number may seem today, the speed of Tri-X was revolutionary back in the day. With such sensitive film, photojournalists could finally shoot with their new-fangled, compact 35mm cameras in almost any light condition and still get usable negatives.

But these photojournalists quickly found out that their negatives were not only usable, they were beautiful as well. With Tri-X, Kodak had accomplished something previously unheard of in high-speed films. Their new black-and-white film combined blistering speed with a beautiful tonality, a tight grain structure, and high resolution. This meant that negatives could be blown up to monolithic proportions and still look stunning. In short order, Tri-X came to be known as the film that could do it all, and photographers have been putting their trust in the stuff ever since.

Though its formula has gone through many changes over the subsequent decades, Tri-X still manages to retain the same visual signature it’s always proudly boasted. The modern formula may be a little sharper and the grain a bit finer, but the visual signature is still classic Tri-X.

Kodak Tri-X Profile (2 of 3)

And I say “classic” for a reason. Informal focus groups (shoving prints under the noses of my friends and fellow photo geeks) show that when presented with a set of black-and-white images, the images shot on Tri-X invariably get more love than the others. Why? Simply put, the Tri-X look is what everybody thinks of when they think of black-and-white photography. Since so many black-and-white film photographers in the history of the craft have so regularly shot Tri-X, its signature has burned itself into the retina of our collective consciousness.

For one, there’s the grain structure, which is potent yet restrained. This is a traditional grained film straight from the old-school. Images are gritty, textured, but not rough. Shots are sharp and edgy. For shooters who prefer crisp, grainless images, this probably isn’t the film to use, but for shooters seeking the “Goldilocks” of grain, Tri-X is hard to beat. The grain is front and center, but never distracting.

Tri-X also brings it’s characteristic tonality. Because Tri-X has a slightly narrower tonal range than many black and white films, every image is imbued with a stark and severe look. Images shifting rapidly from dark to light seem to acquire a certain gravity, and it’s an effect prized by photojournalists who seek stark realism in their photographs. Make no mistake, this film’s tonality is what gave black-and-white photography its reputation for seriousness.

But just because Tri-X makes “serious” photographs doesn’t mean it’s going to be difficult to use. In spite of its reputation as a professional film, we don’t necessarily need to be pro photographers to shoot it. In fact, it’s quite an excellent black-and-white film for those just starting out owing to its exposure latitude, (the extent to which a film can be overexposed or underexposed and still yield acceptable images). And the film’s exposure latitude is legendary. It’ll handle five stops of over-exposure and up to two stops of under-exposure without breaking a sweat, effectively forgiving photographers of any exposure-related sin. This latitude lends itself well to shooters who prefer to cast their fates to the wind with fixed-exposure box cameras and toy cameras, as well as shooters who are taking their first steps into the world of manual shooting.

Our first gallery was processed with Sprint Systems developer in a Paterson Universal Tank for 9:00, agitated for the first minute and for 10 seconds each subsequent minute. 

Which brings me to my favorite characteristic of this film, its pushability. And yes, that’s a technical term. For the uninitiated, pushing film simply means under-exposing the film in-camera and compensating for that under-exposure later during development. In other words, pushing is a sneaky way to increase film speed without actually using a more sensitive film. And more than any other film, Tri-X can be pushed to simply stunning effect.

Kodak officially recommends pushing Tri-X up to two stops, which adds up to ISO 1600. I decided to up the ante and push it all the way to the limit- ISO 6400. That’s a four stop push, something considered virtually suicidal for any other film on the market. Tri-X handles that four-stop push with ease. Grain isn’t as obtrusive as one would expect from a film pushed so far. Tonality, while made more severe, is remarkably well-preserved. Highlights retain an acceptable amount of detail owing to Tri-X’s excellent latitude, and though shadows lose detail in the push, it only intensifies the already stark look of the film. Though the image doesn’t have the same tonal range as Tri-X shot at box speed, it does remarkably well considering that I pushed the film past its supposed functional limit. Images shot at ISO 6400 are quite beautiful in their own unique way.

All this factored together, it’s tough to call Tri-X anything but perfect. The only real disadvantage that I can think of may actually lie in its incredible versatility or outright popularity. It’s the perfect all-rounder but it doesn’t excel in any one department. Many other films offer more striking contrast, finer grain, and even higher speeds, making Tri-X seem bog standard in comparison. And it’s this same versatility that leads to its popularity. Many shooters tend to pick Tri-X as their only black-and-white film. The resultant over-abundance of shots can at times cause its legendary look to lose its luster after repeated viewings. Even the deepest, richest wells run dry eventually, and Tri-X may be one such well.

Our second gallery was processed using Kodak D-76 developer in a small Omega development tank  for 6:50, agitated the first full minute and for 10 seconds in each following minute. Mixed at stock ratio.

Another potential downfall for some amateur and enthusiast shooters could also be found in its very makeup. Being a true black-and-white film means you’re not going to be getting this processed at your local Wal-Mart. Since its development process uses chemicals that aren’t the same as your traditional color negative film (C-41), you’ll need to send this out to a traditional photo lab or develop at home. While both of these options are simple, we acknowledge that even this minuscule inconvenience can be too much for some sluggish photo geeks. If this sounds like you, don’t fret, you can still shoot black-and-white using Kodak’s C-41 film.

But if I’m being honest, I’m reaching quite far when I try to find fault in this legendary emulsion. The past sixty-four years has tested Tri-X time and again, and it’s passed every single one of those tests with flying colors (metaphorically speaking, of course). After all, it’s still the most popular black-and-white film around

Yes, there are black-and-white films that manage to best Tri-X in certain categories. I don’t pretend that Tri-X hasn’t been technically surpassed within the last 60-odd years, but what Tri-X manages to do so successfully is remind us of why we shoot film in the first place. It’s not technically perfect, but if we wanted soulless, clinical perfection we’d be shooting digital. We shoot film because of the feeling that only film can give us, and for the romance of that timeless aesthetic. In this sense, Tri-X might just be the most romantic film ever made.

It offers a look that many other films and post-processing programs have tried, and failed dismally, to imitate. No amount of digital post-processing done to any RAW file could ever truly replicate it. The look can only be achieved by going straight to the source and shooting the real deal, our familiar friend Tri-X. So what are you waiting for?

Buy Kodak Tri X!

Get it on Amazon

Get in on eBay

Get it on B&H Photo

Buy a camera from F Stop Cameras

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

Josh Solomon

Josh Solomon is a freelance writer and touring bassist living in Los Angeles. He has an affinity for all things analog. When not onstage, you can find him roaming around Southern California shooting film and humming a tune.

All stories by:Josh Solomon
  • Merlin Marquardt May 16, 2016 at 12:01 am

    Like it! The film and the article.

  • Great article! I would be great to see profiles from other popular films too!

  • Ed Worthington May 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    I don’t know why I’ve never shot Tri-X, in fact I’ve rarely shot any Kodak at all (well that I can remember from this my second life of using film, maybe as a kid I did who know’s?). I’m more of a Fuji fan, although that’s likely because I’ve used and like Fuji film’s rather than tried any Kodak, perhaps it’s time to change that as some of the image’s in this article are lovely. They’ve all got a certain punch to them.

  • Randle P. McMurphy May 19, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Kodak Tri-X 400 – touching the legend !
    Still remember the beginning of my photography career starting with 35mm format.
    Kodak was always more expensive than other brands so I used AGFA and IIlford a lot.
    The Ilford HP5 for a long time till Fuji released the amazing Neopan 400 with much finer grain.
    For portrait and landscapes the AGFA APX 25 was best you can buy for a long time too.
    Nearly without any grain and beautiful tonal curve when developed in Tetenal Neofin blue.

    Comming back to the roots (means film) resolution was not important any more,
    I wanted something else so I run into the Kodak Tri-X by accident and started
    loving this material, you can see the grain in a special way but in harmony
    with the tonal range – so I got what I wanted.

  • I shot my first Tri-X 400 some days ago. And I like the look and feel of this film.
    It definately wasn’t my last one.
    Thanks for the article.

  • well,
    though you sing a song of praise (Tri-X 400 is my film of choice as well both in 135 and 120) the whole review is meaningless without mentioning the developer for your testing: pushin’ to 6400 yoh! Yes, but in what, for how long and with what agitation?! Things (aka Tri-X 400) look quite different in say D76, HC-110, Rodinal, DDX, SPUR HCD new or stand, semi-stand, intermittant development ins mall tanks or rotation???

    At least point the reader to digital truth’s massive development chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Kodak+Tri-X+400&Developer=&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C) for a truly jaw dropping amount of combinations of developers, ISO and development times/methods.

    A recommendation for a true black and white film makes only sense with reference to the developer/film framework.

    Cheers, Rolf

  • I cut my photographic teeth (over 40 years ago) with Tri-X Pan film, learning to take photographs with my Dad’s Retina IIc rangefinder then developing my work in D-76 developer. Tri-X Pan and the now discontinued and slower Plus-X Pan films were forgiving of exposure and development mistakes–perfect for learning.

    I don’t shoot much Tri-X these days. Your article nudges me to go out and buy some.

  • Nice article. TX/D76 is a great combination.

  • I would like to see a comparison between Tri-X and Ilfords XP2 Chromogenic. I’ve been using the latter for a few years now and like it.
    So, how about it someone?

  • I would wager that 95% of Tri-X is processed incorrectly (overdeveloped). Most of the so-called ‘character’ it is supposed to possess is due to this abuse. When exposed and processed approximately, the grain is all but invisible and contrast normal.

  • For years I’ve been shooting medium and large format T-Max 100, but I recently went back to Tri-X in a Minolta CLE. Wow!

Leave a Reply

Josh Solomon

Josh Solomon is a freelance writer and touring bassist living in Los Angeles. He has an affinity for all things analog. When not onstage, you can find him roaming around Southern California shooting film and humming a tune.

All stories by:Josh Solomon