November 2024 marked a special birthday, that being Kodak Tri-X! Tri-X is one of those iconic films from Eastman-Kodak that has made a mark on both photography and photographers with a classic black & white look, contrast and versatility. Ever since I first shot Tri-X, I loved the results. While I don’t use it that often, primarily due to the cost of a roll of the film, I got a roll with my AM/FM membership re-subscription and decided to take it out to the historic town of Dundas, Ontario, with my Maxxum 9 and the 20mm f/2.8 lens I rated the film slightly over at the classic ASA-320 and developed using 510-Pyro.
Unlike many film stocks in Kodak’s catalogue, Tri-X has changed only slightly since its initial release. While many point to November 1954 as the date of birth for Tri-X, it was initially released in 1940. But at that point, Tri-X only came in sheet films and was rated at ASA-200 for daylight and ASA-160 for tungsten light. At this point, Kodak’s fast film was Super-XX, and in 1954, Tri-X was introduced in roll film formats, replacing Super-XX. An interesting side note is that Super-XX was further refined. Today is the darling motion picture film stock, Eastman Double-X. As Super-XX Tri-X’s initial EI remained at ASA-200 (TX), this was increased around the 1960s to the familiar ASA-400 rating with Tri-X Pan (TXT). Since then, the film stock has only been updated slightly, improving the latitude and grain structure to allow for sharpness retention while ensuring finer grain. The last update came around 2007 with the release of 400TX. Also, a side note is that there was also a parallel version of Tri-X, which was rated at ASA-320 and was only available in 120/220 rolls and sheet film; today, it’s still available but in sheet film only and goes by the code 320TXP.
I’ve been using Tri-X for almost a decade and a half now if my records on Flickr are correct. The film stock caught my attention early on, even when I had the film developed at a lab. There’s a specific look and feel, the crunchy grain, the contrast, and the sharpness. While I was not too deep in photography, I quickly learned that this was the film of choice for many photojournalists and professionals. Tri-X promptly became my choice for travel, urban environments, events, and urban exploration. But what drew me into Tri-X was when I started developing my film at home. The roll of Tri-X I shot at the 2012 edition of Photostock was not the first roll I developed. It was probably the third from that trip, but it became my favourite. I used the roll to capture the people at the event using a Nikon F4 and my trusty 105mm f/2D lens, then developed the roll in HC-110 Dil. B for 4.5 minutes. While some of you may be screaming that I developed a roll of film for less than five minutes, the results were smooth at fresh butter. I was hooked on Tri-X and HC-110 and developing my black and white film at home. And it quickly spiraled as I shot it in 35mm, 120 and eventually 4×5! Fresh and expired rolls ran through my cameras, and I explored every possible way to develop and expose the film. I used 400TX for my second 52-roll project and 320TXP in 4×5 for another 52-sheet project, which saw me explore the film stock even more.
I tend to shy away from what is ‘best’ for a film, as anything to do with photography has much to do with personal preference and taste. But that is what makes Tri-X such an excellent film stock. It has enough latitude that you can expose and develop it to match your personal tastes and final vision for the photos. However, as I have a lot of data about my habits in both shooting and development, Of all the roles that I developed myself, the developer I used the most was Kodak HC-110 between 2012 and 2015. Since then, things have been all over the place with developers like D-76, D-23, Xtol, and Pyro developers. There is a smattering of other developers but nothing to indicate a pattern. That being said, some of the best developers remain Kodak HC-110/Ilfotec HC or any clone versions of this developer. If you’re looking for a classic fine-grain look, especially if under-exposing and pushing the film, then LegacyPro Mic-X but with sacrificing some edge sharpness. If you want to retain the edge sharpness, think about Kodak Xtol (or clones) or Ilford Microphen. Other choices for this sort of processing include Accufine and Diafine. Tri-X also responds wonderfully to pyro-based developers, PMK Pyro, Pyrocat-HD and 510-Pyro; the film takes the staining action wonderfully and shows off the latitude of the film stock. I even like Tri-X in Rodinal when over-exposed by a stop; it is beautiful for portraits. There are fewer developers that Tri-X doesn’t like, and it is perhaps the worst of them in Kodak D-96. It made the final results flat rather than the rich contrast I’m used to out of Tri-X.
You don’t have to shoot Tri-X if you don’t want to; that being said, it might be a good idea to try it at least once if you’re a film and film photography fan. Tri-X is the classic fast film that made its name through the mid-century. It was used by journalists, artists and more. It gives a classic look with a classic grain structure. While it has undergone moderate changes throughout its career, the 400TX of today is a high-water mark for classic Kodak films. It is the only B&W traditional-grained film left in their catalogue. Shooting Tri-X won’t make your images legendary; it might inspire you to explore the medium further, to build on the foundation of those photographers, both known and unknown, who used it to capture some of history’s most significant events. I have always found that black & white helps me see the world better and gives me a lot of forgiveness when my exposure is not perfect. No matter the conditions, I know I can make Tri-X work. While one roll is never enough to get a line on what a film can do, you can at least say I’ve shot it once.
Tri-X is such a flexible film; you can make it do whatever you want by adjusting how you expose, meter, and develop it. While it may not be the cheapest 400-speed film on the market, I don’t shoot it as often as I used to because of that. When I want results and results that work, it will be my number one choice for weddings and events. The simple matter is that photography is expensive. If you want the results you have in your mind, cost won’t matter because it’s the results that matter. If you are looking for alternatives that give similar results, then Ilford HP5+ and Kentmere 400 are at the top of your mind. But if you’re going for that pre-2007, closer to 1970s Tri-X, then the Fomapan 400 will be your stock. While I have yet to determine when I’ll produce it, I look forward to reshooting Tri-X for a video review! And if you’re curious, you can check out my past two 52 projects with Tri-X over on Flickr, 400TX:365 and 52:320TXP.