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...

eli griggs said:

Agreed.

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

Click to expand...

Huss said:

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.

Click to expand...

Huss said:

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

Click to expand...

eli griggs said:

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.

Click to expand...

• 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.

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...

Huss said:

Yes, the ice age is approaching."

Click to expand...

Huss said:

Yes, the ice age is approaching."QUOTE]

Just one example of one reason as to how the amount of sunlight has dimmed over the decades.

When 9/11 happened here in the U.S.A. and, all air traffic was stopped for three days or so, the average temperature of America climbed 3°f, because the thin contrails of aircraft were no longer there to block sunlight, resulting in clearer sky conditions, especially in high population regions.

Now, start thinking about other forms of gases, pollution's and other of man's activities raising light blocking materials and you'll begin to see why the amount of sunlight reaching Terra's surface, so far as the "Sunny 16" 'rule' interferes and demands changes in approaches to our photography.

Ice age or no ice age, I never said that the sun is the cause of the failing light levels world wide, though Sol does have cycles of dimming and brightening happening over its billions of years procession.

Assumption always causes errors in conversations.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

eli griggs said:

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

Click to expand...

Huss said:

My light meter indicates that the sunlight has not dimmed.

But what does it know?

Click to expand...

wiltw said:

My incident meter seems to indicate the sun has indeed dimmed
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...g-color-print-film.184916/page-4#post-2442189

Click to expand...

BrianShaw said:

That’s because of too many satellites and too much space debris!

Click to expand...

foc said:

You can't beat this.

Click to expand...

Nicholas Lindan said:

Just that, Elon (Mr. Metol) Musk is launching those gazillions of satellites to reflect the sunlight and keep us cool.

Click to expand...

wiltw said:

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?

Click to expand...

Huss said:

My light meter indicates that the sunlight has not dimmed.

But what does it know?

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

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.

Click to expand...

BrianShaw said:

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Click to expand...

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...