OK, I phrased my post clumsily and you have jumped on it, very good. But follow through the Ilford calculations for any location, season, time of day and subject matter and you’ll appreciate how sunny 16 is not an invariable guide. Just saying.
stability of 'sunny 16'
-
A
- Thread starter RalphLambrecht
- Start date
OK, I phrased my post clumsily and you have jumped on it, very good. But follow through the Ilford calculations for any location, season, time of day and subject matter and you’ll appreciate how sunny 16 is not an invariable guide. Just saying.
I am a firm believer in Sunny 16, relying on it heavily since the '70s when I first learned of it. However, I find it odd that most of the published information does not take into account elevation. Sunny 16 was ultimately reliable when I was living in LA and in Seattle; when living in Tucson it was a tad higher at 2500' and Sunny 16.3 at 5K' where I'm living now and was Sunny 16.6 on Togwotee Pass when shooting in Wyoming at 10K'. I've read that photographers shooting in NM at 15K+' rely on Sunny 22.
If I didn't honor the elevation correction my chromes came back with blown highlights.
If I didn't honor the elevation correction my chromes came back with blown highlights.
Sorry, I wasn't making fun of you. Just joining in on the fun.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="60px" width="250px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
I'm a big believer in sunny 16 mostly due to my forgetfulness. Usually, I forget where my meter is and ASSume it is in my bag. I rely on the latitude of B&W negative film to get me through minor errors and bracketing also ensures I get something useable. I could see how some more scrupulous photographers would find sunny 16 unreliable.
Isn't sun inverted down there, so maybe the rule is inverted, too.
<tongue firmly in cheek>
There's also time differences to take into account....
It is the dark side of the planet. Didn't they teach you that in school? They also always stand on their heads to be right side up.
Tina Modetti lived in Mexico City (2,240 m. plus) after 1922 before she left for Berlin and Moscow in 1930. She stopped photography after Berlin complaining that Berlin and Moscow were not as actinic as high altitude Mexico.
Last edited:
Thanks for clearing that up. I always wondered about it.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,590
- Format
- Medium Format
As I remember from my youth, the photographic instruction books would remind readers that Sunny 16 was applicable in Western Europe but not necessarily in other parts of the world, or for different seasons, as well as beaches and mountains.
There is also a skill in reading available light. I don’t have it, but my late friend
Louie Stettner hardly ever used a light meter.
There is also a skill in reading available light. I don’t have it, but my late friend
Louie Stettner hardly ever used a light meter.
Do people here who advocate for Sunny 16 not use the meters in their cameras if their cameras have meters?
I use knowledge of the Sunny 16 concept merely as a 'sanity check the meter reading' crosscheck, if I have doubt about a meter.
MattKing
Moderator
I keep Sunny 16 and my overall experience in my thoughts when I'm making metering decisions.
It helps ground the decisions I make, and helps flag any extra-ordinary readings or decisions.
Sometimes all the dials and lights and meter needles can send you down a rabbit hole of unnecessarily complex metering decisions. Sunny 16 helps reel that back.
Ditto
Ditto
On rare occasion when I go out with the SWC only and forget the light meter, I have used Sunny 16 for more than a sanity check.
My meters usually are closer to sunny 11 than sunny 16. Note that in 1960 they doubled ASA ratings, but apparently did not shift the sunny 16 rule to sunny 11...
Agreed. Sometimes on a really sunny clear day I will use sunny- 16, open a stop for med-Y (usually on camera), then maybe another 1/2-1 stop knowing Sunny-16 is probably closer to sunny-11, and not wanting to lose all the deep shadows.
You meant Sunny 22, not Sunny 11. Sunny 11 would have been halving the ASA.
I thought about that, but say you are shooting 125 ASA in 1959. Sunny 16 tells you 1/125th at f16. In 1960 suddenly you are told to shoot 1/250th of a second at f16. But if sunny 16 were correct in 1959, I would need to shoot 1/250th at f11 to get the same exposure I got in 1959. That is how I arrived at the f11 rule.
MattKing
Moderator
In 1961, they didn't replace sunny 16 with Sunny 22 because the change in the ASA standard reflected a change in the target densities for negatives.
The pre-1961 standards required an extra stop of exposure. Those standards were revised to reflect improvements in films and lenses.
The pre-1961 standards required an extra stop of exposure. Those standards were revised to reflect improvements in films and lenses.
Maybe they did not change meters? Because I often get Sunny 11 on meter's, and I hear others do also.
Thus sunny- 11. But I guess it depends on what you believe is the correct rating.
We were brighter then, too.
MattKing
Moderator
In 1959, a photographer using film outside on a sunny day might have encountered a light level of 10,000 lux, and that would have translated to an exposure of 1/60 at f/16, with film rated at the then standard ASA of 60.
That would have yielded a target density on the negative.
Then in 1961, the standards people came to the decision that the target density on the film was too dense. They changed that standard in order to aim at a lower density.
The new target density was the density one achieved with one stop less light. To accomplish that, they changed the speed rating system. The former ASA 60 film was re-rated at ~125. To attain the new target density with the same light, the camera settings needed to be changed by one stop - 1/125 at f/16.
Sunny 16 still worked. The resulting negatives were the ones that had the target density. Its just that a "proper" negative density changed in 1961.
That would have yielded a target density on the negative.
Then in 1961, the standards people came to the decision that the target density on the film was too dense. They changed that standard in order to aim at a lower density.
The new target density was the density one achieved with one stop less light. To accomplish that, they changed the speed rating system. The former ASA 60 film was re-rated at ~125. To attain the new target density with the same light, the camera settings needed to be changed by one stop - 1/125 at f/16.
Sunny 16 still worked. The resulting negatives were the ones that had the target density. Its just that a "proper" negative density changed in 1961.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,652
- Format
- 35mm
Learn something new every day.
So my experience of thinking that Sunny 11 served me better has somewhat of a history? I like how my negatives look at Sunny 11 over '16.