"Sunny 16" rule

[Simon Howers]

Well I dropped and broke my trusty Weston Master V in Belgium and she's off at the repairers.
Off out this weekend at a classic bike event, so it's the Sunny 16 rule for me.
I'm using 120 Pan F so I guess that's 1/25 sec at f16 (allowing for the Y2 filter) hand held with my
Zeiss Ikon folder.

Is it luck or skill? Bit of both I suppose............

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well I dropped and broke my trusty Weston Master V in Belgium and she's off at the repairers.
Off out this weekend at a classic bike event, so it's the Sunny 16 rule for me.
I'm using 120 Pan F so I guess that's 1/25 sec at f16 (allowing for the Y2 filter) hand held with my
Zeiss Ikon folder.

Is it luck or skill? Bit of both I suppose............

sunny-16 works very well; the sun is an amazingly constant light source,has been for 4billion years and will be for another 4 billion;bright sunlight measured anywhere on earth typically returns EV15 from an incident meter,consistently enough to test or calibrate said meter.Yes,go for it, sunny 16 works!!

 

[bvy]

It works for me too. Sunny 16 is my meter. Pan F is kind of fussy, though, exposure-wise. My experience anyway. I'd definitely err on the over side.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Skill, self education to me and memorizing. After all of this is done, I'm having more luck with guessing exposure in difficult light.
Pan F is more critical film for correct exposure.

 

[wiltw]

A lot of moisture in the sky can decrease light to under the Sunny 16, and very bright surrounding (beach) can be brighter than Sunny 16, so consult the corrolaries to Sunny 16, too! But in bright sun it generally results in reasonable exposure. But keep in mind that angle relative to the sun has effect on brightness too.

Technique, even with a meter, matters, as we can see that where I am relative to the sun, and where I point an incident meter hemisphere, greatly influences readings...and you see in the above photos readings of f/5.6 and f/8 and f/11 (ISO 100 1/200) in the same conditions!

 

[removed account4]

i try never to use a meter anymore
unless it is for client work
and usually my internal calculations give
a better negative so i use the meter for show.
i have had no issue shooitng chromes c41 or b/w
from 35mm-4x5. its about becoming familiar with the
light and quality of light, intensity &c. ive never had trouble
for me because of where i live, it is more like sunny 11-ish.

 

[faberryman]

It is a nice sunny day here. I went outside at noon and took a incident reading with my Sekonic L-208 light meter. Based on my reading, the Sunny 16 rule would result in a 1 and 2/3 stop underexposure.

 

[pentaxuser]

Simon, you must decide about the f16 rule for yourself but based in West Yorkshire, U.K. at about latitude 54 and going to a classic bike show which is unlikely to have large expanses of water or bright reflective sand in the scenes and it is now almost mid September, I'd go for sunny f11 at best and even then only between about 11am and 3 pm maximum

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sunny 16 works well for the middle latitudes. I use it when I do not have a meter with me.

 

[LAG]

Is it luck or skill?...

Excuse me Simon

In my opinion with that (suboptimal) planned film within such (filtering) context, even with your trusty Weston you'll need (lots of) both, and perhaps this message it's too late.

Good ... luck!

P.s. Bear in mind the reciprocity failure, with that weather rule

 

[faberryman]

I am curious whether photographers who shoot without a meter also develop their film without a thermometer and timer. If not, why not.

 

[removed account4]

I am curious whether photographers who shoot without a meter also develop their film without a thermometer and timer. If not, why not.

i use a thermometer just to let me know the water temp
and a graylab timer, but just to let me know what time has passed.
i develop by inspection, and use a 2 bath developer, and don't typically have trouble.

YMMV

 

[bvy]

Because a good scene isn't going to wait for me to measure it. A tank of developer will.

 

[TheRook]

I have successfully weaned myself off the need for a light meter. I simply carried a light meter with me at all times for two weeks (often without a camera), frequently estimating the exposure of different scenes, then compared my estimations with the meter. By the end of two weeks, my estimations were nearly always spot on, except with scenes in very low light, but that is to be expected.

 

[wiltw]

I have successfully weaned myself off the need for a light meter. I simply carried a light meter with me at all times for two weeks (often without a camera), frequently estimating the exposure of different scenes, then compared my estimations with the meter. By the end of two weeks, my estimations were nearly always spot on, except with scenes in very low light, but that is to be expected.

I shot enough under one specific lighting circumstance that I can still tell by eye what is light level EV6! Never did calibrate myself to other light levels, apart from memorization of the corrolaries to Sunny 16.

 

[LAG]

I am curious whether photographers who shoot without a meter also develop their film without a thermometer and timer. If not, why not.

Yes, neither of those devices are essential in both cases.

But you must bear in mind two important things (something you'll already know, as they are obvious): Metering and exposition are two different things (but both are mixed in this thread). Without meter you can obtain an estimated exposition, however without thermometer and timer you can obtain the expected results. Both steps are not hopelessly linked to one another by the instrumental method used.

 

[Steve Smith]

sunlight measured anywhere on earth typically returns EV15 from an incident meter

At ISO 100.

I shot enough under one specific lighting circumstance that I can still tell by eye what is light level EV6! Never did calibrate myself to other light levels, apart from memorization of the corrolaries to Sunny 16.

You don't really calibrate yourself to light level, it's more recognising the contrast. The sun is constant but the amount of cloud diffusion is variable. It's the distinctness of shadows which tells us the settings to use.

And we shouldn't be using EX as a measure of light. It's merely a function of shutter speed and aperture. LV is the light scale.


Steve.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, neither of those devices are essential in both cases.

But you must bear in mind two important things (something you'll already know, as they are obvious): Metering and exposition are two different things (but both are mixed in this thread). Without meter you can obtain an estimated exposition, however without thermometer and timer you can obtain the expected results. Both steps are not hopelessly linked to one another by the instrumental method used.

they aren't LAG, you are right. but what faberryman seemed to be nudging at is
if someone is careless and willy-nilly with their exposure ( as some people think non-metered exposure is ) than
how many of them are willy-nilly with their processing as well.

unfortunately there are a large number of people who are tied to a variety of methods
and these methods work well for them ...
( spot, ambient, zone metering ) and equipments (densitometric/ sensitometric gear )
hopeful "perfection" with exposure and development. people store their film in subarctic conditions when it doesn't need to be stored that way, they just need to use it ...
they spend days, weeks, or years identifying its ideal iso and development methodology that becomes almost a religion
and some folks look down upon others if they don't expose their carefully stored films "just so " because without proper metering
( which a lot of people don't even know how to do ) you won't be treating
your film kindly, you won't be rendering that latent image perfectly ... and then without perfect processing with chemistry in a carefully controlled environment
you have not only wasted your time and efforts but your maybe soon to be discontinued film.
i'm happy they found what works for them ..

thankfully there are other people who also understand that film just needs to be used, and storage on a shelf might be "good enough"
that judging exposure from experience, using one's personal exposure computer
( http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm ) and knowing one's
chemistry that he/she has been using for maybe the better part of 20 years in a variety of situations &c might just be good enough. and that
there really is no such thing as a perfect exposure or perfect development or perfect print and everything in one way or another is a compromise.

as some have said, its a tribal thing

 

[LAG]

they aren't LAG, you are right. but what faberryman seemed to be nudging at is
if someone is careless and willy-nilly with their exposure ( as some people think non-metered exposure is ) than
how many of them are willy-nilly with their processing as well.

That's the reason why I answer. I am one of those.

unfortunately there are a large number of people who are tied to a variety of methods ( spot, ambient, zone metering ) and equipments (densitometric/ sensitometric gear )
hopeful "perfection" with exposure and development. people store their film in subarctic conditions when it doesn't need to be stored that way, they just need to use it ...
they spend days, weeks, or years identifying its ideal iso and development methodology that becomes almost a religion
and some folks look down upon others if they don't expose their carefully stored films "just so " because without proper metering
( which a lot of people don't even know how to do ) you won't be treating
your film kindly, you won't be rendering that latent image perfectly ... and then without perfect processing with chemistry in a carefully controlled environment
you have not only wasted your time and efforts but your maybe soon to be discontinued film.

... and not one of these.

I understand your point of view, and agree from the very first word to the last one. This time it seems we speak the same language (figuratively speaking, of course)

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Macho old farts don't even use light meters. I'm not one of them though.

http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

 

[wiltw]

At ISO 100.



You don't really calibrate yourself to light level, it's more recognising the contrast. The sun is constant but the amount of cloud diffusion is variable. It's the distinctness of shadows which tells us the settings to use.

And we shouldn't be using EX as a measure of light. It's merely a function of shutter speed and aperture. LV is the light scale.


Steve.

EV6 is the level of light which requires 1/60 f/2 for ISO 400, or 1/15 f/2 for ISO 100, and I CAN recognize that...and NOT because of distinctness of shadowing, as no shadows are cast in school classrooms and office buildings from the full ceiling fluorescent fixtures.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I am curious whether photographers who shoot without a meter also develop their film without a thermometer and timer. If not, why not.

I check temperature only for color. And I'm not anal about timing.

Feel free to check my film flickr and see how it works for me.

 

[pentaxuser]

To my post advocating "Sunny f11" I should have added at the end: try a few negs at sunny f11 and its subsequent down-rating for less than full sun and a few in the same conditions at the sunny f16 rule. Both should give printable negs. Then lets us know which you prefer. I think that sunny f11 will give a bit more shadow detail and better prints but your verdict is key

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

Having processed film, C41 and B&W, professionally for over 35 years, I have a firm belief in the time & temp method. That way you will product consistent results. A bit like cooking and following the recipe. But then I'm just fussy that way.

I am also a firm believer in , to each their own.

 

[faberryman]

If you shoot B&W or color negative film, there is enough latitude so that a couple of stops over or under will still render a usable negative. In my formative years, I shot a lot of slide film, particularly Kodachrome 25, where latitude was practically nil, so I got into the habit of metering scrupulously. It carried over to my B&W work, and I think my work is technically better for it.

It just seems silly to guess, even if educated, at exposure, and then guess at time and temperature, and perhaps even dilution, when developing. It takes so little effort to meter and measure, to get the best possible negative. Doing so is not a neurosis, as the non-metering folks try to portray.