"Sunny 16" rule

[Doc W]

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.

I agree completely. I don't want useable negatives. I want good negatives and predictable results at every stage of the process. And I am not talking about getting all mathematical about it so let's not lurch from one extreme to the other. I use a meter and I develop my film under controlled conditions (temperature, time, dilution). I also like to control during printing so that I can reproduce a print that I like without fussing around.

I know that some folks think there is a virtue in not caring about these things but I am not among them.

 

[removed account4]

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.

you have a system that works for you, that's great !
i have never heard of control of exposure /development
portrayed it as a neurosis as long as i have been here since mid-2003.
the way i see it is often time folks who aren't as worried about "control" and "gadgets"
are talked down to, belittled and treated poorly by people who would rather use meters &c
sometimes they are called posers, frauds ...and even called a disservice to the analong communtiy & this website.

its pretty sad ...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

I agree completely. I don't want useable negatives. ...

Nobody was trying to portray anybody.
Most of us do it for BW modern film, which has great latitude. Why do I need to measure sunny side and shadow side of the same streets, taken with same film at the same time many times? Or at the overcast day, if I already took it, developed and printed? Why do I need to measure temperature every time if the basement and still water from the bottle is exactly the same temperature all the time? Why to measure something which stays the same? Even film is the same.
Winogrand wasn't measuring every shot, Henri Cartier-Bresson didn't use light-meter often. For similar reasons. But I guess yours prints are superior. How much is yours print sells for? Are they in the gallery of any sort?

 

[LAG]

In my opinion it would be very enriching to talk about this new thoughts out of the OP question ... (perhaps if someone open a new thread...) but I take the opportunity to clarify that I do not always control everything that I do in every stage of the process, that does not necessarily mean that I do things like crazy all the time, that would not be the way for anybody.

BUT, let me ask you a couple of questions, what' the use of being a perfect master-of-the-universe when metering if you are not able to see the difference between meter & expose?, what's the use of being a perfect master-chef when cooking one film if you're not able to read properly a negative?

Perhaps (only perhaps) the lesson here, is not doing things "only" by the book.

 

[faberryman]

Those who use a light meter to assist with exposure are now "perfect master-of-the-universe" types? And why would someone who uses a light meter to assist with exposure not be able to "properly" read a negative? Is that the sole province of those who choose not to use a meter?

 

[LAG]

No offense intended faberryman, but I think that you have not understand me at all.

Those who use a light meter to assist with exposure are now "perfect master-of-the-universe" types?

Not those (those=not all of those)

And why would someone who uses a light meter to assist with exposure not be able to "properly" read a negative?

Read "after his/her perfect controlled development", not because of using e meter. Anyway, one thing is not hopelessly linked to the other.

Is that the sole province of those who choose not to use a meter?

Not those either (see those above).

 

[bvy]

There seems to be this perception that those of us who don’t use meters for every scene are throwing abandon to the wind, making pictures that are “presentable” from negatives that are “usable,” and saying, “Look, I don’t need no stinking meter!” I can only speak for myself, and at the beginning of this thread I said that Sunny 16 was my meter, though that’s not entirely true. My first Yashica Mat 124G had a perfectly working meter until I dropped it one day. My next one had a responsive meter that wasn’t quite accurate, and I learned to work without it. I have a light meter app and do periodically meter and preset my exposure. But a lot of times I’m guessing. For the type of work I’m doing, seconds count, and a perfectly metered shot of the moment after does me no good. Most of my other cameras have built in meters, and I take full advantage of them.

 

[Jim Jones]

I've wasted many potentially good shots over many decades by being too overconfident to use an available meter. Years ago while on an extended photo expedition to the Great American West, I told a travelling buddy to bracket her important Kodachrome shots, despite using reliable in-camera meters. The extra money was a small fraction of the thousands of dollars the trip cost me. The learning opportunity from analyzing the results later was another value. Of course it is more elegant to carefully make every shot perfect. Sometimes it is more practical to spend the available time on composition, not exposure.

 

[Hatchetman]

Sometimes a meter is useful, sometimes it is not. I will note that I recently realized my TTL meter was not working properly because I am so accustomed to Sunny 16. Also I was able to take the photos anyway because I knew what the right exposure would be despite my faulty TTL meter.

I almost never use a meter with B&W film.

 

[Doc W]

Nobody was trying to portray anybody.
Most of us do it for BW modern film, which has great latitude. Why do I need to measure sunny side and shadow side of the same streets, taken with same film at the same time many times? Or at the overcast day, if I already took it, developed and printed? Why do I need to measure temperature every time if the basement and still water from the bottle is exactly the same temperature all the time? Why to measure something which stays the same? Even film is the same.
Winogrand wasn't measuring every shot, Henri Cartier-Bresson didn't use light-meter often. For similar reasons. But I guess yours prints are superior. How much is yours print sells for? Are they in the gallery of any sort?

I heard a story once - and it is probably not true - about Adams and Weston. They were out photographing one day and after Adams explained how he metered a somewhat complicated scene, Weston commented that he just sort of eyeballed it. Like I said, it's probably not true overall, but may be true at some level. At the very least, it is a good (if somewhat mythical) illustration of what I am trying to say. They both came to the final exposure from different roots, but neither one made a virtue of their method. If you don't use a light meter, it has no impact on me whatsoever but many of us roll our eyes at the condescending suggestion that "real" photographers don't need one.

BTW, both Adams and Weston had their prints in galleries, despite their differences in technique and despite poor Adams' use of light meters. The claim that you don't need a light meter to get your prints in galleries is true enough, but your suggestion that unless one has prints in galleries, one's opinion, methods, approach are all suspect, is just a cheap shot without any content. I like my prints and I get good feedback on them. I would hate to limit the opinions expressed in this forum to only those who have prints in galleries.

If you live in Ontario as I do (and as your profile says), then it is wonderful that you have a constant temperature in your darkroom and in your groundwater. I am quite envious. My darkroom temperature varies quite a bit over the year and the water coming out of the tap varies from 24C all the way down to below the lowest temperature on my Ilford thermometer. I need to measure the temperature for developing both negatives and prints. You don't.

 

[faberryman]

For the type of work I’m doing, seconds count, and a perfectly metered shot of the moment after does me no good.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that photographers who use exposure meters in those situations do so between decisive moments rather than during them.

 

[removed account4]

its too bad these threads
always de-volve into
" us " and "them" ..

 

[rrusso]

its too bad these threads
always de-volve into
" us " and "them" ..

^

 

[LAG]

Excuse me both for my intrusion

...They both came to the final exposure from different roots, but neither one made a virtue of their method

Perhaps because that "virtue" lies in their eyes.

... many of us roll our eyes at the condescending suggestion that "real" photographers don't need one.

And that can be as harmful as the opposite.

P.S. By the way, what is a "real" photographer?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've used the Sunny 16 a couple times when my battery died in my light metre. Once when it was actually sunny and the exposure turned out quite well. The other time it was foggy with snow on the ground. I used the rule and ended up with a sheet of film that could have stopped a bullet... a pain in the butt to print but... still printable. I'll stick with my metre. To each his own. It's all about the image in the end!

 

[foc]

Sunny 16 is a tool just like a meter is. I believe that in any medium you should use any or all the tool available. You are the one calling the shots. Which brings me to breaking the rules. I believe that if you wish to break the rules, do so, but you must know the rule first. Otherwise it just a stab in the dark.

 

[Doc W]

P.S. By the way, what is a "real" photographer?

Beats me. According to some in this thread, a real photographer is one who doesn't use a light meter. Go figure.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I go to Japan, or anywhere far for that matter, there is no way in hell I would go without my metre.

 

[macfred]

I guess there is more or less the same amount of incorrect exposures using a light meter or just Sunny 16.
Using a light meter requires as many expertise as using Sunny 16.
A fool with a tool is still a fool.

 

[LAG]

Beats me. According to some in this thread, a real photographer is one who doesn't use a light meter. Go figure.

Nice answer Doc W, good one! (thanks for your sense of humor). But if someone said that before, that's a huge mistake, but the same mistake if you think that "turning those words around" you'll get the right answer. Do you see now where I want to get to? I think it's not a matter of a "doesn't or does" choice, because your decision could be, "both"! (yes!, even in the same exposition). I really believe that whatever your decision is (and not only using it or not), won't make you a better photographer, nor real, won't make your results better, nor worse.

One thing is sure, many devices are not indispensable, and the light meter is one of them.

Raise his/her hand the one who hasn't never, ever used (or needed!) a light meter! I honestly believe if that the answers are only strongly defended for and against, would turn the future posts in strong exchange of tantrums, only (as someone has already said before me, and this time is for sure Doc W, see #37), in addition to putting that OP question aside.

I stop here.

Best

 

[removed account4]

it has nothing to do with being a real or phake photographer
some people like using meters and gadgets some people sometimes use them and sometimes don't
and some people would rather not be tied into equipment and "good enough" works for them
it is too bad that people who use and who chose not to use " xyz" piece of gear have to talk down
to say not so nice stuff about people who chose to do things differently. as someone else in this thread said
it is the image at the end that counts and to me at least, it really doesn't matter what acrobatics or lack of them someone
does to make the images.
its too bad there is posturing and push back ... oh well another thread to potentially put on ignore ...

 

[BrianShaw]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that photographers who use exposure meters in those situations do so between decisive moments rather than during them.

 

[BrianShaw]

When I go to Japan, or anywhere far for that matter, there is no way in heck I would go without my metre.

Right... far being any place more distant than 3 feet.

 

[faberryman]

...it is too bad that people who use and who chose not to use " xyz" piece of gear have to talk down to say not so nice stuff about people who chose to do things differently...it really doesn't matter what acrobatics or lack of them someone does to make the images.

So now using a meter is akin to acrobatics.

Even the great HCB was an acrobat in unfamiliar and rapidly changing light situations:

During the day, I don’t need a light meter. It is only when light changes very quickly at dusk or when I’m in another country, in the desert or in the snow. But I guess first, and then I check. It is good training.

 

[bvy]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that photographers who use exposure meters in those situations do so between decisive moments rather than during them.

That's not practical for every situation.