There are a few reasons it’s taken me so long to become comfortable with shooting Tri-X, and I thought it might be useful to share these, both so that I can understand my process more coherently (as with most of my writing), and also to potentially help anyone along their film journey as well.

I started my journey in film photography in late 2016, and have since been working my way through the various film stocks I can get my hands on; in production, expired, experimental or alternative. Kodak Tri-X is usually at the top of most peoples list for films to work with, so when I recently loaded my first ever roll, three years after I started with film, it gave me pause for thought.

Tri-X has a heritage in photography the same way that there is a heritage in brands like Leica and Nikon.

Back when I started I simply didn’t appreciate what black and white could offer my images in the first place. I had been shooting on fully digital, fully colour sensors, and would only use black and white when shooting in very low light, or when I needed to save something with particularly unflattering colours, for example a subject blown out by harsh neon lights.

I was still learning my tastes, and absolutely had black-and-white-exclusive photographers I respected; for example Fan Ho, Walter Rothwell, Alan Schaller, or Larry Louie. Although I wanted to be influenced by these artists I couldn’t yet find peace with giving up on making images more accurate to reality, which meant using colour.

However when it came to shooting film I imagined it would be something fun and fulfilling, but ultimately unimportant. After my first roll of film ever, AGFA 200 Poundland film, I decided that I would reserve my film photography to be a black and white only pursuit. I did this to maintain a distinction between my film and digital work, and also to cultivate a “film mind-set” which would be different to the way I would create exposures digitally.

The first ever black and white roll of film I ever shot was ILFORD HP5 PLUS through my Leica CL. I knew HP5 PLUS from it’s earlier form as HPS [1], used by Bruce Davidson while photographing the civil rights movement; but the main reason I chose to try it first was that it was cheap. My first rolls were nothing special, but I eventually made this image which I was really happy with – but importantly I knew that there was nothing about this scene I would have enjoyed if I had shot it in colour.

I knew that if I reinforced this positive association I might lose motivation to continue trying new emulsions, so with that in mind I started to examine other options and discovered XP2, which quickly became my go-to for black and white photography. At this point I was aware of Tri-X as a valid option, but was still avoiding it. I don’t think I was actively choosing not to shoot with it, but there are a few factors I am aware of now that may have been subconscious then.

Tri-X has a very “classic” look, well defined after decades of incredible results by incredible photographers. I know that if I had shot with Tri-X to begin with it would have lent that aesthetic to my work, and defined my results in a way that perhaps I wasn’t comfortable with. I want to be present in all aspects of my photography, not simply leaning on what’s been tried and tested.

Advocacy within the community is very important to me, especially considering that I hold a teaching position myself.

Tri-X has a heritage in photography the same way that there is a heritage in brands like Leica and Nikon, and an association with classic photojournalism and reportage. There is a gravity and iconography to Tri-X, and some would say it’s the definitive black and white “look.”

Rather than simply adopting that look I wanted to see if perhaps one of the underdogs had something to offer me – or more importantly what I could offer to it. There are so many different ways to shoot and develop black and white film, so many options when it comes to over/under exposure, pull/push development, and the development chemicals themselves. Somewhere in this combination I was sure I would discover my own aesthetic.

I was also aware at this point that there was more to film photography than simply shooting different rolls from different brands. There is a whole analogue community, passionately sharing and teaching everything to do with film photography. I had to find out where I fit in within this community, and work out how best to share my work to educate and inspire others, but also to promote myself.

Ilford therefore became my brand of choice. I’ve not only enjoyed shooting the majority of what Ilford have to offer with their film but also been able to reach out to an audience through them by sharing my work and opinion pieces on their blog. This helped me to find a voice for myself in the film community, and also discover other artists as well.

Ilford puts out some really fantastic content which helps people pick up all aspects of film photography, including exposure, development, and darkroom printing – really valuable resources. Compare this with another “leading” brand, Fujifilm, who seem to be focused on their digital systems, offering less and less to support film and film photographers. Kodak does far more in terms of community but still lacks a platform similar to the Ilford blog (that I’ve been able to find) to offer a resource for photographers to share their work and educate others.

Advocacy within the community is very important to me, especially considering that I hold a teaching position myself, and want to do my best to support my students, other photographers, and specifically film photographers.

By trying as many options as possible I’ve been able to discover that films I probably wouldn’t have previously considered, like Delta 400, have a “look” that really works for the work I applied it to. It was more valuable to me to test these films in person as opposed to simply analysing examples online because the conditions I shoot in and the way I prefer to expose are different to other photographers. By testing them myself I was able to feel out the edges, push them to the extreme (literally) and make my informed decision.

I’ve even been able to take what I’ve learned from the way that black and white photography operates on film and transpose it to my digital work, altering the way I would expose for an image I knew I would want to edit as black and white in order to get the results I want – and am actually happy with for once!

After all of this experimentation it didn’t feel like that much of a commitment to buy a few rolls of Tri-X. I was looking forward to its versatility and latitude for push development – I’ve seen perfectly fine results up to 10,000 from other artists. I decided to push my first roll to 6400, and the second I shot at box speed.

I’m quite happy with the pushed results; the contrast is very distinct compared to examples at 400. Hopefully I’ll continue to use Tri-X alongside my other black and white films, and apply the same level of scrutiny to the way it changes the way I shoot. My black and white photography will evolve and continue to inform the way I work in colour, and vice versa. I may produce images I enjoy with Tri-X and I may not – what matters is that I am constantly adapting to make different things work for me, and see how I can change myself to allow new ways of creating into my workflow.

~ Simon


[1] EM here. I reached out to the lovely folks at ILFORD about their HPS film/plates and they were kind enough to send me a few bits and pieces from Photomemorabilia:

1952: ILFORD introduces high-speed HPS plates in time for press work during the 1953 Coronation Year. HPS was introduced as the fastest plate in the world. They were rated at 400 ASA including a speed safety factor (printed on the box) or 800 ASA if you ignored the factor

1953: HPS sheet film was introduced in 1953, a year after HPS plates, making it the fastest sheet film in the world at that time at 400 Weston (=ASA=ISO; but only after the introduction of the Weston Master III in 1956). The 400 Weston included a “Safety Factor” of one stop, and experienced photographers processing their own films could safely expose HPS at 800 ASA (ISO) when using the Ilford developers ID-2 or ID-11, but not ID-48. ID-48 was an “Extra Fine Grain” developer, and its extra fine grain development decreased the emulsion speed by half a stop.

A further gain in speed was possible by developing the film in Ilford Microphen developer when the film speed could be increased to 1,200ASA (ISO). Some photographers found they could expose at even higher speeds with extended development times in Microphen depending on the amount of shadow detail required.

Manufacture of HPS film in all formats ceased by 1971, but it was still possible to find out-dated boxes of HPS sheet film offered for sale at surplus photographic material dealers, such as A.W. Young, Marston and Heard, plus others, in the late 1970s.

It is believed the highest speed film on the market prior to HPS was Eastman Kodak’s “Super Panchro Press – Sports Type”, a sheet film with an ASA (ISO) speed of 250. The 250 rating included the usual (for the time) “Safety Factor” of one stop, such that its true speed was 500ASA (ISO). “Super Panchro Press – Sports Type” was only made in sheet film format and was only available in the USA.

Share your knowledge, story or project

The transfer of knowledge across the film photography community is the heart of EMULSIVE. You can add your support by contributing your thoughts, work, experiences and ideas to inspire the hundreds of thousands of people who read these pages each month. Check out the submission guide here.

If you like what you're reading you can also help this passion project by heading over to the EMULSIVE Patreon page and contributing as little as a dollar a month. There's also print and apparel over at Society 6, currently showcasing over two dozen t-shirt designs and over a dozen unique photographs available for purchase.

About the author

Simon King

Simon is a London based photographer and photojournalist. He is currently working on long term personal projects, and has been shooting on 35mm film since late 2016. You can follow his work on Instagram, or read his personal blog, both linked below.

, and please make sure you also check out their website here.

Join the Conversation



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I sign up to the Daniel Milnor, Stuart Franklin (of the notorious Tiananmen Square ‘Tank Man’ image fame), Don Mccullin (my mentor as a young documentary photographer I’m honoured to say) and others when they say: (quoting Milnor) “films are like languages, pick ONE, the more you speak, the better you’ll get.”

    For the past 37 years I’ve shot just two films, this is it, just two, both as photojournalist (Life, Nat Geo, New European, Zone, Culture Mag) and as a documentary photographer. Ilford HP5, and T-Max 3200 (from 1989 onward or so). I can count on just the one hand the amount of times I’ve shot in colour, and every time was with Fuji Pro 400H, which itself didn’t even come out until (if memory serves) 2004 or 05, so, shows how interested I am in colour.

    To anyone reading, pick a film, just one, and learn it inside and out or you will never develop that intense consistency that will really set you apart.
    I’d highly recommend this from Daniel Milnor, but be warned, he points out you’re an amateur if you’re continually analysing this film, then that film, and it’s more about what film you’re using than the damn story in front of you, the project you’re working on. He says these things and people get offended by it, but sorry, he’s right. If you’re doing that, you’re an amateur. However, with that in mind, here he is:

    Great article by the way. Tri X was the first film I was issued when I worked for Rolling Stone in the 80s, brilliant, brilliant film. For me personally, I grew tired of it’s punchiness and wanted something that was more versatile overall in the early 90s and that was when I switched to Ilford and started to work for myself, rather than as a staffer.Still though, there’s no doubting Tri X, it’s proven itself time and again. After all, a film doesn’t survive as long as Tri X has without building a strong following.

    1. Used Panatomic x for ages, than changed to Agfapan 100 and stuck to it for 20 years until its disappearance. Roll film: always Tri-x and 35 mm Agfa 400. Film developer : Rodinal, for 50 years. always 1:75.
      “Stick to it” is a very good advice.

  2. I prefer HP5 as the details in the dark & mids are retained, while Tri-X has that muddy dark look. But to each their own hey…keep shooting Symo!

    1. If your Tri-X images are muddy, you may be either exposing or processing it incorrectly.