Post your best Sunny 16 Pics!

[Vics]

I've been thinking of giving up my meter. It just seems to get in the way. I think I'll spend three months working on my Sunny 16 chops. I have a six-week trip to France coming up in April/May, so now's the time. I'll start with one from my Contax IIIa and Sonnar f1.5 back in 2003 one day when I forgot the meter. I hope to see some pictures and hear some thoughts on this topic.

Paris 2003 Tuileries by travlrs2, on Flickr

 

[MC JC86]

EDIT: These don't qualify as the "best" of anything, just the most recent meterless pictures I've got to show taken using an approximation of the "sunny 16 rule".

Nikon F
10,5CM F/2.5 P
Tri-X @ 400 in D76 1:1

Nikon F
10,5CM F/2.5P
Tri-X @ 400 in D76 1:1



Almost all of my stuff is done through some variation of 'sunny 16'. I'm waiting for my Leica IIC's second trip to the repair shop to be over so I can start running rolls of tri-x through it, quite a quick little camera when you're not fumbling with a meter or matching up LEDs.

 

[f16sunshine]

Not sure what you mean exactly by best. Sunny is like a meter. You still need to decide how you want the shot exposed.

Here is one that came out as I wanted even though the scene in person was very difficult to judge.


"Empty Stage"

 

[MC JC86]

Btw, weening yourself off the light meter can be a great move.

 

[bramley]

here you are. metering to the dark, then -2. at typical LV8.

 

[Obrecht]

Photo taken near Göreme in Turkey two weeks ago (Leica m2 and 50mm Elmar). I used expired Kodak BW400CN film and guessed the exposure (something like 1/45 & f4).

 

[Stuart John]

Not sunny but meterless zorki 1 with collapsible industar.

 

[Stuart John]

Another meterless from the Zorki1.

 

[1750Shooter]

FED-2b w/Kpday Gold 200

 

[Stuart John]

One more from the Zorki1.

 

[MC JC86]

Nikon S2
3,5CM F/1.8
TRIX in D76 1:1


Sometimes the meter in my head underexposes things and this happens!

 

[steelydam]

Leica M2, Zeiss Biogon 35mm
TMax400 & Xtol 1:1

 

[f16sunshine]

Photo taken near Göreme in Turkey two weeks ago (Leica m2 and 50mm Elmar). I used expired Kodak BW400CN film and guessed the exposure (something like 1/45 & f4).

Fabulous scene!

 

[morback]

I always have a my digisix with me, and I've learnt a lot about estimating light thank to it. I don't meter for every shot, when I'm unsure and have the time I just check. After that I adjust how I feel is right, and it mostly comes out great:


20110825A_07_M2+SC by Martin N. Hinze, on Flickr


20110715_27_M2+SC by Martin N. Hinze, on Flickr


20110430_11_ZI+SNR by Martin N. Hinze, on Flickr

I'm really happy I learnt to see light in a non-ttl way. I also finally managed to not check the red lights in the Zeiss when shooting. Strangely, it's very liberating.

 

[bdeyes]

Good example why I don't trust my sunny-16 yet

Good example why I don't trust my sunny-16 yet

Photo taken near Göreme in Turkey two weeks ago (Leica m2 and 50mm Elmar). I used expired Kodak BW400CN film and guessed the exposure (something like 1/45 & f4).

A very nice shot indeed, especially for sunny-16.

But the details given [1/45 @ F4] is what bothers me about the sunny-16 rule. If that scene is rendered accurately, I would assess that light as "heavy overcast" which according to Fred Parker's "The Ultimate Exposure Computer" would rate an EV of 12. With ISO 100 film, that would equate to 1/15 @ F16 or their equivalent. For ISO 400 film, that would be adjusted to 1/60 @ F16, which is at least 3 stops under the exposure taken [1/45 @ F4].

So I would have severely underexposed this shot, using my sunny-16 "technique", which would have been extremely frustrating. That is why I am always looking for small light meters that I can use as backup, until I get this thing figured out.

Is B&W so forgiving that a 2 or 3 stop underexposure is tolerated or recoverable? Even if that were so, I would not know it was underexposed until I developed the film, and I would have lost any chance to recover some of the exposure during negative development. So my recovery would have to be done entirely in PS or other s/w tool.

 

[andredossantos]

It is very liberating indeed! DO IT!!!! I never use meters anymore when I'm using my M or any other mechanical camera. You can definitely learn how to read light without a meter and with some dedication you can ditch your meter forever! That's what I did and its the best thing that happened to me photographically. I used to be obsessed with meter readings and now it's a simple mental calculation that has become second nature. All you need to think about is the composition.

 

[f16sunshine]

A very nice shot indeed, especially for sunny-16.

But the details given [1/45 @ F4] is what bothers me about the sunny-16 rule. If that scene is rendered accurately, I would assess that light as "heavy overcast" which according to Fred Parker's "The Ultimate Exposure Computer" would rate an EV of 12. With ISO 100 film, that would equate to 1/15 @ F16 or their equivalent. For ISO 400 film, that would be adjusted to 1/60 @ F16, which is at least 3 stops under the exposure taken [1/45 @ F4].

So I would have severely underexposed this shot, using my sunny-16 "technique", which would have been extremely frustrating. That is why I am always looking for small light meters that I can use as backup, until I get this thing figured out.

Is B&W so forgiving that a 2 or 3 stop underexposure is tolerated or recoverable? Even if that were so, I would not know it was underexposed until I developed the film, and I would have lost any chance to recover some of the exposure during negative development. So my recovery would have to be done entirely in PS or other s/w tool.

Scanning forgives. So does most modern B+W film for at least 1-1 1/2 stops.
But never mind that and do what the old timers did to learn.
Bracket 3 frames and keep some notes. Not every shot every time but, when you can for a variety of lighting situations. You can still pull out the meter but, learning to judge with your own eye will be more satisfying and get you there faster in the end imo. Sounds like you have studied Parkers words. Just go for it.

 

[Tom A]

I suspect that about 75-80% of my shooting is "Sunny f16". My perefernce for using older cameras like M2's/M4P's etc and my Nikon Rf's makes it practical. Most of the time I get within 1/2 stop - occasionally they get more "artsy" i.e either blown highlights or blocked shadows!
This was a shot - just to show the bewildering variety of footwear that women tend to 'sport". I dont know if I am typical - I own two pairs of shoes and thats it!
Nikon S3 and Nikkor 35f2.5 and Plus X!

 

[Nokton48]

Now -This- is an amazing photo.

 

[Obrecht]

A very nice shot indeed, especially for sunny-16.

But the details given [1/45 @ F4] is what bothers me about the sunny-16 rule. If that scene is rendered accurately, I would assess that light as "heavy overcast" which according to Fred Parker's "The Ultimate Exposure Computer" would rate an EV of 12. With ISO 100 film, that would equate to 1/15 @ F16 or their equivalent. For ISO 400 film, that would be adjusted to 1/60 @ F16, which is at least 3 stops under the exposure taken [1/45 @ F4].

So I would have severely underexposed this shot, using my sunny-16 "technique", which would have been extremely frustrating. That is why I am always looking for small light meters that I can use as backup, until I get this thing figured out.

Is B&W so forgiving that a 2 or 3 stop underexposure is tolerated or recoverable? Even if that were so, I would not know it was underexposed until I developed the film, and I would have lost any chance to recover some of the exposure during negative development. So my recovery would have to be done entirely in PS or other s/w tool.

Thanks for your remark, and I agree that guessing exposure is not very accurate compared to using a light meter. However, using the sunny-16 rule provides me with good results.

BTW the picture of the hot air balloons was taken at around 7 AM in the morning when I was running to catch a bus. Therefore the EV might have been been one or two stops lower than EV12 (next to the fact that my exposure estimation might be wrong).



Leica M2, Fomapan 100, Jupiter-12 35mm lens