Kodak Tri-X 400 vs Ilford HP5 Plus

Updated October 14, 2026 · 8 figures compared

Tri-X 400 and HP5 Plus are the two classic ISO 400 black-and-white negatives. In one side-by-side test, Tri-X came out darker and more contrasty and HP5 Plus flatter, with more detail in the shadows E1; Analog.cafe also credits HP5 Plus with more shadow detail than Tri-X B6. Their grain cannot be compared on paper: Kodak publishes a diffuse RMS granularity of 17 for Tri-X, Harman no figure at all for HP5 Plus A1 B1.

A GA — 003 Black and white

KodakTri-X 400

In production

Film sheet Preset GA — 003 / P

B GA — 001 Black and white

IlfordHP5 Plus

In production

Film sheet Preset GA — 001 / P

Compare other films

From the Kodak Tri-X 400 sheet, on Ilford HP5 Plus: “The other classic ISO 400: flatter than Tri-X and with more shadow detail in a side-by-side test”
From the Ilford HP5 Plus sheet, on Kodak Tri-X 400: “The other classic ISO 400: more contrast in side-by-side tests, and a published RMS of 17”

Side by side

3 of 8 rows differ · 1 not published

Jump to the renderings

Kodak Tri-X 400 and Ilford HP5 Plus, documented figures side by side
Identity
	A Kodak Tri-X 400	B Ilford HP5 Plus
Brand Differs	Kodak	Ilford
Manufacturer Differs	Eastman Kodak	Harman technology
Type Same	Both Black and white
Process Same	Both B&W
ISO Same	Both 400
Formats Differs	135, 120	135, 120, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10
Both are listed in 120 and 135. Only Ilford HP5 Plus is listed in 4×5 sheets, 5×7 sheets and 8×10 sheets.
Status Same	Both In productionchecked September 29, 2026 [A3]: source 3 of Kodak Tri-X 400 [B2]: source 2 of Ilford HP5 Plus
Character
Grain Not published for B	RMS granularity 1748 µm, 1.0 above minimum density, HC-110 (B), 20 °C [A1]: source 1 of Kodak Tri-X 400	No RMS figure published; reviews disagree on Tri-X vs HP5
Only Kodak Tri-X 400 has a grain figure on its datasheet. [A1]: source 1 of Kodak Tri-X 400
Contrast	Bold, per reviews; Kodak's development times target a contrast index of 0.56	Medium (Emulsive, quoting Ilford); reviews range from low to high
Latitude	One stop under at normal development; push to EI 1600 or 3200	EI 400 to 3200 with adjusted development (Harman)
Resolving power	Not given (Kodak: 'high resolving power'); MTF curve published [A1]: source 1 of Kodak Tri-X 400	Not given; no MTF curve published [B1]: source 1 of Ilford HP5 Plus
Reciprocity	No correction from 1/100 to 1/10 s; +1 stop at 1 s, +2 at 10 s, +3 at 100 s, with shorter development [A1]: source 1 of Kodak Tri-X 400	No correction from 1/10,000 to ½ s; beyond, adjusted time = metered time^1.31 [B1]: source 1 of Ilford HP5 Plus
Look	Contrasty black and white with deep blacks and visible grain	Subtle tones and visible grain; skies lighter than the eye sees them
Best for	Dim light, fast action, depth of field (Kodak)	Action, documentary and available light (Ilford)
Datasheet and preset
Datasheet	F-4017, edition 2021-10 (PDF)	HP5 Plus Technical Information, edition 2018-11
Spectral curve	Published	Published
Preset	GA — 003 / P · darktable and Photomator	GA — 001 / P · darktable and Photomator
Both have a preset.

Source numbers carry the film: A3 is source 3 of Kodak Tri-X 400, B3 is source 3 of Ilford HP5 Plus. Not published: none of the sources on file gives this figure.

Same scene, two presets

SceneBeach cabinBeech forest

Beach cabin under storm clouds, with the preset inspired by Kodak Tri-X 400 (GA — 003 / P) applied, in black and white (simulation). — **A · GA — 003 / P** · Kodak Tri-X 400

Beach cabin under storm clouds, with the preset inspired by Ilford HP5 Plus (GA — 001 / P) applied, in black and white (simulation). — **B · GA — 001 / P** · Ilford HP5 Plus

The same beach cabin under storm clouds, base development without a preset. — **Reference** · base development, no preset

Same RAW file, two presets · rendered in darktable 5.6 · simulations on a digital RAW, not film scansPhoto: seume on discuss.pixls.us, CC0 1.0 · Photo credits

Both images start from the same RAW file, with the same base development: darktable’s default exposure and sigmoid. Each side then has one The Grain Archive preset applied. They show our interpretation of each film, not scans of real negatives. Real film also depends on exposure, processing and scanning.

Tonality

Contrast. In Amy Elizabeth’s test for Shoot It With Film, “Tri-X rendered the grey backdrop a little darker and seemed to have a wider tonal range” in the studio; outdoors in diffused light, HP5 Plus and T-Max 400 were “both a little flatter than I like” E1. Emulsive gets “a medium contrast result” from HP5 Plus at box speed B5.
Where the contrast sits. Reading the published curves, 35mmc’s Aukje concluded that “Tri-X will display more contrast in the highlights, where HP5+ will give more contrast in the shadows” B12.
Shadows and harsh light. In the same test, HP5 Plus was “the winner again for the details in the shadows” in backlight, and in harsh light metered for the highlights, “nothing appears clipped” E1. Analog.cafe agrees that HP5 Plus shadows “retain more detail than many comparable films (including Tri-X)” B6; Casual Photophile finds that it “retains less shadow detail than other films in its segment” B7.
Development sets the contrast. Kodak’s starting-point times for Tri-X target a contrast index of 0.56 A1, and Harman publishes a curve for HP5 Plus in one developer only B1: either film can look flatter or harder depending on the developer and the time.

Grain

Kodak calls Tri-X’s RMS of 17 “fine” A1. Harman publishes no granularity, resolving power or MTF figure for HP5 Plus B1.
Reviewers split. Tri-X is “much grittier/grainer” (sic) for Emulsive B5, and HP5 Plus has “a more subdued grain profile” for Analogue Wonderland B11; Analog.cafe, on the contrary, guesses “based on looks alone” that HP5 Plus is “slightly grittier than Kodak Tri-X 400” B6.

Which one for what

Kodak publishes push times for Tri-X at EI 1600 and 3200 A1. Harman rates HP5 Plus from EI 400 to 3200 with extended development, a range it says comes from practical evaluation rather than the ISO method B1.
HP5 Plus is also made in sheet film B1. Tri-X 400 comes in 35 mm and 120; Kodak’s sheet film is Tri-X 320, a different film A3 A1.
The test did not settle on a favorite (“Nope”), but next time Amy Elizabeth “just might” grab Tri-X for studio work, and HP5 Plus when harsh light is expected E1.

Real film, side by side

Amy Elizabeth shot the three films in a Nikon F100, FE and N80, “all at ISO 400 and metered for shadows” except in backlight and harsh light, in seven lighting setups from a studio strobe to harsh light, then developed them and scanned them on a Noritsu LS-600 E1. Amy Elizabeth warns that the findings rest on “a very small sample size of 36 shots” E1. The Darkroom B9, Analogue Wonderland B11 and 35mmc B12 B13 have also compared the two films.