Correct lighting settings or I failed at Sunny 16

[Chan Tran]

According to my meter sunny 16 is just like it said. f/16 and 1/ISO shutter speed. And it is 1/ISO shutter speed so if you use ISO 100 it's 1/100 and not 1/125. So if you have ISO 100 and can only set shutter speed of 1/125 then you have to set your aperture at f/14.

 

[faberryman]

So if you have ISO 100 and can only set shutter speed of 1/125 then you have to set your aperture at f/14.

Good luck with that.

 

[Chan Tran]

Good luck with that.

Why? Most cameras today can be set to f/14 but they also can be set to 1/100 too. With old camera you can't set the shutter speed to 1/100 but you can set the aperture to f/14 by setting the aperture ring in between the click stops.

 

[faberryman]

Why? Most cameras today can be set to f/14 but they also can be set to 1/100 too. With old camera you can't set the shutter speed to 1/100 but you can set the aperture to f/14 by setting the aperture ring in between the click stops.

I am amazed you can accurately guess the exposure to 1/3 of a stop, and even more amazed that you can accurately set the aperture to 1/3 of a stop between click stops. Assuming your shutter speeds are accurate of course.

 

[BrianShaw]

But why from a photography viewpoint? Makes very little practical difference.

 

[wiltw]

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Either you write 10-K's for companies, or you are a stock broker...

 

[Chan Tran]

I am amazed you can accurately guess the exposure to 1/3 of a stop, and even more amazed that you can accurately set the aperture to 1/3 of a stop between click stops. Assuming your shutter speeds are accurate of course.

You quoted my original post and in that post I said my meter said.....I didn't guess.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I am amazed you can accurately guess the exposure to 1/3 of a stop.

Heck I can guess it to 1/100 of a stop. Operative word is guess. The term "accurate guess" is a bit of an oxymoron.

 

[faberryman]

The term "accurate guess" is a bit of an oxymoron.

An intentional oxymoron for effect.

 

[beemermark]

OMG what a thread. Use the meter you have and learn how to use it. Film development , camera shutter speed. lens aperture are all variables. Develop your film, keep notes, and find what works or you.

 

[foc]

OMG what a thread. Use the meter you have and learn how to use it. Film development , camera shutter speed. lens aperture are all variables. Develop your film, keep notes, and find what works or you.

That is correct and in an ideal world we would all do it. BUT then there would be no discussions about 1/3 of a stop below box speed, zone system compensation or light meter errors, not to mention how to read sunny 16 (although the hint is in the name).

 

[Huss]

OMG what a thread. Use the meter you have and learn how to use it. Film development , camera shutter speed. lens aperture are all variables. Develop your film, keep notes, and find what works or you.

And sites like this one can help people figure that out.

 

[eli griggs]

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.][/QUOTE

As I said, the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface, is the main factor and my 9/11 example showed just one small factor that obscures everyday sunlight that was no there, say before the many thousands of jets constantly crossing the sky's, prior to 1950, for example.

Just as any effect that results from multiple causes, even in tiny percentages, the totality of the condition is often no as simple as a singular cause, but significant, in impact, none the less.

That includes solar cycles, whatever the fractional real world numbers may be.

 

[Huss]

As I said, the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface, is the main factor and my 9/11 example showed just one small factor that obscures everyday sunlight that was no there, say before the many thousands of jets constantly crossing the sky's, prior to 1950, for example.

Just as any effect that results from multiple causes, even in tiny percentages, the totality of the condition is often no as simple as a singular cause, but significant, in impact, none the less.

That includes solar cycles, whatever the fractional real world numbers may be.

You are attempting a hypothetical argument that has no basis in practical photography.

When my light meter -on any of my cameras - agrees with Sunny F16, your arguments that the sunlight reaching this planet is dimmer is not useful.

Sunny F16 is a guide. That's it. In bright sunlight with defined shadows Sunny F16 = F16 @ 1/Film ISO rounded up to the next shutter speed. That's it.

If it is not bright out with defined shadows, adjust accordingly. Not bright out could be as a result of a bunch of things - clouds, smoke etc. It doesn't matter what it is, as it has the same effect on the light meter and conditions.

Or just use your light meter.

In other news, I have noticed that water is wetter than it used to be. There seems to be less of it, but it is definitely wetter.

 

[RLangham]

You are attempting a hypothetical argument that has no basis in practical photography.

Much less any basis in climatology or physics. The amount that contrails change the albedo of our planet is probably barely measurable, and that's what's really at issue... the reflectivity of the overall atmosphere.

I mean sure, when you look at the sky in daytime in most places, there is sure to be a distant contrail somewhere if not two or three. But what overall percentage of the sky do they cover? Probably less than a tenth of a percent if we're talking about a full desert or ocean sky from horizon to horizon. And the numbers from reliable calibrated instruments (of which Mr. Griggs surely doesn't own any) will bear this out.

The question is, who told you these things, Mr. Griggs, and more crucially, what the hell are they selling?

 

[eli griggs]

Two quick links to these topics.

Any additional reading will have to be on your part, however, observable cause and effect science denying is popular since the days of Thad and Ugh argued the results of climbing out of the trees while lyons are in the area.

Cheers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

https://globalnews-ca.cdn.ampprojec...errer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

 

[MattKing]

The first link (wikipedia) above mentions how the theory in the second link about contrails appears to now be in doubt.
But the discussion in the first link about the effect of atmospheric pollutants does seem to make some sense, although the 4% to 20% figure for observed dimming wouldn't lead to a large change in Sunny 16.

 

[BrianShaw]

I blame cataracts for the dimming of the sun!

 

[wiltw]

I blame cataracts for the dimming of the sun!

But glare is one of the most common manifestations of cataracts, leading so many to semipermanently wear sun glasses...that is the opposite of a dimming sun!

 

[removed account4]

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.

hi eli

not sure maybe? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
all can say is I don't do sunny 11 as if it is scripture
I notice the light and guesstimate my exposure knowing how
I process my film ( or how my lab does color / E6 when I send it out )
I always over expose a little and over process a little and stuff prints the way I likes it

this is a pretty good read
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1
but it's got nothing to do with water wetness

 

[RLangham]

Two quick links to these topics.

Any additional reading will have to be on your part, however, observable cause and effect science denying is popular since the days of Thad and Ugh argued the results of climbing out of the trees while lyons are in the area.

Cheers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

https://globalnews-ca.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16300841622618&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s

Okay, I'm sorry, that does indeed say a great deal of what you alleged. I made an assumption based... if you'll believe this, and I swear it's true... not on anything I may have perceived about you, but on the fact that, if you squint, it might almost seem like people might bring up global dimming as a counterargument to global warming. Now, of course, two things can both be true: global temperatures can increase while the net insolation decreases due to atmospheric effects. In fact I can see how there could actually be a correlation between increased reflectivity of the atmosphere and greenhouse effect. I hyperfocused on the contrails example, and while that seems discredited or at least dubious, the balance of what you said appears to be true at least to this layman. I should have read you more carefully and seen that the contrails thing was not your only point.

Moreover I am sorry that I spoke in ridicule while you remained calm and civil.

I do wonder what the actual photographic effect would be... bear in mind that these are global averages. Dealing with specifics... I live in an area where cloud cover varies wildly and approaches 0% at various times. And as I said my latitude is relatively low so my sunlight of often more like sunny 22... but it is of course very possible that at one time it was brighter here on average. Seems impossible from how bright it gets here but it's very possible, since we are speaking in averages.

The difficulty is in isolating variables thst contain a lot of random noise.. I greatly doubt whether my thermometer is accurate to the kind of precision that is called for by standard color development procedures. There's every chance the temperature when I develop is off by more than two degrees, leading to variations in film density equivalent to under or overexposure by a fractional number of stops... Moreover the transmission of a lens is often about a third of a stop less than the actual mathematical value of the focal length/aperture equation. F/1.8 lenses often transmit the amount of light that would nominally be transmitted by an f/2 lens. This is taken for granted, as it affects many lenses about the same, and sometimes factored into exposure calculations, as in some cinema applications, but from what I can see usually it is not. Actually isolating the overall reduction in incoming sunlight as a meaningful photographic datum would be bloody difficult in my estimation.

Sunny 16 still works, in my regard. Because one should use it in bright sunlight only. As for OP I consider it a cinch that his meter (which he did use to confirm his manual estimates) was off due to alkaline batteries, which is a b*tch with his particular model of camera, unfortunately. Your meter, I can't speak to.

All that being said, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions and bringing up dead issues out of the past.

 

[pentaxuser]

I blame cataracts for the dimming of the sun!

Does that include Agatha's "Old Cataract" in Aswan

My cataracts make things so dim, including my brain, that I cannot hope to write "Whodunnits" like Agatha

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I take it that the overall blue look to what should be a grey cloudy sky is a scanning issue?

pentaxuser

 

[wiltw]

I take it that the overall blue look to what should be a grey cloudy sky is a scanning issue?

pentaxuser

It could readily be nothing to do with scanning process...shoot daylight balance film in cloudy conditions (6000k) will result in cool cast to the photo; a lot of times the color neg shooter never realizes that because the automated print making machine corrects it in the print.
Bringing that JPG into Lightroom takes an adjustment +33 units warmer to render near-white umbrella to be neutral, and an overall neutral appearance to the cloudy sky. Alternatively, brought into Paintshop Pro, choosing 'cloudy sky' results in it choosing 6000K setting, rendering everything pretty neutral rather than cool.