My Journey with Tri-X 400

For over a decade, I've almost exclusively used Kodak Tri-X 400 as my black and white film of choice. I've extensively written about it and shared my approach to shooting Tri-X, and black and white film in general, in great detail. Having shot over a thousand rolls of Tri-X 400 in the last 15 years, I feel intimately familiar with this film stock. I've always been drawn to its beautiful tonality, versatility, grain structure, and the incredible exposure latitude Tri-X offers. When everything aligns, Tri-X reveals a richness and depth unmatched by any other stock I've ever encountered. And after shooting it for so many years, I've also noticed significant changes in Tri-X over time.

Discovering Double-X 5222

When my friend Mike Caputo, owner of The Hawaii Darkroom, suggested we split a 400-foot roll of Kodak Double-X 5222 motion picture film, I was reluctant at first. I questioned whether it would be worth the time and effort to invest in learning about a new film stock, since I was so content with Tri-X. I looked around for a little bit, and found only a handful of people out there sharing work made with Double-X, but the look of some of those results was intriguing. I had never shot this film before and was curious how it would compare to Tri-X. Mike also had the idea for a fun project: exploring 5222 jointly, comparing our experiences from coast to coast and sharing details on how we expose and develop the film with other photographers around the world. I was excited to be part of it, and we launched our website a few weeks later.

*Leica M2 + Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 (Kodak Double X in D-76, overexposed by 4-5 stops, overdeveloped by ~1 stop)*

First Impressions and Experiments

After receiving the film, I immediately started shooting Double-X in a variety of scenes and lighting conditions and began testing it with different exposure and development times. The information available on Double-X beyond Kodak’s motion picture guidelines is sparse. I was surprised that it did indeed look, feel, and behave oddly familiar. Double-X processed in D-76 brought back memories of how Tri-X 400 used to be, just with slightly finer grain. It specifically reminded me a lot of Kodak Tri-X 320, which I still regularly shoot in 4x5. Unfortunately, Kodak discontinued Tri-X 320 in 35mm format over a decade ago and today it's only available as sheet film for large format photography. So I compared, researched, looked at data sheets, and studied tonal transitions and grain structure in my images, just to come to one conclusion:

Could it be possible that Tri-X 320 in 35mm format is still very much alive... as a motion picture stock?

*Leica M2 + Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 (Kodak Double X in D-76, overexposed by ~2 stops, overdeveloped by ~1 stop)*

Historical Context

Let's rewind for a moment. The timeline of Kodak film stocks provides an interesting context for the evolution and relationship between different film emulsions. Introduced before World War II, Kodak Super-XX served as a high-speed option of its time. Released in 1954, Tri-X quickly gained popularity among photojournalists and other photographers for its higher speed and finer grain, compared to its predecessors. The discontinuation of Super-XX in rolls following the release of Tri-X suggests it was seen as an improved replacement.

Developed from the Super-XX formula in the late 1950s and refined to reduce grain coarseness, Double-X 5222 became a staple for motion picture film. Its enduring presence since 1959 without any significant changes underlines its reliability and the quality of the original refinement as well as its timeless classic look.

This historical overview suggests Tri-X and Double-X 5222 have a shared lineage, tracing back to the Super-XX formula. The modifications made for still photography (Tri-X) and motion pictures (Double-X) likely diverged from this common origin, implying that their core compositions could be similar, with possible adaptations tailored to meet their respective market requirements. The evolution from Super-XX to Tri-X and Double-X indicates a shift towards a finer-grained, higher-speed film that could be used across different formats.

Changes in Tri-X 400

Kodak has made several adjustments to the formulation of Tri-X 400 over its history, including changes to its silver content. One significant update occurred in 2007, when Kodak extensively re-engineered Tri-X, resulting in a finer-grained film and a reduction in the amount of silver used in the emulsion. This update also included a change in the designation of the film to 400TX from its previous labels of TX or TX400. These changes were marketed as an improvement of the film's performance and adapting to the evolving needs of photographers.

Industry Shifts, Insights and Speculations

It's obviously speculative that the reasons behind these engineering efforts might have been much-needed cost reductions as Kodak was struggling with the transition to digital photography, and with the price of silver quadrupling from approximately $4.80 per ounce in 1990 to over $20 in 2010.

I was curious if other photographers had made similar observations and found an interview with renowned black and white film photographer Sebastião Salgado. Salgado, particularly known for his use of Kodak Tri-X 400, stated in the German publication 'Der Tagesspiegel' (09/2008, 'Da, wo es wehtut') that he's transitioning to digital photography because of the diminished quality in black and white films:

"The quality of films has declined drastically. In the past, black and white films had a high silver content. But silver is expensive. Twenty years ago, the quality of a 35mm negative was better than today's medium format quality, which is three and a half times as large. You can immediately see this in older prints."

It would make sense to leave a successful emulsion untouched for the movie industry despite higher manufacturing costs, simply because of much higher sales volumes and likely higher margins. Studios need more than 16,000 feet of film for a single 90-minute movie and there is no overhead for retail sales regarding motion picture stocks.

A manufacturer's intended purpose for a film doesn't inherently change the emulsion's properties. The physical and chemical makeup of the film is what defines its characteristics, not its intended use. Despite being targeted at different markets - one for still photography and the other for motion picture - this suggests that the core emulsion of 320TX and 5222 is very similar, if not the same.

However, Kodak has not officially stated that these films are the same, and differences in coating, base, or manufacturing processes can result in variations in performance and characteristics. Imagine comparing bottled Coke to fountain Coke - it's a very similar product but not an identical one. Likewise, I wouldn't necessarily assume Tri-X 400 is or ever was the same exact film even in 35mm, 120, and 4x5 formats. While they may share some visual similarities, any differences in the emulsion or physical structure can lead to distinct behaviors under various conditions, such as differences in exposure latitude, response to development, or handling.

Considering that Kodak's main sales are predominantly driven by motion picture and not still photography, discontinuing 320TX in 35mm and 120 to not compete with 400TX and not offering 400TX in more formats would make sense. It's well-known that maintaining a variety of distinct emulsions is costly and inefficient, particularly for a company that has faced the enormous financial pressures Kodak has in the digital age. Streamlining production to fewer emulsions, which can be rebranded or repackaged for different market segments, would be a logical cost-saving measure. This could mean that Kodak might produce a single black and white emulsion that is versatile enough to be marketed both as 320TX for the photography market and as Double-X 5222 for motion picture use.

*Leica M2 + Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 (Kodak Double X in D-76, underexposed by ~1 stop, overdeveloped by ~1 stop)*

As I mentioned earlier, the visual results of 320TX and Double-X 5222 are remarkably similar. If differences aren't perceivable in the final image's grain, contrast, and tonal range, it suggests that the films might indeed share the same or very similar emulsion. Given that the final product is what matters most to users, this similarity in output is a strong argument for the films being essentially identical. Kodak, like many companies, doesn't disclose the specific formulas of their film emulsions and since Double-X is not intended for still photography, I couldn't exactly compare technical data sheets for the same process (Kodak recommends D-96, not D-76 for Double-X). This makes it difficult to definitively prove or disprove the films are the same.

Kodak's discontinuation of 320TX in popular formats like 35mm and 120 could be seen as a move to consolidate their product line. If 320TX and Double-X 5222 are indeed the same, focusing on one product (especially one used in the niche but stable market of motion picture film) might be a strategic way to reduce costs while still catering to all their market segments.

Technical Considerations

In exploring the similarities between Kodak 320TX (Tri-X) and Double-X 5222, particularly when processed with D-76, several technical aspects underscore the possibility of their identical nature. Both films exhibit distinct ISO ratings, 320TX at ISO 320 and Double-X at ISO 250, yet perform similarly under various lighting conditions, suggesting a close match in sensitivity and speed. Their fine grain structure and high resolving power further hint at a shared emulsion formula, producing sharp images with fine grain that are characteristic of high-quality film stocks.

Moreover, Tri-X and Double-X demonstrate wide exposure latitude and contrast ratios, effectively managing diverse lighting scenarios and reproducing a broad range of tones. This similarity extends to their spectral sensitivity, with both films showing strong responses in the blue and red regions, implying a comparable emulsion composition. My testing, including pushing Double-X to ISO 3200, has shown no significant differences in image quality, grain structure, or tonality compared to 320TX.

The consistent response of both films to push and pull processing across various ISO settings, along with the similarity in their characteristic curves during development, suggests a capable and flexible emulsion used in both. This comprehensive comparison reveals that 320TX and Double-X not only share visual characteristics but also align closely in technical properties such as grain, contrast, and spectral sensitivity, reinforcing the theory that they might indeed be identical films processed under identical conditions.

*Leica M2 + Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 (Kodak Double X in D-76, underexposed by ~3 stops, pushed by ~3 stops)*

Conclusion

While there is no public statement from Kodak (I have reached out to my point of contact for confirmation and not received a reply) that 320TX and Double-X 5222 are the same, the similarities in their handling, tonality, grain, spectral sensitivity, and response to push development make a compelling case that they could share the same emulsion or at least very similar ones. If both films exhibit virtually identical results when processed under the same conditions, it strengthens the argument that they are, for all practical intents and purposes, the same film repackaged for different market segments.

However, without Kodak’s confirmation, this remains a theory supported by circumstantial evidence and user experience rather than definitive proof. Comparing Kodak's near identical spec sheets for their color reversal film Ektachrome E100 to the motion picture equivalent Ektachrome 100D, I would venture a guess this strategy isn't specific to just Double-X.

For me, personally, this is very exciting and unexpected news. Double-X will replace Tri-X 400 in 35mm format for me going forward. The higher silver content brings back an aesthetic that I love and thought was long lost in smaller formats. And how often does it happen for modern film photographers that we actually get something back that we thought was forever gone? And not only do we get it back, we get it back at a significant discount. A roll of Double-X currently sells for less than half of the price of Tri-X 400.

The discovery that 320TX and Double-X 5222 could potentially be the same film opens up exciting possibilities for photographers who appreciate the classic aesthetics of black and white film. It encourages us to look beyond labels and marketing, to experiment and explore with the tools available to us, and to find our own conclusions in the art and science of photography. Let this revelation inspire you to delve deeper into the world of film photography, to experiment with both Tri-X and Double-X 5222 yourself, and to draw your own conclusions based on your creative vision and technical preferences.

All images in this post were taken with a Leica M2 on Kodak Double-X 5222.

The Shared Soul of Kodak’s Legends