Fine grain. Pushes well. Fairly high contrast.

Highlights blow out.

I keep trying this film, but I keep going back to Ilford HP5 Plus for the broader tonal range and smoother look. Still, for certain subjects, T-Max can really make an image pop. If you like this film, you might also try Ilford Delta 400 - the differences are subtle and interesting.

Customer Service

All Kodak films benefit from the information on Kodak's website - there is lots of great technical information there if you dig around for it.

Similar Products Used:

Ilford Delta 400, HP5 Plus.

* nothing special

* long clearing time for pink film-base dye

I’ve used Delta 400 for a couple of years, but now that I’ve discovered Xtol developer I went back to take another look at the competition.

I did a comparison of 35mm Agfa APX 400, Kodak T-Max 400, Tri-X, Ilford HP5 and Ilford Delta 400. G2; Zeiss lenses; TTL exposures at 400 with brackets at 200 and 800. Processing in Kodak Xtol for Kodak’s recommended times minus 10% (which has been my standard for Delta in the past). Negs were examined as a 2700 dpi scan (equivalent to a 37” x 56” enlargement on screen) for graininess, sharpness, overall tonality and the proverbial highlight “blocking.”

TMax and Delta 400 were very slightly sharper than the “traditional-chemistry” films, resolving extremely fine detail like distant tree branches or clothing threads just a tad better than the others. They had grain that was extremely fine, but also very visible.

Tri-X and HP5 had the smoothest (almost invisible) grain, but resolved a little less fine detail, almost as if they had been slightly blurred by a PhotoShop™ filter - maybe just their thicker emulsions acting as diffusers during the scan? (Actually the HP5 fell sort of between Tri-X and Delta 400 - with more visible grain/sharpness than TX and less than the T-grain films).

The Agfa 400 had the most grain, and slightly less sharpness than TMax/HP5, but it was not as grainy as Tri-X developed in D-76, and certainly acceptable.

All the films exhibited SOME compression of highlight tones, but this is typical of my scanner. The TMax and Delta 400 highlights were slightly more compressed, but not all that different.

The biggest difference I saw was in shadow separation - Tri-X and HP-5 were clearly better than the others at drawing out shadow details, with AGFA APX 400 right behind them. Based on shadow detail, I’d have to rate TMax and Delta 400 at 200, Tri-X and HP5 at 400, and Agfa 400 at 320 using this developer/meter combination.

Conclusion: At print sizes of 6x9 inches or 9x13 inches you will probably see very little difference in sharpness or grain among these five films. The best of these films with poor developing (especially overdevelopment) will look a lot worse than the worst of these films with good processing, especially with Xtol.

At least processed in Xtol, Delta 400 and T-Max will have either a little less highlight detail or a little less shadow detail depending on exposure, while the “old technology” films will have somewhat more tonal range and smoother grain at the cost of a little sharpness.

Based on these tests I'll be experimenting more with HP5, but the differences really were very small.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Tri-X, Ilford Delta 400/HP5, Agfa APX 400

can be picked up at a local wall-mart. Good performance, and good grain

may be too grainy for some situations

Although the grain in this film is more pronounced than I usually like it seems to add character to my photos. Being speed 400 It works very well for indoor available light photgraphy.

Customer Service

not needed

Similar Products Used:

none

Great range of tones, good contrast, good depth for black and white

sometimes hard to find, grainier than Tri-X at the same speed, tricky to process

This is a great black and white film. Better range of tones than Tri-X, can give that "old film" look. Slightly grainier than other 400 speed film.

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

Tri-X

Handles pushing well.

A truly ugly film in 35mm, only suitable for 120 and sheet film sizes. Awful micro contrast, messy and thoroughly unattractive grain pattern at high enlargement rates.

The worst 400ISO film on the market. It can compete with neither the tonal scale of APX400 nor the desirable aesthetic qualities of Tri-X.

Similar Products Used:

Agfa APX400, Kodak Tri-X400.

I used TMax 400 for several years for everything from indoor college basketball to shots of President Clinton, and I never had many complaints. It offers a pretty fine result in terms of grain, but I have noticed that that can depend on some processing variables. I have heard that Ilford 400 and TriX are better, but I haven't tried them.

The only things I can think of is that this film does produce high contrast shots. As mentioned, it sometimes comes out grainy in processing. I would recommend using TMax developer.

I like it. It is my tried-and-true choice for B/W photography, but that doesn't mean other similar films aren't better.

Similar Products Used:

None

i like this product because of its ease of use, and because of the near perfectly balanced contrast it gives

few and far between...easily scratched

good overall film for B&W photography, especially for the do-it-yourselfer

Similar Products Used:

None

I don't. I know this is a minority opinion, and I'm basing it on only a single experience. But after a lifetime of experience with b/w films, I think I know where I'm coming from. I used this film exactly according to directions and developed it in D-76 1:1 exactly according to directions... see "Problems" for results.

While the sharpness and resolution was indeed better than similar speed films like Tri-X and the tonal scale was very rich, the contrast was EXTREMELY high and the grain was actually more prominent than in Tri-X! (It may be that D-76 isn't a good choice for this film - although it is for T-Max 100, which should be very similar - but I still think two of Kodak's premiere b/w products that are *recommended for use together* should produce the advertized results!) I see virtually no benefit over good old Tri-X.

Others rave about this film, but I usually do better with Tri-X. If I need finer grain/higher sharpness, I use Plus-X, Agfapan APX 100, or T-Max 100.

Customer Service

Kodak is generally aces in this department, not that I questioned them about this.

Similar Products Used:

Tri-X, which I've used for over 30 years.