sunny 16 versus camera meter

[pocketshaver]

Using Canon FTB n QL and Vitomatic II

With tri x 400 the canons take really bizarre photos, and the Vitomatic II takes classic newspaper type grainy photos that are what I expect to see based on online photos of tri x.

The vitomatic has a meter that seems to have stopped working, but sunny 16 makes that no issue. But the canons have light meteres that are way off from what sunny 16 would tell me to do.

img0017 is a full daylight shot with vitomtic using vitomatic light meter. Not the greatest but its what I expect quality wise based on photos. x21 is full overcast daylight with vitomatic taken through a window, the line is the shade.

compared to the other photo, taken by ftb and using light meter. the summer shots were done the same day I believe.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Replying to the title. I use any film at any iso with s16. Regular iso is easy. Pull/push takes time to calculate.
Replying to OP. Who knows how those old cameras are metering now.
Tri-X is nothing special film.

 

[pocketshaver]

would you expect tri x to look like this in full sunlight?

 

[jimjm]

Tri-X is not going to look significantly different from many other B/W films, if you expose it correctly. The grain may be a bit more obvious at greater enlargements, but it's a very versatile film that handles push processing well.
Now, if you push it, or modify your developing chemicals or processes, you can get a grittier look that many people identify with Tri-X. This film has been around for almost 80 years and has gone thru many formula changes in that time.
Regarding Sunny-16, this can be a good general rule to use when shooting subjects in full sunlight. In winter, cloudy conditions or in more northern or southern latitudes where the sun is less intense, photographers may instead use Sunny-11 or Sunny-8 as their guide.
Older cameras with inaccurate or non-functional light meters are very common. These can be easily checked by comparing light meter readings to a known good camera or light meter.
It's hard to make any judgments based on the images you've shown above, except image #2 looks like you have some sort of scanning issue. That is definitely not what correctly exposed and processed B/W film should look like. You didn't state if these are scans of the negs, or scans of prints. Scanners can introduce all sorts of image problems if you don't have the settings right for B/W film.

These shots were all taken on TriX and developed in D76 1:1, which is a very reliable combination.

 

[pocketshaver]

the files with IMG in the title are ones that I scanned myself at home with a rather old 5 megapixel negative scanner set to 3200 dip and black and white. the one without IMG in the file name was scanned by Pro Photo on a noritsu or frontier scanner.

this post has what MY little scanner did with the through the window shot, All film was developed by Pro Photo in Irvine CA.

I admit I SHOULD make a post about the developed film I get back from them sometime, but I have a bunch of film I need developed. And their isn't many places that have decent prices.

 

[Wallendo]

The excessive grain of the middle photograph is not normal for TX400. My guess is that the negative was significantly overexposed. Dense Tri-X negatives frequently scan into very grainy images.

When evaluating exposure issues, scanned images (or even prints made from scans, which is what most labs now do these days) are not particularly useful. Images of the negatives would be much more helpful/

 

[eli griggs]

A number of years ago, on the topic of "Sunny 16?" a well written article I read, pointed out that just in the last Century sunlight falling through the atmosphere, had decreased a full 11%, and the once F16 exposure for daylight in sunlight should be adjusted to the 'new' "Sunny 11"!

I took not of this and, at that time, Tri-x 400 was my everyday film, and I felt the results were much better, in general across the board with all films.

I also would ask, have you upgraded the Canons, pre-A series and F1N, excluded, with a diode to adjust for modern button batteries, vs. the older batteries used in these cameras?

Doing so will give you a meter that performs well, no doing so will simply require you to 'feel' your way through each lighting situation, compensating based on your experience and gut reaction, or for you to rough math to try to figure where you stand each time, with regard to correct exposures.

The F series cameras have been my go to camera for more than 40 years, (I had to give up my Leica Barnack' and M3 years ago) and have rarely been disappointed.

Now, that I've been shooting many different films for some time, I can say thet at F11, I am general please with the results and that's why I think you should give it a try, or otherwise bracket the heck out each shoot, so as to know you've got it, in the 'can'.

IMO.

 

[removed account4]

I can say thet at F11

EXACTLY !

sunny 11
great to see you back !
john

 

[John Koehrer]

would you expect tri x to look like this in full sunlight?

To me and my monitor there doesn't seem to be a true black in there.
Anyway didn't the FTb a partial screen metering aka Semispot? using the darkened rectangle on the focusing screen which
would have a goodly amount of influence on the area you're metering. Sunny 16/11 gives a more general exposure.

As an aside, I've used TX rated @ 200 for years which is ~Sunny 11.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Using Canon FTB n QL and Vitomatic II

With tri x 400 the canons take really bizarre photos, and the Vitomatic II takes classic newspaper type grainy photos that are what I expect to see based on online photos of tri x.

The vitomatic has a meter that seems to have stopped working, but sunny 16 makes that no issue. But the canons have light meteres that are way off from what sunny 16 would tell me to do.

img0017 is a full daylight shot with vitomtic using vitomatic light meter. Not the greatest but its what I expect quality wise based on photos. x21 is full overcast daylight with vitomatic taken through a window, the line is the shade.

compared to the other photo, taken by ftb and using light meter. the summer shots were done the same day I believe.

sunny16 is relying on the consistency of the sun and that is avery reliable constant. I'd trust that before I trust any meter.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Using Canon FTB n QL and Vitomatic II

With tri x 400 the canons take really bizarre photos, and the Vitomatic II takes classic newspaper type grainy photos that are what I expect to see based on online photos of tri x.

The vitomatic has a meter that seems to have stopped working, but sunny 16 makes that no issue. But the canons have light meteres that are way off from what sunny 16 would tell me to do.

img0017 is a full daylight shot with vitomtic using vitomatic light meter. Not the greatest but its what I expect quality wise based on photos. x21 is full overcast daylight with vitomatic taken through a window, the line is the shade.

compared to the other photo, taken by ftb and using light meter. the summer shots were done the same day I believe.

Sunny 16 works well for print negatives but with slides it can be iffy. Contact Quality Light Metric ==> George Milton and see if he can recalibrate your Canon light meter. He is my go to light meter person.

 

[reddesert]

A number of years ago, on the topic of "Sunny 16?" a well written article I read, pointed out that just in the last Century sunlight falling through the atmosphere, had decreased a full 11%, and the once F16 exposure for daylight in sunlight should be adjusted to the 'new' "Sunny 11"!

I took not of this and, at that time, Tri-x 400 was my everyday film, and I felt the results were much better, in general across the board with all films.

I also would ask, have you upgraded the Canons, pre-A series and F1N, excluded, with a diode to adjust for modern button batteries, vs. the older batteries used in these cameras?

In the interest of scientific accuracy, I can't agree that the sunlight incident on the ground has globally decreased by 11%. The sun hasn't changed. If anything, the incident sunlight has changed differently in different places due to less or more haze from air pollution - some places are much cleaner than 100 years ago, and some places are much worse. Also, an 11% change is about one-sixth of a f-stop, while Sunny 11 is a full f-stop different.

However, using Sunny 11 is downrating film by a full stop, which is a good safety margin for B&W and color negative film, and will make "expose for the shadows" easier.

We don't know if the OP's camera meter is working well with or without compensating for the different battery voltage. OP, one test you should do is take the camera out on a sunny day where Sunny-16 might apply, and record the meter reading - is it overexposing or underexposing? By how many stops?

It's difficult to tell what is going on from these images because the scanners could be compensating for over or under exposure - for example, sometimes you get a grainy, yet pallid image because the scanner is trying to see through an absolutely dense overexposed negative.

 

[pocketshaver]

Both Canon FTBs went to camera clinic this year to get light seals redone, shutter recalibrated, one had to go back a second time for that, and both had the light meter circuit modified with the schotzky diode.

I ask about this because, the high end canon cameras have more issues with DEVELOPED film with Kodak gold 200 and 400 and tri x, in having sections that come out completely clear to the eye but will have SOME bit of image when scanned on my little 5MP scanner, but that the fancy drum scanner Nortisu or Frontier CANNOT GET ANY IMAGE FROM.. So I don't know if my frustration is from them not being able to develop film correctly or a camera issue.

I know something is funny because the rolls of film I had them develop from my little fixed focus bell and howell 35mm camera using GC200/400 and lomography 800 iso color film, came back almost perfectly developed EXCEPT for frames that I fired pointing into sunlight.

 

[reddesert]

You sent Kodak Gold from both cameras. The lab doesn't know which camera the film was from or develop them differently. Maybe you need to look into operator error.

 

[pocketshaver]

Sunny 16 is an odd rule as when you compile it down to size,,, its essentially

put actual ISO rating of film into camera system, Adjust shutter speed to reciprocal of the film, 50 or 60 for 50 iso film. 125 for 100 iso, 250 for 200, 500 for 400,
and to simply adjust the aperture setting based on light intensity/cloud cover/shadows

 

[MattKing]

I ask about this because, the high end canon cameras have more issues with DEVELOPED film with Kodak gold 200 and 400 and tri x, in having sections that come out completely clear to the eye but will have SOME bit of image when scanned on my little 5MP scanner, but that the fancy drum scanner Nortisu or Frontier CANNOT GET ANY IMAGE FROM.. So I don't know if my frustration is from them not being able to develop film correctly or a camera issue.

Clear areas in the negative that correspond with areas of the subject that you require detail in means that you have not given the film enough exposure. Within a wide range, changing the development won't have any effect on those clear areas. The development has much more effect on the dense areas of the negatives.
Do you mean a fancy drum scanner or a Noritsu scanner or a Fuji Frontier scanner.? The Noritsu and Frontier scanners used by labscertainly aren't drum scanners.
If the lab scanners are being used in automatic mode, there are lots of situations where the automatic presets won't accomplish as much in one part of the image that a manually over-ridden 5MP scanner will. That doesn't mean that the overall quality of the lab scan won't frequently be better.
The FTb has a partially centre weighted meter. IIRC, the manual for the camera describes the metering pattern quite well, but my memory could be wrong, because I last used an FTb about 40 years ago. The camera actually had been discontinued by the time I started selling cameras, but I did sell the Tx, and there were similarities between the two.

 

[MattKing]

Sunny 16 is an odd rule as when you compile it down to size,,, its essentially

put actual ISO rating of film into camera system, Adjust shutter speed to reciprocal of the film, 50 or 60 for 50 iso film. 125 for 100 iso, 250 for 200, 500 for 400,
and to simply adjust the aperture setting based on light intensity/cloud cover/shadows

Actually, not odd at all.
I use the rule regularly, despite having (too) many cameras, many of whom have very advanced metering systems.
I use the rule to serve as a check on my metering decisions. It also serves to confirm whether my camera and hand meters are operating well.
When you start going down the route of making detailed and complex fine adjustments to your metering conclusions, it is fairly easy to make simple errors (e.g. add exposure when you mean to reduce exposure) that result in poor results. Sunny 16 serves as an effective check on that.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My understanding is Sunny 16 is from 10am to 2pm, middle of the day. After all, as the sun shifts early or later in the day, the light intensity drops off, often rapidly during magic hour. Also, the season and latitude effects it. The suns is higher in the summer than the winter and higher in mid latitudes and lower in others. Also, slide film is more critical than negative film.

 

[MattKing]

Use the sunny 16 approach to inform your observations and judgment. Practice it regularly, and take notes. You will gain a very useful "feel" for correct exposure. It doesn't replace metering technique, it strengthens it.

 

[Cholentpot]

A number of years ago, on the topic of "Sunny 16?" a well written article I read, pointed out that just in the last Century sunlight falling through the atmosphere, had decreased a full 11%, and the once F16 exposure for daylight in sunlight should be adjusted to the 'new' "Sunny 11"!

I took not of this and, at that time, Tri-x 400 was my everyday film, and I felt the results were much better, in general across the board with all films.

I also would ask, have you upgraded the Canons, pre-A series and F1N, excluded, with a diode to adjust for modern button batteries, vs. the older batteries used in these cameras?

Doing so will give you a meter that performs well, no doing so will simply require you to 'feel' your way through each lighting situation, compensating based on your experience and gut reaction, or for you to rough math to try to figure where you stand each time, with regard to correct exposures.

The F series cameras have been my go to camera for more than 40 years, (I had to give up my Leica Barnack' and M3 years ago) and have rarely been disappointed.

Now, that I've been shooting many different films for some time, I can say thet at F11, I am general please with the results and that's why I think you should give it a try, or otherwise bracket the heck out each shoot, so as to know you've got it, in the 'can'.

IMO.

11%? Really?

I'm not brushing ash off my car in the morning anymore, nor has there been a single smog alert in years. River hasn't caught fire and I'm not stepping on beer tabs or cigarette butts anymore. World in my area seems far cleaner and brighter these days.

 

[summicron1]

maybe it's just me, but I find that, in all but the most brightly lit situations in daylight, a "sunny 11"rule is more reliable, with a quick "sunny 5.6" for backlit subjects.

Someone years ago told me that living in the rockies -- Ogden, Utah -- the air is thinner here and so reflects light less, making shadows darker. I dunno if that's true, but I do know that a mile over-exposure in many situations is easier to deal with in the darkroom than any amount of under-exposure.

And, generally speaking, my in-camera and handheld meters usually agree with this.

 

[Cholentpot]

maybe it's just me, but I find that, in all but the most brightly lit situations in daylight, a "sunny 11"rule is more reliable, with a quick "sunny 5.6" for backlit subjects.

Someone years ago told me that living in the rockies -- Ogden, Utah -- the air is thinner here and so reflects light less, making shadows darker. I dunno if that's true, but I do know that a mile over-exposure in many situations is easier to deal with in the darkroom than any amount of under-exposure.

And, generally speaking, my in-camera and handheld meters usually agree with this.

I go with Sunny 11 because I'm exposing for the shadows. I'd rather over expose than under. Film has the latitude to handle it.

 

[BradS]

maybe it's just me, but I find that, in all but the most brightly lit situations in daylight, a "sunny 11" rule is more reliable, with a quick "sunny 5.6" for backlit subjects.

Someone years ago told me that living in the rockies -- Ogden, Utah -- the air is thinner here and so reflects light less, making shadows darker. I dunno if that's true, but I do know that a mild over-exposure in many situations is easier to deal with in the darkroom than any amount of under-exposure.

And, generally speaking, my in-camera and handheld meters usually agree with this.

Yup, It's sunny-11 here in California too. The only place I've actually seen a true sunny-16 was in Ecuador, near the equator, at mid-day.

 

[Chan Tran]

A number of years ago, on the topic of "Sunny 16?" a well written article I read, pointed out that just in the last Century sunlight falling through the atmosphere, had decreased a full 11%, and the once F16 exposure for daylight in sunlight should be adjusted to the 'new' "Sunny 11"!

I took not of this and, at that time, Tri-x 400 was my everyday film, and I felt the results were much better, in general across the board with all films.

I also would ask, have you upgraded the Canons, pre-A series and F1N, excluded, with a diode to adjust for modern button batteries, vs. the older batteries used in these cameras?

Doing so will give you a meter that performs well, no doing so will simply require you to 'feel' your way through each lighting situation, compensating based on your experience and gut reaction, or for you to rough math to try to figure where you stand each time, with regard to correct exposures.

The F series cameras have been my go to camera for more than 40 years, (I had to give up my Leica Barnack' and M3 years ago) and have rarely been disappointed.

Now, that I've been shooting many different films for some time, I can say thet at F11, I am general please with the results and that's why I think you should give it a try, or otherwise bracket the heck out each shoot, so as to know you've got it, in the 'can'.

IMO.

If the sun has reduced its brightness by 11% and you use sunny 11 instead you overexpose by 5/6 of a stop.

 

[BradS]

Using Canon FTB n QL and Vitomatic II

With tri x 400 the canons take really bizarre photos, and the Vitomatic II takes classic newspaper type grainy photos that are what I expect to see based on online photos of tri x.

The vitomatic has a meter that seems to have stopped working, but sunny 16 makes that no issue. But the canons have light meters that are way off from what sunny 16 would tell me to do.

If you know that the light meter in the Canon is not accurate then, why are you surprised that exposures using the light meter are not as expected?

Kodak Tri-X has considerable exposure latitude. It doesn't mind a stop or even two of over exposure. I rate Tri-X at EI250 (means I set the film speed dial on the light meter to ASA 250) and expose according to what the known good light meter says and do quick mental verification using the Sunny-11 rule...or, if the light meter is suspect or absent, then I just use sunny-11 and bracket if the lighting is at all difficult.