Film comparison
Kodak Double-X 5222 vs Kodak Tri-X 400
- Tri-X 400 is 0.7 stops faster (ISO 400 vs 250).
- Tri-X 400 is more forgiving of exposure errors.
- Tri-X 400 is cheaper in 35mm (about £11.00 vs £12.00).
Side by side
| Double-X 5222 | Tri-X 400 | |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Kodak | Kodak |
| Type | Black & white | Black & white |
| Box speed | ISO 250 | ISO 400 |
| Process | B&W | B&W |
| Formats | 35mm, bulk-100ft | 35mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10 |
| Grain | Medium | Medium |
| Contrast | Medium high | High |
| Latitude | Good | Excellent |
| Saturation | — | — |
| Price, 35mm | about £12.00 | about £11.00 |
| Price, 120 | — | about £11.00 |
| Availability | Current | Current |
Rows that differ are in bold. Prices are typical UK prices and change often.
How they look
- Double-X 5222
- Classic cinema negative stock with a distinctive look. Medium grain with good tonal range and moderate contrast. Widely used in still photography for its cinematic rendering.
- Tri-X 400
- A classic photojournalism film with a long heritage. Known for its distinctive gritty grain, high contrast, and strong push-processing capability.
Which suits what
Better pick: Double-X 5222
Cinematic look, Bulk loading
Both work well
Street photography
Better pick: Tri-X 400
Documentary, Push processing
Long exposures (reciprocity)
| Metered | Double-X 5222 | Tri-X 400 |
|---|---|---|
| 1s | 1s | 1s |
| 10s | 25s | 35s |
| 30s | 2m 11s | 3m 8s |
| 2m | 10m | 26m 32s |
Corrected exposure from each film’s published reciprocity data. Reciprocity calculator
Developing both
Developers with published times for both films: