Correct lighting settings or I failed at Sunny 16

[eli griggs]

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

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.

 

[Huss]

Agreed.

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

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.

 

[RLangham]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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

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.

 

[wiltw]

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.

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.

 

[eli griggs]

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.

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

 

[eli griggs]

Yes, the ice age is approaching."

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.

 

[RLangham]

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

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.

 

[Huss]

My light meter indicates that the sunlight has not dimmed.

But what does it know?

 

[Mike Lopez]

My light meter indicates that the sunlight has not dimmed.

But what does it know?

Wait for a contrail or a cloud or something to obscure it, then try again.

 

[wiltw]

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

 

[BrianShaw]

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

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

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

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

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

 

[foc]

You can't beat this.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

You can't beat this.

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."

 

[BrianShaw]

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

… and he’s not the only one with mega constellations!

 

[wiltw]

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?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

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?

Only if we use the electricity on air-conditioning!

 

[RLangham]

My light meter indicates that the sunlight has not dimmed.

But what does it know?

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...

 

[wiltw]

Judging by all the wildfires that are occurring aroung the world, perhaps Sunny 16 needs to be modified to Smokey 11.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

 

[MattKing]

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Which brings rise to thoughts of Isaac Asimov and "Nightfall".
Believe it or not, first published 80 years ago this year .

 

[RLangham]

Which brings rise to thoughts of Isaac Asimov and "Nightfall".
Believe it or not, first published 80 years ago this year .

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...

 

[250swb]

Going by opening the OP's photos in Photoshop and pressing 'Auto Color' and 'Auto Contrast' there isn't much wrong with them that can't easily be corrected, the flat and dull image is a scanning and/or post processing problem.