Sunny 16 and Rolleiflex

[john carter]

You will see a photo of the back of my 1966 Rlloeiflex. Sunny 16 appears to

be off by one stop. And strangely, open shade is where most people expose

it. Does anyone have an explanation to this conundrum or am I wrong, or half

right.<div></div>

[Bill Snell]

John, The numbers are actually "Exposure Values" and not f stops. EV 16 equates to 1/250 at

f16 on 200asa film and each higher or lower number equals one stop difference. The No.13

under open shade equals 1/250 @ f5.6 at 200asa. All the other funny pictures are minor

adjustments. Lots of leaf shutters were equiped with the system in the 50's 60's. Best of

luck.

[john carter]

I guess I didn't make myself CLEAR. I know what EV is. But the picture on the upper far left is for SAND AND SNOW which in the Sunny 16 rule is F22 @ 1/ASA or ISO. The second images from the left are NORMAL BRIGHT SUN. These EVs are not Sunny 16.

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

When I meter my Provia 100F shots with my Pentax spot meter to place mid-gray tones at Zone V, I find that I'm overexposing by one or even two stops relative to a naive application of sunny 16, and getting good exposures.

 

So my experience is that sunny 16 is simply wrong _as a general rule of thumb for bright Tokyo days_.

 

What I think is going on is that sunny 16 applies if and only if the subject is fully illuminated by bright midday sun, and that even the slightest haze or polution, or being more than a couple of hours off from midday (in Japan, the Japanese don't do daylight savings time, so a right after lunch summer walk with a camera is already late afternoon light) makes sunny 16 underexpose. And while negative films are supposed to have a lot of latitude, that latitude is all with respect to overexposure, so sunny 16 is guaranteed to trash your shadows.

 

I'd recommend buying a spot meter and using it. It works great with my 1956 Rolleiflex<g>.

[john carter]

I have a spot meter, the question is is Rollei wrong?

[john carter]

OR was Rollei wrong?

[victorm.]

In the 1952 "Rollei Photography Handbook", Jacob Deschin says of the exposure guide: "The exposures seem rather long and may reasonably be reduced." Also: "The disparity between the Rollei table and the one (exposure) you finally decide on for your own work may be caused by the fact that any such table always is based on 'average' results, therefore favoring somewhat longer exposure." Today's films are also very different from those of 1966.

[david_m]

'Sunny 16' is a very primitive exposure calculation method. A Rolleiflex deserves more. There are different strengths of sun, such as hazy sun and bright sun, that require quite different exposures.

[Bill Snell]

John, Sorry I picked you up wrong. Big frost and just out of bed! With the advent of new films

the ASA ratings were adjusted in the sixties and the B&W safety margin was dropped. Films

became 1 stop faster! This probably accounts for the 1 stop difference. The Kodak Master

Photoguide, 1973 gives a 4 stop difference between "Light sand and Snow" (EV 16/17) and

"Open Shade" (EV 12/13) at 200asa. I'll stick with my meter.

[john carter]

That is all fine and good, but my camera is 1966 and sunny 16 is 1966 or earlier. What s the deal? I don't care about today. What was their thinking then.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The chart is correct, It just adds about 1 stop more exposure, a good thing to do when using an extinction meter, or chart type "meter". The asa definition for B&W was changed about 1960, many films speeds doubled, and the 2x safety factor was dropped. It is amazing to see folks new to photography so totally confused about a simple, straight forward chart. Maybe it's the dumbing down of education.:) B&W tonal materials are more printable if 2x over exposed than underexposed, this is decades old, maye to the civil war. When somebody doesnt have an exposure meter, a guide does work. The 2x factor has been on rollei "matrix meters" and others too.<BR><BR>Maybe the concept of safety factor is not well known anymore in film, just in hand grenades and parachutes?<BR><BR><IMG SRC="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/tripods-261.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/Images%20of%20cameras/tripods-264.jpg">

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Jim,

 

Sunny 16 was not handed down by Jehovah on tablets of stone. It's a rule of thumb. Personally I've preferred Sunny 11 for many years.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[jim_thompson6]

First of all, no one ever said that the exposure guide on the back of the Rollei (or any camera for that matter) directly corresponded to the Sunny 16 "rule". As Kelly pointed out, it was (and still is) thought that a slight overexposure (with B&W film) was better than underexposure, hence the creation of the "playing it safe" guide for non-experts.

Having said that, I do not use the chart on my Rolleis. I routinely shoot slide film without a meter (using Sunny 16), and rarely mess-up the exposure. Depending on where I am in the world, and at what time, I sometimes use Sunny 11 and Sunny 22 (the latter very rarely). Basically, it comes down to experience, which strangely enough is how the exposure chart came to be.

 

Ciao,

Jim

[jack_thistle]

In college I had a prof inform me of another "Law" that I used to put in the back of my mind and actually would think about when moving a light source within the confines of a set in the studio. The "Inverse Square Law" sounds complicated but is actually quite simple when you think about it.

 

The intensity of light radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.

 

The drop off in intensity of a light source is really stronger than you think, relative to distance to the subject matter.

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Hold on a sec, Jack. You've got that wrong I think. The inverse square law pertains to the distance from a light source not to the distance from an illuminated subject.

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

"The drop off in intensity of a light source is really stronger than you think, relative to distance to the subject matter."

 

I think this is incorrect when the light source is the sun. It is so far away, there is no light fall off. The distance from subject to camera is not relevant.

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

The exposure remains the same regardless of the distance from subject to camera. The greater the distance, the smaller the image formed on the film, such that the light energy reaching the film actually does follow the inverse square law (I think) but the exposure remains the same.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Jim,

 

Ah, yes. I was thinking of mono neg, where 'sunny 11' is much safer, but with slides, 'sunny 16' would indeed be safer.

 

No doubt you know the reason for this but for lurkers who may not, slide exposure is keyed to the highlights (you don't want the bright areas to blow but you can let the shadows go hang) whereas neg exposure is keyed to the shadows in order to get shadow detail: you need to overexpose a LOT to 'blow' the highlights in a neg.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[pshinkaw]

I have a Rolleicord III with this same type of chart on the back. When I first saw it I thought it was for a Northern European Sunny 16 day. I lived in San Antonio at the time and a typical cloudless day was f22 rather than f16.

 

-Paul

[dave_whoami]

Kelly,

I appreciate that. My Rolleiflex standard has the chart in German. Thanks for an English version. :)

[tito sobrinho]

Some photographers use the so called Sunny 16 instead of a reliable light meter. After applying the "rule", they bracket, bracket, and bracket.