• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Correct lighting settings or I failed at Sunny 16

jnantz said:
I've always been told that sunny 11 is more accurate.
and I always err on the side of extra exposure...
don't forget to have fun
John
Click to expand...


Agreed.

Sunlight, reaching Terra's surface, has dimmed over the last decades but the Sunny 16 guideline has stayed the same.

When was it first established and when did Kodak start including that guide with our films?

I'll also add that though I do no shoot much colour, I've always found rating colour negatives at one third (⅓ F. Stop) lower than box speed gave me better (and other's) better results.

That's with a Sunny F11 guide.

A lot of us are older Generations, pre-digital shooters and need the lighting we see out of doors, has changed, like so many other things.

Cheers.
 
eli griggs said:
Agreed.

Sunlight, reaching Terra's surface, has dimmed over the last decades....
Click to expand...

Yes, the ice age is approaching.

I think people fail to understand what Sunny F16 is. If you look at the pictograms, it is F16 only in blazing/blinding at the beach sun. Which is why the symbol for that often is a beach umbrella on sand. Or a boat on the ocean under full sun etc.
The regular full sun image corresponds to F11.

This is not complicated. The sun has not dimmed. Kodak Gold is still 400 speed film, The best camera you can buy is still whichever one I happen to be selling.
 
Agreed. I think it's best to remember that Eli here is ten dollar leica guy...
Though he is right in that downrating/overexposing color negative film somewhat has its benefits... more margin of error, for one thing.
 
That diagram I posted was for using a shutter speed approximately equal to one stop faster than 1/ASA - thus f/11 for normal sun, f/16 at the beach.
In other words, that diagram didn't depict Sunny 16.
ASA 80 will do that for you - not to mention ASA 64.
 
Looking at this chart on this web page
https://analoguesoul.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/the-sunny-16-rule/
  • One can see that f/22 is for snowy or beach scene.....because the bright background fools a reflected light meter, and snow/beach is NOT an 'average' scene with a mixture of areas from dark to bright, so now/beach is brighter than typical because more sunlight is bounced off the bright snow/sand to the subject than an average scene would bounce to the subject.
  • And f/16 is for a usual sunny scene that is not on the beach or in the show.
And 'overexiposing' by +1EV (rating film at -1EV slower than its official rating) works because color neg better tolerates up to +3EV of overexposure, whitile it only tolerates -2EV of underexposure. When shooting weddings, I rated ISO 160 color neg at ISO 100 because underexposing color neg caused 'muddy colors' in the shadow areas...the colors were better when I underated the film, giving me more room for underexposed shots taken at the hectic peak of action.
 
Last edited:
RLangham said:
Agreed. I think it's best to remember that Eli here is ten dollar leica guy...
Though he is right in that downrating/overexposing color negative film somewhat has its benefits... more margin of error, for one thing.
Click to expand...

Please explain to us all why being "the $10 Leica guy...." would impact photo related advice by me, here are in any forum on analog photography.

I do no mind a little fun on that $10 topic, and stand by my original posts, but when you use that as a backhanded smear as to other photo related matters, which I post about, that's something else.

Eli
 
Huss said:
Yes, the ice age is approaching."
Click to expand...
 
Friend, if you're going to say the sun is cooling or whatever on the same forum where that post happened, a little more lighthearted fun at your expense may happen.

I'm sorry if that offends you! It was not meant out of any serious derision, but come on, dude!

At any rate thank you for bringing up deliberate overexposure, as that is very much of interest here.
 
My light meter indicates that the sunlight has not dimmed.

But what does it know?
 
Huss said:
My light meter indicates that the sunlight has not dimmed.

But what does it know?
Click to expand...

Wait for a contrail or a cloud or something to obscure it, then try again.
 
foc said:
You can't beat this.
Click to expand...

Damn, that looks like an idea for a successful product! Just need to have f16 in the middle and fading off to f2.8 on either side.

"Excuse me, do you have the time?" "Why, yes, it's f8, getting on to f9."
 
If we put up enough solar panels, that will absorb the light and convert it to electricity, and the earth will cool by doing so...right?
 
Huss said:
My light meter indicates that the sunlight has not dimmed.

But what does it know?
Click to expand...
Yours and a staggering array of precise scientific instruments that all agree! Moreover... there are other reasons why a net reduction in incident light over a period of a few decades is not a plausible narrative.

Desperately trying not to politicize this but whatever...
 
Judging by all the wildfires that are occurring aroung the world, perhaps Sunny 16 needs to be modified to Smokey 11.
 
Averaged out over sunspot cycles, the light source hasn't changed much in the last million years.
There is a bit more crud up there between it and our meters, but not enough to make as much a difference as the difference between f/1.8 lenses and f/2 lenses that form the subject of another thread of discussion currently attracting attention here on Photrio.
 
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

 
BrianShaw said:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Click to expand...
Which brings rise to thoughts of Isaac Asimov and "Nightfall".
Believe it or not, first published 80 years ago this year .
 
MattKing said:
Which brings rise to thoughts of Isaac Asimov and "Nightfall".
Believe it or not, first published 80 years ago this year .
Click to expand...
I had thought it had been serialized first, and I was about to say it may have been even longer ago than eighty, but I see that what happened is that he came back later and expanded it into a longer novel about forty years ago.

My how time flies...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register