comparison
Kodak Tri-X 400 vs Ilford Delta 3200
Push Tri-X, or use a fast film?
The same photograph, same exposure, both looks at full strength. See the untouched original.
The difference
A common real-world decision: you are losing light and can either push the Tri-X already in the camera or load something faster. Pushed Tri-X gains contrast and keeps its hard-edged grain — it stays legible and gets more graphic. Delta 3200 goes the other way: bigger, softer grain, lower contrast, blooming highlights and grey shadows. One gets punchier, the other gets dreamier.
Which to use
Tri-X 400 (+1, +2)
When you still want contrast and definition in the dark.
Delta 3200
When you want atmosphere and the grain to be part of the picture.
Side by side
| Kodak Tri-X 400 | Ilford Delta 3200 | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | black & white | black & white |
| Maker | Kodak | Ilford |
| Speed | ISO 400 | ISO 3200 |
| Produced | 1954–present | 1998–present |
| Renderings here | 6 | 5 |
| Download | .cube | .cube |
Try Kodak Tri-X 400 on your photo → Try Ilford Delta 3200
A comparison on somebody else's reference photograph only tells you so much. Both of these render on your image in the tool, alongside the other 294.