Sunny 16/1600 Film

[AndyGarton]

Hi all, I'm another of those recent converts back to film, and generally push my (Ilford HP5) film to 1600, because I shoot a lot in poor light. Using the sunny 16 rule would mean f16 at 1/1600 in bright sun, but obviously on an M I'm limited to a shutter speed of 1/1000, which in theory means 3/4 of a stop of over exposure. In my limited experiments so far I've gone with this and the results have still been ok. I'm wondering though if I'd be better using "sunny 11", which would be a quarter stop under exposed? I've avoided this so far because most of the theory I've read says 35mm B&W film handles over exposure better than under ("expose for the shadows").

If anybody else uses 1600 film often on an M (or anything limited to 1/1000), what do you do?

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

 

[Ste_S]

Are you working with neg scans or negs in a darkroom ?

Neg scans can take a couple of stops of overexposure that you can then correct in Lightroom or similar. I sometimes shoot with HP5 or Tri-X at 1600 in a Zeiss medium format folder that's limited to 1/500 without an issue.
Darkroom I guess is more work to pull back, but I'll leave that answer to someone more experienced than me.

The other option would be to put a ND filter on or similar to pull a stop or two back in bright sunshine.

If you're going to shoot pushed HP5 regularly I would though recommend a camera with a faster top shutter speed. I mainline Tri-X at 1600 during the winter in a camera with a 1/8000 top speed. Coupled with a fast lens it covers day and night and changeable conditions with ease.

 

[tbhv55]

I'm wondering though if I'd be better using "sunny 11", which would be a quarter stop under exposed?

Simpler (but not, of course, cheaper) would be to use an ND filter to bring your shutter speeds back to where you want them.🙂

 

[AndyGarton]

Thanks, yes sorry, should have mentioned that - negatives in a darkroom (developed by a lab, not me), so what I take is what I get!

ND filter is a good shout for bright sun, although it still leaves the question of what I do further down the sunny 16 range, i.e. work from a base SS of 1/1600 or 1/1000 - I assume the former? I can't quite get my head around the steps though, bright sun should be 1/1600, so I go 1/1000 (no other choice), slightly cloudy should be 1/800, which means in theory I'd stay at 1/1000 (rather than dropping down a stop to 1/500, which would be the normal process for sunny 16) I guess? So just accepting the possibility/probability that my bright sun shots are over exposed, unless I use an ND filter?

Changing cameras isn't an option for me!

 

[AndyGarton]

Hmm, silly thought - is it possible to tell the lab to develop the film at ISO 1000? Thus getting the bright light exposures spot on, but losing a bit of low light sensitivity (but still much better than ISO 400).

 

[tbhv55]

I'm not sure that I understand.😕 If you were to use, say, an ND8 filter (3-stop) then your shutter speed (using the same aperture, of course) would be the same as it would if you were using a 200-ISO film with no filter.

Feel free to tell me, if I'm missing something obvious, here! 😀

 

[AndyGarton]

Sorry, I just mean when I take the filter off again, so I'm back at ISO 1600, but "further down" the sunny 16 scale.

 

[tbhv55]

Sorry, I just mean when I take the filter off again, so I'm back at ISO 1600, but "further down" the sunny 16 scale.

Yes, you'd have to adjust your Sunny-16 calculation to suit the (effective) ISO of each shot, depending on whether you're shooting with, or without, the ND filter. Just use the effective ISO for the calculation i.e. using an ND8 filter, effective ISO = 1600/8 = ISO200.

However, nothing changes with regard to developing, because you'll have obtained the required exposure at the time of shooting (provided that you've calculated correctly, of course

).

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I'm wondering if you've read the data sheet published by Ilford? You can download it here:-

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1891/product_id/691/

As for "Sunny 16" it's a rough guide but, in your shoes, I'd look for and buy a proper meter. Luckily the wide exposure latitude of HP5+ covers the roughness of the funny 16 rule but even so...

Regards, David


PS The DX code on the cassette gives the exposure latitude but you need to find a DX code explanation; that's from memory btw so beware as the old fool is getting forgetful.

 

[AndyGarton]

Thanks, I have a meter (actually several!), but I do actually enjoy not using one (I'm very far from a pro, so if I get it wrong, nobody dies). Regardless though, if a meter tells me f16 at 1/1600, the question of how I handle that on a 1/1000 maximum camera is a valid one.

Anyway, thanks guys - I think I'll basically do what I do already, with the exception of using an ND filter on bright days (which actually I already do, but typically only when I know most or all of a roll will be in those conditions).

 

[Takkun]

I'm wondering though if I'd be better using "sunny 11", which would be a quarter stop under exposed?

Other way around. With f/11 you'd be 1-2/3 overexposed. You probably knew that, but sometimes it's easy to get mixed up with fractions! You'd need to stop down to f/32 but I don't know any RF lenses that go that far.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you're pushing two stops, your highlights are going to be hot anyway and less than a full stop likely won't affect much.

While a ND filter was suggested, why not a yellow filter? Just a little bit of light-cutting and tonal separation, depending on subject.

Out of curiosity, you said it was being lab developed, but are you wet printing yourself?

 

[AndyGarton]

Thanks, I'd actually got my calculations wrong so didn't know that - this actually means I physically can't get a (theoretically) correct exposure in bright sun with my f16 limited lens and 1/1000 camera, at ISO 1600, except with a filter (notwithstanding the fact that there is enough latitude for it usually to look ok slightly overexposed anyway with the film I usually use). I'll also try pushing only one stop to 800, which would obviously allow me to expose correctly in bright conditions, at the expense of a bit of low light performance.

I'm not doing the printing myself, the lab does that also - I enjoy the up-to-pressing-the-shutter side of photography far more than developing and printing! (Although I do intend to give B&W developing a go one day.)

Does anybody know the answer to my question above about the lab developing at ISO 1000? I don't know if this even makes any sense, because it's not a "whole stop" ISO level - if it's just a question of timing during the development process though, perhaps it could work?

 

[leicapixie]

I simply don't understand "pushing" film speed.
400 ISO is sufficient, changing and pushing, higher contrast, washed out highlights.
Shutter speed, unless one has a electronic shutter, speeds of 1000th are usually slower..750th!
On leaf shutters and very small f-stops f16, f22 will not give accurate exposures at 500th....
Wanna shoot in low light, get digital!
I love film but have learnt that digital sees in the dark. sigh!
My best available light (natural light) portraits were at slow speeds, 1/8th,
1/15th.

 

[AndyGarton]

That's fine, each to their own - I actually like the higher contrast look of pushed B&W film, and I'm certainly not going to "get digital" just for low light!

(I'm realistic though - my low light results with film are very variable, but still very pleasing when it does work!)

 

[Ste_S]

I simply don't understand "pushing" film speed.
400 ISO is sufficient, changing and pushing, higher contrast, washed out highlights.
Shutter speed, unless one has a electronic shutter, speeds of 1000th are usually slower..750th!
On leaf shutters and very small f-stops f16, f22 will not give accurate exposures at 500th....
Wanna shoot in low light, get digital!
I love film but have learnt that digital sees in the dark. sigh!
My best available light (natural light) portraits were at slow speeds, 1/8th,
1/15th.

Washed out highlights ? No. Higher contrast ? Yup, but that's kinda the point
Pushed B&W film is perfectly fine in low light

 

[retinax]

Thanks, I'd actually got my calculations wrong so didn't know that - this actually means I physically can't get a (theoretically) correct exposure in bright sun with my f16 limited lens and 1/1000 camera, at ISO 1600, except with a filter (notwithstanding the fact that there is enough latitude for it usually to look ok slightly overexposed anyway with the film I usually use). I'll also try pushing only one stop to 800, which would obviously allow me to expose correctly in bright conditions, at the expense of a bit of low light performance.

I'm not doing the printing myself, the lab does that also - I enjoy the up-to-pressing-the-shutter side of photography far more than developing and printing! (Although I do intend to give B&W developing a go one day.)

Does anybody know the answer to my question above about the lab developing at ISO 1000? I don't know if this even makes any sense, because it's not a "whole stop" ISO level - if it's just a question of timing during the development process though, perhaps it could work?

Do it! holding a result that you've made all by yourself is very satisfying. And it saves money, and most importantly, gives you control. I think your issue could likely be solved or mitigated by using a developer that doesn't block the highlights easily, something like diluted Xtol.


Of course one could theoretically push to 1000, but that's looking for a degree of precision that's not in the system, as our Roger Hicks has often replied to questions like this. One person's push development to 1600 might be the same as the next person's to 800, and exposure at night is notoriously variable between photographers anyway. If 1600 is too hot, ask them to do 800. If you then can really see that in between would be perfect, you can still ask for that.

 

[presspass]

Do you know what developer your lab is using? Your idea of doing your own developing is a good one - despite the hype, it's not hard. If you can read a thermometer and a clock, you can do your own film developing. Retinax's suggestion to use a dilute developer is excellent., as is his suggestion of Xtol. Xtol is easy to mix, reliable, and gives good acutance and grain that's well under control. The only problem is finding a way to store five liters of the stuff, but that can be done in, you guessed it, five one-liter brown glass bottles. Good luck and enjoy.

 

[AndyGarton]

Yes, I'm looking forward to trying it soon. I don't know what developer my lab uses (I don't really have a personal relationship with them, they're not close to me, I send the film in the post to them - I am pleased with the results though).

 

[Fraser]

Its never that sunny in Scotland so no need to worry, here sunny 16 is actually sunny 11 (at best). I always think its better just to use a meter even if you just use it every few shots to give you a starting point, there are so many variables in film photography its good to keep something consistent.

 

[KenR]

Rewind knob

Rewind knob

The solution to your problem is not to use the film at iso1600 in bright sun. Rewind the film and put in a different roll and shoot in sun at box speed. Then, back in low light put back in then 1600 roll, shoot off the correct number of blank flames and start shooting again.
As suggested you can use a neutral density filter, or in bright sunlight a two stop orange filter to enhance your blue skies.
Or you can learn to develop your own, waste a few flames on each roll and not bother shooting low light and bright light on the same roll.