What's your best super-low light formula for small formats?

[cobalt]

Don't know if this has enough oomph for you. I didn't really use a meter on these, but I did use Tri X 320. Pushed to about... 1600-3200 I suppose? This is with a twin lens... I suppose with 35mm should be at least as easy.

[Kevin Crisp]

I used to use tri-x pushed to 1000 in Accufine for newspaper work and it was excellent unless the subject was very unevenly lighted (as in stage plays). Yes, you could see grain in 8x10's but it was neat, sharp grain and if you avoided overdoing the contrast (easy to get classic soot and chalk) they looked good.

[sully75]

I agree digital has a technical advantage over film in low light, but that assumes one wants their low light images to look like images made in less-low light. Sometimes blank shadows, grain, and subject movement work really well. By way of example, look at this digital image

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmce...fehr/lightbox/

I marked this photo as a favorite yesterday, and when reading this thread today, thought it was a good example of how film can still work in low light if one's expectations and intentions are aligned with the limitations of the media. When I went to link it, I noticed it's a digital image. Oddly, my point still stands.

Really love this one, Paul.

Yeah Jay, that was a little Canon point and shoot but that's sort of the look I'm looking for. I'd like to get a little more in the shadows but don't mind it being all grainy and effed up looking.

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

I love the light-swimming-in-a-pool-of-darkness look. I tend to worry more about gradation than shadow detail or grain. I can live with featureless blacks far better than I can with featureless whites, which feel glaring and discordant, like fingernails on a chalkboard. I can enjoy a rather short scale, provided it's well balanced, as in your example.