# Problem with Sunny 16 Rule



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 27, 2019)

The last roll of film I shot came back from the lab badly underexposed. It's the first time the light meter in the camera has failed me. I read about the sunny 16 rule and thought I would try it out on my digital camera in the same location to see what's going on. I set the camera to the same ISO and used the sunny 16 rule for the other settings and it's still very underexposed with these settings.

It was a bright sunny day (as you can see in this picture by the shadows in the grass) and I used ISO 200 at f/16 and shutter speed 1/200. Does anyone have a suggestion as to why it's so underexposed?


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 28, 2019)

I actually had to google that, I've never heard of it before. 

Where were you metering, the bright area or the shadow? Spot meter, center-weighted, or matrix? If the camera was matrix metering (at least that's what Nikon calls it) it's trying to make the best of a mixed exposure and compromising everything. Maybe the bright foreground caused the camera to bring that down at the expense of the trees?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 28, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> The last roll of film I shot came back from the lab badly underexposed. It's the first time the light meter in the camera has failed me. I read about the sunny 16 rule and thought I would try it out on my digital camera in the same location to see what's going on. I set the camera to the same ISO and used the sunny 16 rule for the other settings and it's still very underexposed with these settings.
> 
> It was a bright sunny day (as you can see in this picture by the shadows in the grass) and I used ISO 200 at f/16 and shutter speed 1/200. Does anyone have a suggestion as to why it's so underexposed?
> View attachment 175647



The grass, which is sun-lit, looks well-exposed.  The 'Sunny 16' rule is a guideline on where to start adjusting exposure from, not a set-in-stone one-size-fits-all setting.




RVT1K said:


> I actually had to google that, I've never heard of it before.
> 
> Where were you metering, the bright area or the shadow? Spot meter, center-weighted, or matrix? If the camera was matrix metering (at least that's what Nikon calls it) it's trying to make the best of a mixed exposure and compromising everything. Maybe the bright foreground caused the camera to bring that down at the expense of the trees?



Using the 'Sunny 16' rule implies one doesn't have a meter.  It originated in the early days of photography when light meters didn't exist.


----------



## RVT1K (Jun 28, 2019)

480sparky said:


> RVT1K said:
> 
> 
> > I actually had to google that, I've never heard of it before.
> ...



An external meter. 

Doesn't the camera in question have an internal meter? If so isn't the camera going to make decisions based on what that meter is seeing. 

And how is that "rule" going to work with such a mixed exposure?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 28, 2019)

RVT1K said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > RVT1K said:
> ...




One does not need a meter (internal or external) to use the Sunny 16 rule.  It's merely a number based on the ISO used to estimate the shutter speed set to get close to a 'correct' exposure.  Put your camera in M, set the ISO to 100, the shutter speed to 1/100 and the aperture to f/16.

_Ignore the meter. 
_
Start firing away. 

The grass in the center of the image, which is in bright sunlight, IS reasonably well-exposed.  S16 isn't a guarantee... it's a _starting point_.  It is up to the photographer to recognize there's lots of shadows in the scene and adjust the exposure accordingly.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 28, 2019)

Sparky pretty much nails it. I use the rule quite often as I own a Nikon F, and F2 with non metered prisms. I look at 3 things in the scene in shooting... light, shadow, subject. Film speed is the starting point at f/16 on a sunny, cloudless day. *Go out with your digital and work it using the rule. Guess, take image, evaluate. Spend some time with it, you will get good at it. *Understanding light is one of the most advantageous things to learn in photography. I am not bragging but I shoot enough and practiced the above to tell you that I don't even carry a meter. If I get stumped, its time to pull out the flash. Granted, I am not always 100% but most of the time I can fix in the dark room or in post. Remember, C-41 and B&W negative film have a lot of latitude to work with.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

Problem could be that the lens is stopping down a little bit too much. Although you might have set the aperture tof/16 if the diaphragm stops down1/4 of a millimeter too much f/16 in effect becomes f/22.

You are correct: your photo does look somewhat under exposed. I would try a different f-stop rather than f/16..


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 28, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Problem could be that the lens is stopping down a little bit too much. Although you might have set the aperture tof/16 if the diaphragm stops down1/4 of a millimeter too much f/16 in effect becomes f/22.
> 
> You are correct: your photo does look somewhat under exposed. I would try a different f-stop rather than f/16..



The shutter could be running a bit fast as well.  1/200 might actually be 1/250 or 1/300.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

Remember if you shoot in raw, with most new modern cameras you can lift the exposure up quite a bit and post processing is a good place to correct mistakes.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

Regardless of what the causes, your original exposure appears to be insufficient  for the scene at hand.


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 28, 2019)

When I use the 16 rule I would bracket 2 more shots each one a step over. Better to be over than under.


----------



## ronlane (Jun 28, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Remember if you shoot in raw, with most new modern cameras you can lift the exposure up quite a bit and post processing is a good place to correct mistakes.



Agreed, you can pull out a lot of detail with modern camera and software.



webestang64 said:


> When I use the 16 rule I would bracket 2 more shots each one a step over. Better to be over than under.



does step = stops? You shoot a bright sunny day 2 stops over exposed and you will have to combine it to an HDR image because most of the time the highlights will be gone, blow away.


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 28, 2019)

ronlane said:


> does step = stops? You shoot a bright sunny day 2 stops over exposed and you will have to combine it to an HDR image because most of the time the highlights will be gone, blow away.



Yep, I meant stop. And this method is for film (the OP said film), not digital.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

480sparky said:


> 70to210mmf4 said:
> 
> 
> > The last roll of film I shot came back from the lab badly underexposed. It's the first time the light meter in the camera has failed me. I read about the sunny 16 rule and thought I would try it out on my digital camera in the same location to see what's going on. I set the camera to the same ISO and used the sunny 16 rule for the other settings and it's still very underexposed with these settings.
> ...




I thought the whole point of the sunny 16 rule is that you're guaranteed a good estimate if you follow the rule on a bright, sunny day. All the parameters were correct: it was taken in bright sun with the correct aperture and shutter settings. I was using the digital camera to understand why my film camera (which was set to aperture priority mode and uses centre weighted average) was giving me such bad results. It seems that I'm about 2-3 stops underexposed and I'm just confused why the so called "rule" is so far away from the expected result. I understand that it's a starting point, but I would have expected it to at least have been close to the correct exposure since all the settings and light conditions were correct.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

You are assuming that f/16 is REALLY f/16...around the size of a BB...if the aperture mechanism is sloppy/old/out of calibration, 1 mm too small in width x 3.14 = a significant under-exposure.  Shutter speeds with electronically-timed shutters are usually accurate, but lens diaphragms are not always accurate. Also..f /stop is a purely *mathematical *relationship...The *T-stop, for acual transmission,* is the movie industry standard for accurate metering. Imagine  a 17 to 21-element zoom that  loses 8/10 of a stop of light transmission, combined.with a slightly out-of-calibration diaphragm..t_he difference  between actual T-stop and "nominal" might be f/27 or f/32..._

Imagine an  oven temp. dial that says 375, but the oven is really 320...not close, over a 60-min roast cook time...

 There is also the possibility of user error..wrong ISO set, wrong speed set. etc..


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 28, 2019)

Ok, how about the Sunny 48 rule (I just made it up ...)?

ISO x 4 = 1/shutter speed @ f/8

100 ISo
1/400s
f/8


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 28, 2019)

I've used the Sunny 16 rule when I have lost the ability to use an electronic light meter ... and it has always given me an exposure that is usable (meaning the image/negative can be adjusted within acceptable limits).


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

Derrel said:


> You are assuming that f/16 is REALLY f/16...around the size of a BB...if the aperture mechanism is sloppy/old/out of calibration, 1 mm too small in width x 3.14 = a significant under-exposure.  Shutter speeds with electronically-timed shutters are usually accurate, but lens diaphragms are not always accurate. Also..f /stop is a purely *mathematical *relationship...The *T-stop, for acual transmission,* is the movie industry standard for accurate metering. Image a 17 to 21-element zoom that  loses 8/10 of a stop of light transmission, combined.with a slightly out-of-calibration diaphragm..t_he difference  between actual T-stop and "nominal" might be f/27 or f/32..._
> 
> Imagine an  oven temp. dial that says 375, but the oven is really 320...not close, over a 60-min roast cook time...
> 
> There is also the possibility of user error..wrong ISO set, wrong speed set. etc..



The settings are definitely right: I can see it in the raw metadata. But what you're saying about the mechanism is quite possible: both cameras are second hand (Olympus OM-D Mk I and and old Ricoh film camera). Maybe I just need to accept that these cameras will always be a couple of stops under what I would normally expect.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

AT the smallest apertures like f/22 and f/16.  if f/16 is 1mm off in width,  the combo is off by a HUGE under-exposure. If the lens has a transmission deficiency of 8/10 of a stop and the aperture is off, at f/16, the error is BIG. I looked at the metadata...all as you stated..but the HISTOGRAM is the definitive code.

And  the Raw data must be interpreted...the raw file could have been brightened quite a bit... like saying, "My steak was bloody !" well....how long was it cooked?


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 28, 2019)

The f/16 "rule" works as an estimate between 10am-2pm when the sun is high.  The sun's power drops off beyond those hours.  The (added=long) shadows on your picture seem to indicate that you shot way before or way after the midday hours.  So f/16 would be too dark.  Note that f/16 is also effected by what time of year and latitude of where you are in the world.  The sun is lower or higher in the sky depending on these things as well.  So the light received by the earth will be less or more depending on those conditions.

You also didn't say what type of film you used or how you digitize the image that we see on the web.  Did it come from a scan of the photo print or was it a scan of the film?  Was it a negative or positive film?  How did you scan to get the image?  Did you have settings on the scanner set to what?  Was it post processed? 

Whatever you did, I would recommend you use a meter to eliminate so many variables you face with the f/16 estimate.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

does step = stops

STEP is sometimes used.

TO the pedantic, f/stops are s_t_o_p_s

and shutter speeds represent steps.

Sometimes we can use the term EV, to refer to either one stop more light from one f/stop wider, OR from one speed slower.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 28, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> I thought the whole point of the sunny 16 rule is that you're guaranteed a* good estimate* if you follow the rule on a bright, sunny day..........



That's my point.


----------



## limr (Jun 28, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> You also didn't say what type of film you used or how you digitize the image that we see on the web.  Did it come from a scan of the photo print or was it a scan of the film?  Was it a negative or positive film?  How did you scan to get the image?  Did you have settings on the scanner set to what?  Was it post processed?



OP said he tried again with his digital camera and it also came out underexposed. He posted the digital image, not the film image.

OP - as others have said, Sunny 16 is a starting point. Just because it's sunny out doesn't mean it there's enough light to shoot at f16 with shutter speed matching ISO. Yes, the time of day matters, as does location and season. Light is very often weaker than the eye perceives. You're also shooting dark objects, which can eat light, just the same as snow will reflect light and require much less exposure.

If I were shooting that scene, I would probably have opened it up 2 stops. 

It takes practice to figure out. Once you're used to it, it can be a reliable way to eyeball and meter a scene, but nothing is guaranteed, just like an electronic meter doesn't always give you the exposure you want.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> The f/16 "rule" works as an estimate between 10am-2pm when the sun is high.  The sun's power drops off beyond those hours.  The (added=long) shadows on your picture seem to indicate that you shot way before or way after the midday hours.  So f/16 would be too dark.  Note that f/16 is also effected by what time of year and latitude of where you are in the world.  The sun is lower or higher in the sky depending on these things as well.  So the light received by the earth will be less or more depending on those conditions.
> 
> You also didn't say what type of film you used or how you digitize the image that we see on the web.  Did it come from a scan of the photo print or was it a scan of the film?  Was it a negative or positive film?  How did you scan to get the image?  Did you have settings on the scanner set to what?  Was it post processed?
> 
> Whatever you did, I would recommend you use a meter to eliminate so many variables you face with the f/16 estimate.



I think there is some confusion. The image I posted was from a digital camera, using the settings recommended by the sunny 16 rule. The light meter indicated it was about 3 stops underexposed although it was a bright sunny day and I was using ISO 200 @ f/16 and 1/200 shutter. I was cross-checking because I'd previously used a film camera in the same location under the same conditions but also got underexposed images.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

limr said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > You also didn't say what type of film you used or how you digitize the image that we see on the web.  Did it come from a scan of the photo print or was it a scan of the film?  Was it a negative or positive film?  How did you scan to get the image?  Did you have settings on the scanner set to what?  Was it post processed?
> ...



Yes I think I was just expecting a better exposure estimate from what I've read about the rule, with words like "guarantee" being flaunted about. Thanks for the tips.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

480sparky said:


> 70to210mmf4 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the whole point of the sunny 16 rule is that you're guaranteed a* good estimate* if you follow the rule on a bright, sunny day..........
> ...



Yes but I'm getting an unexpectedly bad estimate. I think I just need to practise more.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 28, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > 70to210mmf4 said:
> ...



You're probably within a stop of having a 'correct' exposure. If you're shooting film, bracket.  If you're shooting digital, check the histrogram.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> The f/16 "rule" works as an estimate between 10am-2pm when the sun is high.  The sun's power drops off beyond those hours.  The (added=long) shadows on your picture seem to indicate that you shot way before or way after the midday hours.  So f/16 would be too dark.  Note that f/16 is also effected by what time of year and latitude of where you are in the world.  The sun is lower or higher in the sky depending on these things as well.  So the light received by the earth will be less or more depending on those conditions.
> 
> You also didn't say what type of film you used or how you digitize the image that we see on the web.  Did it come from a scan of the photo print or was it a scan of the film?  Was it a negative or positive film?  How did you scan to get the image?  Did you have settings on the scanner set to what?  Was it post processed?
> 
> Whatever you did, I would recommend you use a meter to eliminate so many variables you face with the f/16 estimate.



I am in the southern hemisphere and it was a sunny winter's day. Maybe I need to correct for that?


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

480sparky said:


> 70to210mmf4 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



That's a good idea. I will bracket more at wider apertures to be on the safe side.


----------



## limr (Jun 28, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > The f/16 "rule" works as an estimate between 10am-2pm when the sun is high.  The sun's power drops off beyond those hours.  The (added=long) shadows on your picture seem to indicate that you shot way before or way after the midday hours.  So f/16 would be too dark.  Note that f/16 is also effected by what time of year and latitude of where you are in the world.  The sun is lower or higher in the sky depending on these things as well.  So the light received by the earth will be less or more depending on those conditions.
> ...



Yup, winter sun looks brighter than it is. Definitely adjust. Also consider that although the grass, tree, and bushes are in the sun, they are darker objects that won't reflect light and might need a bit more exposure.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

this was shot as a raw file...

raws need to be  "developed"... just as a steak starts out raw, if you want it medium-well done, it needs some cooking time..otherwise you are eating raw meat...


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

limr said:


> 70to210mmf4 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanKlein said:
> ...



I thought the sunny 16 rule is based on incident light and not reflect light? Or have I misunderstood something?


----------



## limr (Jun 28, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > 70to210mmf4 said:
> ...



They're not mutually exclusive. Reflected light needs to be taken into account in some conditions. Sometimes very dark objects can fool you into thinking there is more light falling on it. Or other times, highly reflective surfaces will mean more light than you realize. For example, shooting that same scene in the same light and same time of year would require different settings if the yard were covered in snow.

Here are a couple of discussions of Sunny 16 in the winter.
The "Sunny 16" Rule

The Sunny f16 Rule Isn’t Reliable in Winter | Blog.JimDoty.com


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

limr said:


> 70to210mmf4 said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Ok that's good to know. That may be a big part of what I'm seeing here with the underexposure. Thanks.


----------



## limr (Jun 28, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> Ok that's good to know. That may be a big part of what I'm seeing here with the underexposure. Thanks.



Sure. I've used Sunny 16 for quite a while now, and it can be a slippery fish. Just takes practice and you'll get used to it. 

Also, I edited my previous post a bit to add some links that explains this a bit more. Just a heads up in case you didn't see them because you responded while I was still editing.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

limr said:


> 70to210mmf4 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok that's good to know. That may be a big part of what I'm seeing here with the underexposure. Thanks.
> ...



That's awesome thank so much!


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

Notice that the above blog post by author Jim Doty, focuses on what winter means in much of North America: snow. Not the difference in lighting between the northern and southern hemisphere so much,but that in North America in many parts 
of the continent,winter means snow.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 28, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Notice that the above blog post by author Jim Doty, focuses on what winter means in much of North America: snow. Not the difference in lighting between the northern and southern hemisphere so much,but that in North America in many parts of the continental,winter means snow.



Yeah snow is not something I have to deal with, fortunately. But it seems I have more to learn about how the light changes with season. I didn't realise it would have such a big effect on the exposure.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

OK let's make one thing a little bit more in the forefront. Your in Camera exposure settings follow the rules, but you are looking at an extremely gloomy looking picture. There is one thing that apparently you do not seem to be considering fully and  i brought it up twice before using an analogy of steak and raw files, and raw meat.  Have you considered that the raw file conversion is simply under brightened? Have you considered that this could easily be a systematic importation of raw data with an incorrect profile applied? Put it this way --a raw  Digital capture  is basically almost black. You are trying to draw a conclusion from one Poor picture. But that picture started out as a black file and the resulting image that you can see, the JPEG version, is extremely dependent upon how the image is number  1)demosaiced and 2)  how thr tone curve is applied and 3)  A whole host of post processing factors such as Black point, midtone brightness, and highlight brightness.

 To get back to my analogy of steak. We start with a raw steak uncooked, and the finished product is dependent to a huge degree upon the cooking temperature and time.  Again, you seem to be looking for some systematic flaw in the sunny 16 rule, when in fact I would say that more likely the culprit is not the flaw in the rule but in your implementation of the complete photographic process. I guess I'm saying that I suspect The problem is more likely in the way the data has been outputted to JPEG,  rather than Any inherent problem with the sunny 16 rule.


If you are not applying a good profile and this is an automated conversion from a Raw file,then the problem really does not lie in the sunny 16 rule,but rather in your image processing software,and the way the original data  was processed.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

"Waiter, my steak is overcooked."

"Waiter, my steak is still pink in the middle."


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

You stated this is the first time "the meter has led you astray". Perhaps it is not the meter, the finished on-plate  steak, but rather the temperature and length of time that the chef cookedthe raw meat(the raw file conversion software).


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2019)

I have been aware of  The sunny 16 rule for over 45 years. I personally prefer a rather well done steak, so I tend to cook my steaks a little bit longer than some people like. Some people prefer a rather pink in the middle steak, so they cook theirs less. 

 If I were to say that this steak is undercooked then the problem would not lie in the meat itself but rather in the preparation of the meat


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2019)

Looking at the photo it appears as if the in camera exposure was actually a sufficient, but the JPEG image appears not brigh enough.

It's kind of the same thing as starting out with a really nice cut of steak, but the resulting on-plate meat being under-or over-cooked. The fault is not with the steak,but with the cook. I think I have explored this issue with more than enough analogies.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2019)

On re-reading your original post you pretend this with the premise that your last roll of film came back badly under exposed, but you show us no  negatives or color prints nor any slides, and you come to the conclusion that the problem was under exposure. How are we to know that the problem was not really bad developing? 

You then state that you decided to use your digital camera using the sunny 16 row, and you show us a single JPEG made from a Raw file. 

 There are several problems here, and I have been around photography since I was 10 years old. I am now 56. I have seen and have made almost every possible photographic error. If there is a way to screw up the picture, I have either done it or seen itdone or have helped those who have made mistakes to figure out what the real problem is.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 29, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Looking at the photo it appears as if the in camera exposure was actually a sufficient, but the JPEG image appears not brigh enough.
> 
> It's kind of the same thing as starting out with a really nice cut of steak, but the resulting on-plate meat being under-or over-cooked. The fault is not with the steak,but with the cook. I think I have explored this issue with more than enough analogies.



This picture I posted is the raw image exported as a jpeg out of darkroom with no modifications. It's just as dark in the raw image.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 29, 2019)

Derrel said:


> On re-reading your original post you pretend this with the premise that your last roll of film came back badly under exposed, but you show us no prince



Let's forget the film thing. It's just confusing people for some reason. The picture I posted is a photo of my backyard taken with a digital camera and is underexposed when applying the sunny 16 rule. Most likely because I didn't take into account the winter light.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2019)

Good luck with your problem. Personally I am quite familiar with raw files and  automated  exports. 

 I have patiently tried to make something clear to you, but you have come to a conclusion that I do not feel is warrantedand you seem to have very little experience with raw processing files, otherwise you would realize that certain times the Rawdata needs to be custom tuned for the camera exposure and the scene, And you are ignoring the three factors  which I listed earlier as being critical to the final appearance of any JPEG that is made from any Raw file. 

 You keep complaining about your steak being undercooked, but you seem to fail to recognize that the cooking process cannot be automated. If you want to perfect steak you have to cook it the right way. All steak starts out as raw meat, and the idea that One size fits all is the perfect cooking temperature for every steak size and thickness is a falsehood.

again, good luck with your problem.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 29, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Good luck with your problem. Personally I am quite familiar with raw files and exports directly.
> 
> I have patiently tried to make something clear to you, but you have come to a conclusion that I do not feel is warranted
> 
> ...



Thank you for trying to explain it to me but your steak analogy is not clear to me at all.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2019)

OK I'll come right out and say it. Your original post alleges that your last roll of film came out under exposed. 

 Then you give us one photograph to look at and you tell us that despite the sunny 16 rule the picture that you show is under exposed. In both cases what I am saying is it's very possible that one of the film was badly developed And secondly it's very possible, in fact likely, that your daylight seen shot on digital was not bad the exposed in the camera but was badly developed by the Raw software.

Automated development often makes really funny mistakes.  Raw digital image data looks like a black box I noticed that your automated JPEG also looks like a black box. I don't know how much experience you have, but I have developed probably around 300,000 or so digital images over over 20 years,and I don't want to pull the experience card on youbut I can look at your image and tell that it is exposed adequately but the Rawprocessing is bad

  Going back to my beef steak analogy, you are complaining about a picture that looks too dark or a steak that is either under cooked or overcooked. The problem is not the steak, which in this case is the Raw data, but which is the cooking time and temperature , Which in my analogy is akin to the time and temperature on the grill. When you get a bad steak, meaning when it is under cooked or overcooked, the problem is usually not the steak itself, but is it cooking which again is the raw data processing


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 29, 2019)

Sunny 16 is the same for film or digital. All this steak talk has me hungry for some steak and eggs. I like my steak gently agitated...Again, go out with your digital camera and practice the rule. You may be surprised by how accurate it really is. There are charts you can print out and use along side of it. It really is a fantastic journey in the art of reading light.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 29, 2019)

Whether in camera or in post the image you posted is grossly under exposed. The histogram from you image.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 29, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Whether in camera or in post the image you posted is grossly under exposed. The histogram from you image.
> View attachment 175722



That's because the image is full of shadows.

Notice the yellow 'hump'?  That's the sunlit grass.  Yes, it's underexposed, but not 'grossly'.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 29, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Notice the yellow 'hump'? That's the sunlit grass. Yes, it's underexposed, but not 'grossly'.



The area you refer to is only in the darkest pixels of the midtones, if it even made it out of the shadows. There's not much if any midtones, no highlights and no whites. The OP has his post marked not okay to edit, so I didn't try to determine exactly how much, but I'd still hold to my original statement.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 29, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Notice the yellow 'hump'? That's the sunlit grass. Yes, it's underexposed, but not 'grossly'.
> ...



Try making a histogram of _just the grass_.  Then maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 29, 2019)

480sparky said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



A histogram measures the brightness of all the pixels from black to white across the whole of the image area, pulling a section out of context doesn't change the exposure value of said overall image.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 29, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > smoke665 said:
> ...



I understand that.  Really, I do.

But the shadows are not sunlit.  That's why they're called shadows.  The sun is not shining in those areas.  Hence, they're dark.  

The grass, however, IS sunlit, and is reasonably exposed.  Perfectly?  No, I never said it was.  Sunny16 doesn't guarantee a perfect exposure. No one ever said it does.  It's a guideline.  A guesstimage. A rule-of-thumb. General principle. Method of procedure.

And I don't see a pallet of white printer paper or a snowdrift in the scene either.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 29, 2019)

480sparky said:


> But the shadows are not sunlit. That's why they're called shadows. The sun is not shining in those areas. Hence, they're dark.
> 
> The grass, however, IS sunlit, and is reasonably exposed.



Working from phone so forgot to mention the histogram above is from just a small crop of the brightest area of grass. I wouldn't call it reasonable as it doesnt include any midtones, highlights or whites. Comparing the full histogram shows just how bad under it is



Again we could argue semantics vs segments, but it's already accepted even by the OP that the image is under. The question still remains why. I agree with you on the Sunny 16 only being a guide. I tend to lean toward Derrel's steak analogy but without viewing the actual raw file it's hard to say if the OP erred in using the rule and failed to read the light correctly as JC theorized or if the OP erred in post correction.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 29, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > But the shadows are not sunlit. That's why they're called shadows. The sun is not shining in those areas. Hence, they're dark.
> ...



And if you go back and look, you'll see I never said it was well-exposed either.  I'm simply pointing out that the dark areas are dark because,...... well....... they're not enough light in those areas.

I guess I can't explain it any more than that.


----------



## limr (Jun 29, 2019)

Sheesh, this discussion has become quite overwrought, and the steak analogy is only serving to confuse things.

Okay, okay, maybe there were other reasons that the posted image looked underexposed, including a less-than-perfect conversion from raw to jpeg. Sure, maybe the film images, which we have not seen, were improperly developed.

But why look for a zebra when you see horse prints? 

What it comes down to? There are more factors involved in metering the scene other than the presence of bright sunlight, and the Sunny 16 rule takes some practice before it becomes a more reliable way of metering. The OP's early attempts are yielding underexposed shots. He or she has more information now and will continue practicing.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 29, 2019)

480sparky said:


> if you go back and look, you'll see I never said it was well-exposed



I think the difference lies in what we consider the amount of underexposure and in what constitutes a "reasonable exposure". Going back to something you said earlier about snow, if you did a portrait of someone in snow and cropped them out. Would a reasonable exposure of the person only include a small shadow section, or would you want some midtones, highlights and whites?

I dont think we're way off but in any case were going off topic from the OP, so I'm bowing out.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 29, 2019)

limr said:


> Sheesh, this discussion has become quite overwrought, and the steak analogy is only serving to confuse things.
> 
> Okay, okay, maybe there were other reasons that the posted image looked underexposed, including a less-than-perfect conversion from raw to jpeg. Sure, maybe the film images, which we have not seen, were improperly developed.
> 
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2019)

_"But why look for a zebra when you see horse prints_? "

Because this is the Beginner's Forum, and a very old and well-established rule of thumb that has served millions of people well is being called into question on the basis of ONE digital image, shot by a beginner who is unaware of the nominal f/stop versus T-stop issue, light loss in multi-element lenses,and who has repeatedly blamed the Sunny 16 Rule instead of 1) possibly poor film development 2) inability to understand that the rule is for *front-lighted subjects in full sun from 10AM to 2 PM* (when the sun is high and strong) and 3)an automated raw file conversion that did not lead to a perfect representation of the scene.

YES, the EXIF info confirms the slavish devotion to the BASIC rule,( but, the rule tells us that we MUST open up the lens diaphragm for less-than full sun front-lighted scenes, so there's that basic error possibility and there are several other possible explanations that have been put forth. I have been shooting almost exclusively digital since the 1990's, and started off in 1975 at age 12 with Plus-X 125 and the Kodak scenes from the instruction sheet. My first few 35mm adjustable camera had NO light meter. I'm actually pretty familiar with determining exposure, but at the time I started, I made a lot of under-exposure mistakes, as many beginners are prone to do, in my experience. I worked at a camera store in the late 1980's, and I have seen and diagnosed a LOT of picture faults from a lot of people and a lot of gear.

The biggest issue that I have found is older or worn lenses sometime do NOT give a very valid f/16 or f/22 aperture....at those smallest openings, the actual margin for error is TINY.

"..._why look for a zebra when you see horse prints?"
_
Again, this is the beginner's forum, and we see a beginner who seems mystified how he ended up with a dark JPEG from a batch-processed raw file! The idea that the Sunny 16 Rule is at fault seems pretty far-fetched. "* I wrecked my car. Drove it into a ditch, therefore Ford makes bad cars!*"

The JPEG image from a batch processed raw file did not turn out how the OP would have liked, therefore the Sunny 16 Rule is invalid. Was this actually "Sunlight", or merely skylight?? We do not really know.

Diagnosing picture faults without seeing the film negatives, prints, OR without knowing how capable the photographer is. Risky business, filled with uncertainty.
_
why look for a zebra when you see horse prints? 
_
I think I explained it well enough.

"Waiter, my steak is too pink, therefore your beef supplier is at fault! The cow was not medium-well done!"


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2019)

pulling the JPEG into Lightroom, I see it was (poorly) developed by Darktable.

Adding from+ 1.75 to + 2.45 EV of exposure makes a pretty good image, representing different degrees of scene brightness.


Start with raw steak...you can make it rare, medium rare, medium, medium-well,or  well-done


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2019)

let me just say this really really simply. If I were to expose some Tri-X 400 speed B&W film and had exposed it at f/16 at 1/400 second, but then developed it for only 35 seconds _it might seem to some people_ that my exposure meter was malfunctioning. But in reality, the film developing was at fault. Perhaps the OP had the same issue with his film which he described as being from the "*first time the meter failed me*".

 With the digital image the fact that I was able to merely slide the exposure control to the positive direction and get a good-looking image in seconds (literally one or two seconds), points strongly,extremely strongly, to the development of the Raw file data, and not to the in-field exposure.

Since the OP has put up a clear *not OK to edit *photos I won't bother with posting, but suffice it to say that adding two stops in the developing phase of the automatedly-produced JPEG makes a beautiful picture, one that looks like a sunny backyard

Again, with my steak analogy: let us say that we start with *raw meat or Raw data*. Let us say that we follow a recipe, or that we follow the sunny 16 rule.  The end result is determined by how the steak is cooked, at what temperature, and for how long. With a JPEG image that was originally shot in the field as a Raw file, the end result is how we cook the data.


----------



## bhop (Jun 29, 2019)

From my experience with my M2 and meterless F cameras, I would've shot that at F8 instead of F16. (all other settings being the same) You have a lot of shadow going on in the tree line, and the color in the grass is absorbing some of the light.  F16 would be reserved for a bright city sidewalk with light reflecting off the concrete and buildings, or an open dirt field or something.. etc.

Honestly, it just takes practice. When I first started trying sunny 16, I had the same problems you have. It's just a matter of getting used to it and figuring out how light works from the experiences of actually doing it.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jun 30, 2019)

So from what I understand, the sunny 16 rule is reliable if the following are taken into consideration, even on a bright, sunny day:

1. Incident light can be more or less than the amount of perceived light at different times of the day, place on the earth and season.
2. Always need to adjust for reflected light; dark subjects need more light, light subjects need less.
3. Peculiarities of individuals cameras (e.g. physical diameter of aperture at f/16 setting).
4. Processing time and method.

Is there anything I've missed or misunderstood?


----------



## limr (Jun 30, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> So from what I understand, the sunny 16 rule is reliable if the following are taken into consideration, even on a bright, sunny day:
> 
> 1. Incident light can be more or less than the amount of perceived light at different times of the day, place on the earth and season.
> 2. Always need to adjust for reflected light; dark subjects need more light, light subjects need less.
> ...



Sounds good. Now go forth and shoot!


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 30, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> So from what I understand, the sunny 16 rule is reliable if the following are taken into consideration, even on a bright, sunny day:
> 
> 1. Incident light can be more or less than the amount of perceived light at different times of the day, place on the earth and season.
> 2. Always need to adjust for reflected light; dark subjects need more light, light subjects need less.
> ...



5. Yes.  Use a meter to avoid 1-4.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2019)

Are you shooting positive film/ digital, OR B&W negative film???

With B&W negative film, we need to OVER-expose to make things white, while something like a black cat requires about 1.5 stops 
worth of UNDER-exposure to make it look "black".


With Color negative film, OVER-exposure is not a big issue, and a full stop of over-exposure by lowering the ISO of the hand-held meter by one full EV value used to be pretty standard.

With color transparency film, also called color reversal film, or color slide film, OVER-exposure is really BAD...un-recoverable if the overexposure is even a bit too bad. Digital is similar to color slide film...it does NOT tolerate over-exposure well, but newer sensors can have UNDER-exposures "lifted", or "brightened" in software.

HAND-HELD meters may be reflected light models; in-camera light meters are all reflect light metering.
HAND-HELD meters may be incident light models, or reflected light models.

Too much to go into here...but be aware that with almost any digital or color negative, you might have to _brighten or darken the out-of-camera first result to make the picture you want to see as the final interpretation of the scene!


 

Original phone JPEG, appears pretty dark in the shadows



 

edited phone jpeg_


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jul 2, 2019)

So I happened to look up in the sky at about 12:10pm today and saw that the sun was nowhere to be found. I looked to the west and found it sitting just above the horizon, where I would expect it to be at about 5pm. It turns out that the photo that I posted was taken only 5 days after the winter solstice. That would have had a massive affect on the amount of incident light in the scene. I always thought that the sun just loops around the earth in a circle and is always directly overhead at midday. My mind is blown.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 2, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> So I happened to look up in the sky at about 12:10pm today and saw that the sun was nowhere to be found. I looked to the west and found it sitting just above the horizon, where I would expect it to be at about 5pm. It turns out that the photo that I posted was taken only 5 days after the winter solstice. That would have had a massive affect on the amount of incident light in the scene. I always thought that the sun just loops around the earth in a circle and is always directly overhead at midday. My mind is blown.



I use The Photographers Ephemeris on my cellphone.  There's a small cost to buy.  You can use it on your desktop for free I believe.  It's a great program as it tells you where in the sky the sun and moon is at any time of the day incling the azimuth or angle up from the horizon.  If you check from one part of the year to the other, there is a huge difference as well as depending on the time for day.  Also, where you are, the latitude in the earth,  causes the angles  and locations to be vastly different.  The program provides sun and moon rise and setting and well as a lot of other info that's handy when shooting pictures.  All this information is overlaid on satellite and street and roads maps. 
The Photographer's Ephemeris


----------



## if-ga (Jul 3, 2019)

When I started photography every roll of film had an info sheet that included a discussion of what the sunny f-16 meant. That ended in the 70's sometimes, although it may have been later. I took my first university photography class in 1968, using medium format with a hand held meter.

In Washington D.C at high noon on the fourth of July the "sunny f16 rule" becomes the sunny f/22 rule, it is that bright.

 "Full Sun" f/16 (sunny- as bright as it can be, high noon give or take two hours)
Hazy bright - one stop open- f/11 (clear shadows with a sharp line. Also beyond the +/- two hour window)
Cloudy bright - two stops open - f /8 (distinct shadows, but soft edges)
Cloudy - three stops open - f/5.6 (no shadows, but still more than 2 hours after sunrise or before sunset.
Overcast - four stops open - f/4 (bleak and dreary, bad weather imminent),

The time of day affects the sunny f/16 rule, when used by an experienced and knowledgeable photographer. That is built into the "rule". Such a photographer knows that mid morning and mid afternoon are one stop open from full.

When I was in military photography school and we slept in the barracks someone might ask what the weather was like. If the answer came back "F/8 at 11:00" , we knew what kind of day it was. Cloudy bright.

In truth, if you know virtually nothing about photography (light-writing), the sunny 16 rule fails miserably,  consistently.
If you understand why your images were/are under-exposed, over-exposed, or spot on, and what you should gave done to correct the problem, the Sunny 16 rule works always and consistently - at it's intended purpose.

It is meant to give well exposed, amateur grade, scenic photos. In use by an experienced photographer, it works rain, snow or shine, not to produce sellable images, of salon quality, but to record a scene worthy of any family album.

The full application goes well beyond simply "Sunny and f-16".
If it is hazy bright three hours before high noon, I need to open one stop for time of day, one for hazy bright. The "sunny 16 rule" says my exposure is f/8. If it is winter, with the sun low in sky, I know to open another stop.
If my subject is in full shade, (overcast) I know to open four stops. The sunny f16 rule says f/2 - or f/1.4 in the winter (four stops open from f/8 or 5.6).


----------



## smoke665 (Jul 3, 2019)

if-ga said:


> When I started photography every roll of film had an info sheet that included a discussion of what the sunny f-16 meant.



I remember that. LOL


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 3, 2019)

if-ga said:


> When I started photography every roll of film had an info sheet that included a discussion of what the sunny f-16 meant. That ended in the 70's sometimes, although it may have been later. I took my first university photography class in 1968, using medium format with a hand held meter.
> 
> In Washington D.C at high noon on the fourth of July the "sunny f16 rule" becomes the sunny f/22 rule, it is that bright.
> 
> ...



When I was a kid, I lived by the little yellow instruction sheet Kodak provided in each box of film showing those little icons of the sun -sunny, cloudy, etc.  There would be that little comment about closing up if was snowy or your were at the beach. That all went away with my first 35mm - a Nikon F Photomic T.  But, I was always fascinated by Kodak instructions and other pamphlets about Kodak and film.  I would read their little pamphlets like they came from a deity on how to shoot better, how film works, etc.  When they went bankrupt, I was heartbroken.  It was like losing your grandmother.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jul 3, 2019)

if-ga said:


> When I started photography every roll of film had an info sheet that included a discussion of what the sunny f-16 meant. That ended in the 70's sometimes, although it may have been later. I took my first university photography class in 1968, using medium format with a hand held meter.
> 
> In Washington D.C at high noon on the fourth of July the "sunny f16 rule" becomes the sunny f/22 rule, it is that bright.
> 
> ...



Thank you, they are really useful tips


----------



## ac12 (Jul 3, 2019)

70to210mmf4 said:


> if-ga said:
> 
> 
> > When I started photography every roll of film had an info sheet that included a discussion of what the sunny f-16 meant. That ended in the 70's sometimes, although it may have been later. I took my first university photography class in 1968, using medium format with a hand held meter.
> ...




Hang in there, you will make it.

Tilt of the earth and the earth's rotation around the sun creating the seasons.
Then your distance away from the equator.

As was mentioned, when you are away from where the Sunny-16 was designed for, you have to adjust.
I was told in England, it is the Sunny-11 rule.
And as you note 1210 and the sun only just above the horizon, is like shooting at sunset.  The Sunny 16 rule completely breaks down.
6 months from now, and it will be the reverse.


----------



## 70to210mmf4 (Jul 4, 2019)

The problems with my film camera that started this whole investigation turned out to be unrelated. The meter and shutter weren't working properly because the battery is going flat.


----------

