Problem with Sunny 16 Rule

[Derrel]

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]

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?

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.

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

 

[limr]

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?

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.

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

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]

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?

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.

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

They're not mutually exclusive. Reflected light needs to be taken into account. Shooting that same scene in the same light and same time of year would require different settings if the yard were covered in snow.

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

 

[limr]

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]

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.

That's awesome thank so much!

 

[Derrel]

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]

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]

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]

"Waiter, my steak is overcooked."

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

 

[Derrel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.