Continued discussion -- Sunny 16 rule

Quarkcharmed · Apr 18, 2021

Looks like I'm a bit late for this thread...

Looks like Sunny 16 rule can be fun to use, both in the field and on DPR to ignite an animated discussion.

Just a few points to make:

If you shoot out of camera jpeg, digital will be closer to film in terms of optimal exposure. So the Sunny 16 rule may work, but I haven't tried it myself.

If you shoot raw and aim for postprocessing, the Sunny 16 rule may only provide the 'best' exposure accidentally.

Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se.

The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO.

David1961 · Apr 18, 2021

Quarkcharmed said:
Looks like I'm a bit late for this thread...

Looks like Sunny 16 rule can be fun to use, both in the field and on DPR to ignite an animated discussion.

Just a few points to make:

If you shoot out of camera jpeg, digital will be closer to film in terms of optimal exposure.

What is your definition of optimal exposure?

For me, optimal exposure is maximising the amount of light that hit the sensor within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Quarkcharmed said:
So the Sunny 16 rule may work, but I haven't tried it myself.

If you shoot raw and aim for postprocessing, the Sunny 16 rule may only provide the 'best' exposure accidentally.

That is what I have been saying as well.

Quarkcharmed said:
Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se.

After composition, maximising the exposure as described above is my next priority.

Quarkcharmed said:
The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO

and scene luminance.

Quarkcharmed · Apr 18, 2021

David1961 said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Looks like I'm a bit late for this thread...

Looks like Sunny 16 rule can be fun to use, both in the field and on DPR to ignite an animated discussion.

Just a few points to make:

If you shoot out of camera jpeg, digital will be closer to film in terms of optimal exposure.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of optimal exposure?

Note it was about jpeg shooting. In this case, optimal means the one that gives the desired result in the SOOC jpeg.

David1961 said:
For me, optimal exposure is maximising the amount of light that hit the sensor within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

That's fine if you shoot raw, but it doesn't work if you shoot jpeg which the OP does, as far as I understand.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se.

Click to expand...

After composition, maximising the exposure as described above is my next priority.

Maximising the exposure is a primary tool, but the actual goal is to maximise the information available for postprocessing. In your editing software, you don't work with exposure, you work with the information in your raw files.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO

Click to expand...

and scene luminance.

Well, in cases where you have controlled light or able to wait for the lighting conditions.

David1961 · Apr 18, 2021

Quarkcharmed said:
David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Looks like I'm a bit late for this thread...

Looks like Sunny 16 rule can be fun to use, both in the field and on DPR to ignite an animated discussion.

Just a few points to make:

If you shoot out of camera jpeg, digital will be closer to film in terms of optimal exposure.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of optimal exposure?

Click to expand...

Note it was about jpeg shooting. In this case, optimal means the one that gives the desired result in the SOOC jpeg.

So with sooc jpegs you are saying that ISO is part of the exposure since ISO is one of the controls that determine the desired result of sooc jpegs.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

For me, optimal exposure is maximising the amount of light that hit the sensor within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Click to expand...

That's fine if you shoot raw, but it doesn't work if you shoot jpeg which the OP does, as far as I understand.

It can still work for jpegs as well.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se.

Click to expand...

After composition, maximising the exposure as described above is my next priority.

Click to expand...

Maximising the exposure is a primary tool, but the actual goal is to maximise the information available for postprocessing. In your editing software, you don't work with exposure, you work with the information in your raw files.

The information in the raw file is created by the exposure - amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area - and I always aim to maximise the exposure for the reasons I posted earlier.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO

Click to expand...

and scene luminance.

Click to expand...

Well, in cases where you have controlled light or able to wait for the lighting conditions.

Even when I have no control over the ambient lighting, the exposure is controlled by aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance.

For a given scene luminance and given that exposure is the amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area:

1. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 200

and

2. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 400

are exactly the same exposure but setting 2 will output a lighter image.

You posted:

"Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se."

"The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO"

How is the information different between settings 1 and 2 above since you believe "....the actual goal is to maximise the information....."?

Quarkcharmed · Apr 18, 2021

David1961 said:
Quarkcharmed said:

David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Looks like I'm a bit late for this thread...

Looks like Sunny 16 rule can be fun to use, both in the field and on DPR to ignite an animated discussion.

Just a few points to make:

If you shoot out of camera jpeg, digital will be closer to film in terms of optimal exposure.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of optimal exposure?

Click to expand...

Note it was about jpeg shooting. In this case, optimal means the one that gives the desired result in the SOOC jpeg.

Click to expand...

So with sooc jpegs you are saying that ISO is part of the exposure since ISO is one of the controls that determine the desired result of sooc jpegs.

It's not part of the physical (luminous) exposure, but it's part of the controls.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

David1961 said:

For me, optimal exposure is maximising the amount of light that hit the sensor within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Click to expand...

That's fine if you shoot raw, but it doesn't work if you shoot jpeg which the OP does, as far as I understand.

Click to expand...

It can still work for jpegs as well.

Maximising exposure for digital sensors means ETTR, and ETTR, in general, doesn't produce the desired brightness straight out of camera. It requires postprocessing.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

David1961 said:

David1961 said:

Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se.

Click to expand...

After composition, maximising the exposure as described above is my next priority.

Click to expand...

Maximising the exposure is a primary tool, but the actual goal is to maximise the information available for postprocessing. In your editing software, you don't work with exposure, you work with the information in your raw files.

Click to expand...

The information in the raw file is created by the exposure - amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area - and I always aim to maximise the exposure for the reasons I posted earlier.

The information is created by exposure but constrained by the ISO setting. In fact it's not 'created' but we can use that word for simplicity.

David1961 said:
Even when I have no control over the ambient lighting, the exposure is controlled by aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance.

The exposure is. But the information is also controlled by ISO setting.

David1961 said:
For a given scene luminance and given that exposure is the amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area:

1. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 200

and

2. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 400

are exactly the same exposure but setting 2 will output a lighter image.

You posted:

"Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se."

"The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO"

How is the information different between settings 1 and 2 above since you believe "....the actual goal is to maximise the information....."?

The information available for postprocessing will be different despite the exposures were the same. You bump ISO from 200 to 400 and you effectively lose 1 bit of bandwidth per pixel. You then lose information if the bandwidth becomes too narrow.

For example, if you did ETTR at ISO 200 and then bumped ISO to 400, you'll lose 1 bit of information per pixel - your highlights will clip.

--
https://www.instagram.com/quarkcharmed/
https://500px.com/quarkcharmed

David1961 · Apr 18, 2021

Quarkcharmed said:
David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Looks like I'm a bit late for this thread...

Looks like Sunny 16 rule can be fun to use, both in the field and on DPR to ignite an animated discussion.

Just a few points to make:

If you shoot out of camera jpeg, digital will be closer to film in terms of optimal exposure.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of optimal exposure?

Click to expand...

Note it was about jpeg shooting. In this case, optimal means the one that gives the desired result in the SOOC jpeg.

Click to expand...

So with sooc jpegs you are saying that ISO is part of the exposure since ISO is one of the controls that determine the desired result of sooc jpegs.

Click to expand...

It's not part of the physical (luminous) exposure, but it's part of the controls.

Then which exposure are you saying ISO is a part of?

In manual mode ISO is a lightness control and has no effect on exposure at all.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

For me, optimal exposure is maximising the amount of light that hit the sensor within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Click to expand...

That's fine if you shoot raw, but it doesn't work if you shoot jpeg which the OP does, as far as I understand.

Click to expand...

It can still work for jpegs as well.

Click to expand...

Maximising exposure for digital sensors means ETTR,

That is just one scenario in which you can maximise exposure.

I can also maximise the exposure within my DOF and motion blur requirements as described earlier.

Quarkcharmed said:
and ETTR, in general, doesn't produce the desired brightness straight out of camera. It requires postprocessing.

Everywhere I have read about ETTR, I have seen the point being made that ETTR is most beneficial when shooting raw but can still be used with some benefits if shooting jpeg, so you are not saying anything new there.

When I use ETTR I set ISO to base and use a tripod.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se.

Click to expand...

After composition, maximising the exposure as described above is my next priority.

Click to expand...

Maximising the exposure is a primary tool, but the actual goal is to maximise the information available for postprocessing. In your editing software, you don't work with exposure, you work with the information in your raw files.

Click to expand...

The information in the raw file is created by the exposure - amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area - and I always aim to maximise the exposure for the reasons I posted earlier.

Click to expand...

The information is created by exposure but constrained by the ISO setting.

In manual mode the exposure - amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area - is not constrained by ISO at all as I showed earlier.

Quarkcharmed said:
In fact it's not 'created' but we can use that word for simplicity.

It is created.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Even when I have no control over the ambient lighting, the exposure is controlled by aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance.

Click to expand...

The exposure is. But the information is also controlled by ISO setting.

No it isn't.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

For a given scene luminance and given that exposure is the amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area:

1. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 200

and

2. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 400

are exactly the same exposure but setting 2 will output a lighter image.

You posted:

"Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se."

"The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO"

How is the information different between settings 1 and 2 above since you believe "....the actual goal is to maximise the information....."?

Click to expand...

The information available for postprocessing will be different despite the exposures were the same. You bump ISO from 200 to 400 and you effectively lose 1 bit of bandwidth per pixel.

Not if there is no clipping of highlights and the read noise is reduced when you raise ISO.

So I have no hesitation in raising ISO if the camera histogram shows I still have highlight headroom after maximising the exposure as described earlier.

Quarkcharmed said:
You then lose information if the bandwidth becomes too narrow.

For example, if you did ETTR at ISO 200 and then bumped ISO to 400, you'll lose 1 bit of information per pixel - your highlights will clip.

Obviously if you clip highlights you will lose detail in the image but many times you can bump up the ISO, leaving aperture and shutter speed the same, and still won't have clipping and you gain the benefit of less read noise.

When you use the word "information" when referring to raw files in your posts, what definition are you using for the word and how do you differentiate what you call the information in a raw file from the data in a raw file?

Quarkcharmed · Apr 19, 2021

David1961 said:
Quarkcharmed said:

David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Looks like I'm a bit late for this thread...

Looks like Sunny 16 rule can be fun to use, both in the field and on DPR to ignite an animated discussion.

Just a few points to make:

If you shoot out of camera jpeg, digital will be closer to film in terms of optimal exposure.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of optimal exposure?

Click to expand...

Note it was about jpeg shooting. In this case, optimal means the one that gives the desired result in the SOOC jpeg.

Click to expand...

So with sooc jpegs you are saying that ISO is part of the exposure since ISO is one of the controls that determine the desired result of sooc jpegs.

Click to expand...

It's not part of the physical (luminous) exposure, but it's part of the controls.

Click to expand...

Then which exposure are you saying ISO is a part of?

I'm not saying that.

David1961 said:
In manual mode ISO is a lightness control and has no effect on exposure at all.

No, David, we've been through it already - ISO is not just lightness control, and by changing ISO you change the range of exposures you can use.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

David1961 said:

David1961 said:

David1961 said:

For me, optimal exposure is maximising the amount of light that hit the sensor within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Click to expand...

That's fine if you shoot raw, but it doesn't work if you shoot jpeg which the OP does, as far as I understand.

Click to expand...

It can still work for jpegs as well.

Click to expand...

Maximising exposure for digital sensors means ETTR,

Click to expand...

That is just one scenario in which you can maximise exposure.

I can also maximise the exposure within my DOF and motion blur requirements as described earlier.

Yes, only it's not relevant to the sunny 16 rule because you're putting different constraints.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

and ETTR, in general, doesn't produce the desired brightness straight out of camera. It requires postprocessing.

Click to expand...

Everywhere I have read about ETTR, I have seen the point being made that ETTR is most beneficial when shooting raw, so you are not saying anything new there.

I did not intend to say something new

David1961 said:
When I use ETTR I set ISO to base and use a tripod.

David1961 said:

David1961 said:

David1961 said:

David1961 said:

David1961 said:

Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se.

Click to expand...

After composition, maximising the exposure as described above is my next priority.

Click to expand...

Maximising the exposure is a primary tool, but the actual goal is to maximise the information available for postprocessing. In your editing software, you don't work with exposure, you work with the information in your raw files.

Click to expand...

The information in the raw file is created by the exposure - amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area - and I always aim to maximise the exposure for the reasons I posted earlier.

Click to expand...

The information is created by exposure but constrained by the ISO setting.

Click to expand...

In manual mode the exposure - amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area - is not constrained by ISO at all as I showed earlier.

You're mixing up exposure and information. The exposure you can dial in manual mode has no practical limits. The information you get in your raw files is constrained by ISO setting. That in turn affects your choice of exposure.

With your Manual+Auto ISO technique, you're still constrained, only the camera adjusts the ISO for you so that your chosen exposure happens to be within the constraints.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

In fact it's not 'created' but we can use that word for simplicity.

Click to expand...

It is created.

In simple colloquial terms, yes, but in principle you can't create information. But it's well beyond this topic.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

David1961 said:

Even when I have no control over the ambient lighting, the exposure is controlled by aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance.

Click to expand...

The exposure is. But the information is also controlled by ISO setting.

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

If course it is.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

David1961 said:

For a given scene luminance and given that exposure is the amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area:

1. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 200

and

2. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 400

are exactly the same exposure but setting 2 will output a lighter image.

You posted:

"Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se."

"The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO"

How is the information different between settings 1 and 2 above since you believe "....the actual goal is to maximise the information....."?

Click to expand...

The information available for postprocessing will be different despite the exposures were the same. You bump ISO from 200 to 400 and you effectively lose 1 bit of bandwidth per pixel.

Click to expand...

But the read noise is reduced.

In some cameras within certain ISO range - yes, slightly reduced, but you still lose more in bandwidth thus limiting the amount of information you can get at the given ISO setting.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

You then lose information if the bandwidth becomes too narrow.

For example, if you did ETTR at ISO 200 and then bumped ISO to 400, you'll lose 1 bit of information per pixel - your highlights will clip.

Click to expand...

Obviously if you clip highlights you will lose detail in the image but many times you can bump up the ISO, leaving aperture and shutter speed the same, and still won't have clipping and you gain the benefit of less read noise.

As above, in certain cameras within certain ISO range. At the same time you increase chances to accidentally clip the highlights.

The higher the ISO setting is, the less bandwidth your processing pipeline has. You increase ISO by 1/3 stop - you lose 1/3 bit of bandwidth per pixel.

David1961 · Apr 19, 2021

Quarkcharmed said:
David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Looks like I'm a bit late for this thread...

Looks like Sunny 16 rule can be fun to use, both in the field and on DPR to ignite an animated discussion.

Just a few points to make:

If you shoot out of camera jpeg, digital will be closer to film in terms of optimal exposure.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of optimal exposure?

Click to expand...

Note it was about jpeg shooting. In this case, optimal means the one that gives the desired result in the SOOC jpeg.

Click to expand...

So with sooc jpegs you are saying that ISO is part of the exposure since ISO is one of the controls that determine the desired result of sooc jpegs.

Click to expand...

It's not part of the physical (luminous) exposure, but it's part of the controls.

Click to expand...

Then which exposure are you saying ISO is a part of?

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that.

In manual mode ISO is a lightness control and has no effect on exposure at all.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

In manual mode ISO is a lightness control and has no effect on exposure at all.

Click to expand...

No, David, we've been through it already - ISO is not just lightness control, and by changing ISO you change the range of exposures you can use.

In manual mode that is simply not true at all.

Fort a given scene luminance:

1. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 200

and

2. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 400

are exactly the same exposure but setting 2 will output a lighter image.

In manual mode, raising ISO from 200 to 400 has lightened the image without changing the exposure at all.

Raising ISO does not mean you then must have clipped highlights.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

For me, optimal exposure is maximising the amount of light that hit the sensor within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.

Click to expand...

That's fine if you shoot raw, but it doesn't work if you shoot jpeg which the OP does, as far as I understand.

Click to expand...

It can still work for jpegs as well.

Click to expand...

Maximising exposure for digital sensors means ETTR,

Click to expand...

That is just one scenario in which you can maximise exposure.

I can also maximise the exposure within my DOF and motion blur requirements as described earlier.

Click to expand...

Yes, only it's not relevant to the sunny 16 rule because you're putting different constraints.

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

and ETTR, in general, doesn't produce the desired brightness straight out of camera. It requires postprocessing.

Click to expand...

Everywhere I have read about ETTR, I have seen the point being made that ETTR is most beneficial when shooting raw, so you are not saying anything new there.

Click to expand...

I did not intend to say something new

So it was just waffling on about something that is common knowledge :-D

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

When I use ETTR I set ISO to base and use a tripod.

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se.

Click to expand...

After composition, maximising the exposure as described above is my next priority.

Click to expand...

Maximising the exposure is a primary tool, but the actual goal is to maximise the information available for postprocessing. In your editing software, you don't work with exposure, you work with the information in your raw files.

Click to expand...

The information in the raw file is created by the exposure - amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area - and I always aim to maximise the exposure for the reasons I posted earlier.

Click to expand...

The information is created by exposure but constrained by the ISO setting.

Click to expand...

In manual mode the exposure - amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area - is not constrained by ISO at all as I showed earlier.

Click to expand...

You're mixing up exposure and information. The exposure you can dial in manual mode has no practical limits.

That is not true at all.

The exposure I dial in is limited by my DOF and motion blur requirements and the requirement to not clip important highlights.

Quarkcharmed said:
The information you get in your raw files is constrained by ISO setting.

Which information in raw files are you claiming is constrained by the ISO setting?

Quarkcharmed said:
That in turn affects your choice of exposure.

In manual mode ISO is a lightness control and has no effect on exposure at all.

Quarkcharmed said:
With your Manual+Auto ISO technique, you're still constrained,

I am constrained by the DOF and motion blur requirements I set for the photo.

But each of the semi-auto modes is constrained.

Quarkcharmed said:
only the camera adjusts the ISO for you so that your chosen exposure happens to be within the constraints.

And that is exactly what I want the camera to do with Auto ISO, so the obvious question is "So what?".

The camera sets the shutter speed in aperture priority and the aperture in shutter speed priority.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

In fact it's not 'created' but we can use that word for simplicity.

Click to expand...

It is created.

Click to expand...

In simple colloquial terms, yes, but in principle you can't create information. But it's well beyond this topic.

I was referring to the raw data being created.

But the way I see it, if something didn't exist before, like information of any kind for example, and now it does exist then it has been created.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Even when I have no control over the ambient lighting, the exposure is controlled by aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance.

Click to expand...

The exposure is. But the information is also controlled by ISO setting.

Click to expand...

No it isn't.

Click to expand...

If course it is.

Not in manual mode but any case, you are still running away from stating your definition of the word "information" when you use it in your posts.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

For a given scene luminance and given that exposure is the amount of light that hits the sensor per unit area:

1. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 200

and

2. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 400

are exactly the same exposure but setting 2 will output a lighter image.

You posted:

"Also, when shooting for raw processing, the actual goal is to maximise the information that you can use to get the final result. It's not about maximising the exposure per se."

"The amount of information you can get is controlled through shutter speed, aperture and ISO"

How is the information different between settings 1 and 2 above since you believe "....the actual goal is to maximise the information....."?

Click to expand...

The information available for postprocessing will be different despite the exposures were the same. You bump ISO from 200 to 400 and you effectively lose 1 bit of bandwidth per pixel.

Click to expand...

But the read noise is reduced.

Click to expand...

In some cameras within certain ISO range - yes, slightly reduced, but you still lose more in bandwidth thus limiting the amount of information you can get at the given ISO setting.

Reducing noise is more important to me.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

You then lose information if the bandwidth becomes too narrow.

For example, if you did ETTR at ISO 200 and then bumped ISO to 400, you'll lose 1 bit of information per pixel - your highlights will clip.

Click to expand...

Obviously if you clip highlights you will lose detail in the image but many times you can bump up the ISO, leaving aperture and shutter speed the same, and still won't have clipping and you gain the benefit of less read noise.

Click to expand...

As above, in certain cameras within certain ISO range. At the same time you increase chances to accidentally clip the highlights.

That increased chance of accidentally clipping the highlights comes down to the skill and competency of the photographer, so the obvious question is "So what?".

Quarkcharmed said:
The higher the ISO setting is, the less bandwidth your processing pipeline has. You increase ISO by 1/3 stop - you lose 1/3 bit of bandwidth per pixel.

If the camera histogram shows I have highlight headroom I have no hesitation in raising ISO for the benefits I described earlier.

You are still running away from this question I posted earlier:

"When you use the word "information" when referring to raw files in your posts, what definition are you using for the word and how do you differentiate what you call the information in a raw file from the data in a raw file?"

I am not trying to change the way you do your photography but am just asking the same questions I ask any professional photographer if they are trying to get me to take them seriously so I can get a feel for their competency.

Running away from my questions as you are here, gives me greater confidence in my belief that you are not sure what you are talking about and that you use words in your posts that you either do not properly understand or you make up meanings for to suit whatever agenda you are pushing at the time.

You are on my available on request list of photographers I avoid with my reasons why.

Al D · Apr 19, 2021

Autonerd said:
tony field said:

Metres do not make errors they simply measure light according to the pattern you specified.

Click to expand...

Well, yes -- they measure light, then recommend an exposure that will render the light they measure as 18% grey, since a lot of scenes average out that way. Fill your frame with a white wall or a black car, and the meter will recommend an incorrect exposure.

This is what your EC function is for on your camera: override your light meter for specific scenes. White wall? Add a stop or two. Black car? Stop down one. Backlit subject? Add a stop or two.

Alternatively, point your camera elsewhere, to an 'average' area in the scene, take a reading, enter the settings, then point to your target, take the shot. Simple techniques that photographers apply routinely, and have been applying for ages.

Autonerd said:
Autonerd said:

. It is interesting that, for the material you shoot, using Sunny 16 as your guidance for your compensation is applicable. For me that is never appropriate

Click to expand...

You get that Sunny 16 isn't just for sunny days, right? Sunny 16 isn't just about sunny days -- it's about the bigger picture (heh) of the light hitting your scene. It's applicable to all lighting conditions, and it's shorthand for being able to look at a scene and guess at the exposure value. EV15 for sunny days (which equates to 1/100 @ f/16 @ ISO 100 or equivalent), EV13 for overcast (1/100 @ f/8 @ ISO 100 or equiv), EV12 for shade, EV7-8 for a street at night. It's about looking at the light on your subject, which in tricky situations you can do a better job of evaluating than your meter.

Your camera is packed with technology to analyze any scene you wish to show it. Why would you want to guess when you have all the tools at your disposal to make an informed decision? Yes, of course you can choose to go full "Sunny-16-Manual-mode" and take pictures without using your light meter at all, just like in the old days when cameras didn't have one. My guess is you would probably get as many keepers out of 24 as we did back then. I recommend you use bracketing, another old technique that can get you to at least hit one out three.

--
‘You don’t take a photograph, you make it.’ - Ansel Adams

Quarkcharmed · Apr 19, 2021

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

No, David, we've been through it already - ISO is not just lightness control, and by changing ISO you change the range of exposures you can use.

Click to expand...

In manual mode that is simply not true at all.

Fort a given scene luminance:

1. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 200

and

2. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 400

are exactly the same exposure but setting 2 will output a lighter image.

In manual mode, raising ISO from 200 to 400 has lightened the image without changing the exposure at all.

And also it blew the highlight out, so you're forced to reduce the exposure in order to keep the highlights.

David1961 said:
Raising ISO does not mean you then must have clipped highlights.

Because ISO setting doesn't change the exposure (I never claimed that). It changes the limits of usable exposures (without highlight clipping and loosing the shadows).

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

You're mixing up exposure and information. The exposure you can dial in manual mode has no practical limits.

Click to expand...

That is not true at all.

The exposure I dial in is limited by my DOF and motion blur requirements and the requirement to not clip important highlights.

No, that's your constraints related to your personal shooting technique. Technically you can set shutter speed say from 1/8000s to 30s and much longer in Bulb mode, so you're not limited technically. Motion blur and DoF are the additional constraints you prioritise based on your style/technique/desired result.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

The information you get in your raw files is constrained by ISO setting.

Click to expand...

Which information in raw files are you claiming is constrained by the ISO setting?

The information contained in digital numbers (per-pixel values representing the photon count). It's measured in bits. The higher the ISO gets, the less information your raw file can accommodate (the bandwidth reduces).

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

In some cameras within certain ISO range - yes, slightly reduced, but you still lose more in bandwidth thus limiting the amount of information you can get at the given ISO setting.

Click to expand...

Reducing noise is more important to me.

David1961 said:

As above, in certain cameras within certain ISO range. At the same time you increase chances to accidentally clip the highlights.

Click to expand...

That increased chance of accidentally clipping the highlights comes down to the skill and competency of the photographer,

When you're in any 'auto' modes, including auto ISO, it's not about your competency but about in-camera metering competency.

David1961 said:
I am not trying to change the way you do your photography but am just asking the same questions I ask any professional photographer if they are trying to get me to take them seriously so I can get a feel for their competency.

Sorry David, I'm not even trying to get you to take me seriously, why would I need that?

David1961 said:
Running away from my questions as you are here, gives me greater confidence in my belief that you are not sure what you are talking about

In a recent thread you claimed there were separate pixels with noise and without noise and other interesting things, so I guess the current conversation is also based on your misunderstanding of some very basic concepts and implementation of ISO.

David1961 · Apr 19, 2021

Quarkcharmed said:
David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

No, David, we've been through it already - ISO is not just lightness control, and by changing ISO you change the range of exposures you can use.

Click to expand...

In manual mode that is simply not true at all.

Fort a given scene luminance:

1. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 200

and

2. f/5.6, 1/200s, ISO 400

are exactly the same exposure but setting 2 will output a lighter image.

In manual mode, raising ISO from 200 to 400 has lightened the image without changing the exposure at all.

Click to expand...

And also it blew the highlight out, so you're forced to reduce the exposure in order to keep the highlights.

No it didn't blow the highlights out at all so I am not sure what you are waffling on about

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Raising ISO does not mean you then must have clipped highlights.

Click to expand...

Because ISO setting doesn't change the exposure (I never claimed that). It changes the limits of usable exposures (without highlight clipping and loosing the shadows).

In manual mode ISO does not change the limits at all.

I maximise the exposure within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping highlights as I described earlier.

If the histogram says I still have highlight headroom after maximising the exposure, then I have no hesitation in raising ISO without changing the exposure at all.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

You're mixing up exposure and information. The exposure you can dial in manual mode has no practical limits.

Click to expand...

That is not true at all.

The exposure I dial in is limited by my DOF and motion blur requirements and the requirement to not clip important highlights.

Click to expand...

No, that's your constraints related to your personal shooting technique. Technically you can set shutter speed say from 1/8000s to 30s and much longer in Bulb mode, so you're not limited technically. Motion blur and DoF are the additional constraints you prioritise based on your style/technique/desired result.

Yes that is correct.

I maximise the exposure within my DOF and motion blur requirements without clipping highlights as I described earlier.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

The information you get in your raw files is constrained by ISO setting.

Click to expand...

Which information in raw files are you claiming is constrained by the ISO setting?

Click to expand...

The information contained in digital numbers (per-pixel values representing the photon count).

How is that different to what is commonly called raw data?

Quarkcharmed said:
It's measured in bits. The higher the ISO gets, the less information your raw file can accommodate (the bandwidth reduces).

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

In some cameras within certain ISO range - yes, slightly reduced, but you still lose more in bandwidth thus limiting the amount of information you can get at the given ISO setting.

Click to expand...

Reducing noise is more important to me.

Quarkcharmed said:

As above, in certain cameras within certain ISO range. At the same time you increase chances to accidentally clip the highlights.

Click to expand...

That increased chance of accidentally clipping the highlights comes down to the skill and competency of the photographer,

Click to expand...

When you're in any 'auto' modes, including auto ISO, it's not about your competency but about in-camera metering competency.

A competent photographer will not clip important highlights.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

I am not trying to change the way you do your photography but am just asking the same questions I ask any professional photographer if they are trying to get me to take them seriously so I can get a feel for their competency.

Click to expand...

Sorry David, I'm not even trying to get you to take me seriously, why would I need that?

Of course you don't need to but to have any chance of convincing me you know what you are talking about then I would need to first take you seriously.

I can't accept someone's opinions if I don't take the person seriously in the first place

So far all you have done is jump into this thread posting the same opinions you have elsewhere and seem to struggle to cope when I do not accept some of them.

Quarkcharmed said:
Quarkcharmed said:

Running away from my questions as you are here, gives me greater confidence in my belief that you are not sure what you are talking about

Click to expand...

In a recent thread you claimed there were separate pixels with noise and without noise and other interesting things,

No-one is infallible, not even you

Yep, that was an interesting sub thread which I apologised for in that thread and I put it down to me having a huge "seniors moment" :-D

Quarkcharmed said:
so I guess the current conversation is also based on your misunderstanding of some very basic concepts and implementation of ISO.

I am not misunderstanding the concept of ISO and its implementation.

But you seem to struggle to cope with me saying that in manual mode ISO is a lightness control and not an exposure control and that I have no hesitation in raising ISO if the camera histogram says I still have highlight headroom after maximising the exposure within my DOF and motion blur requirements.

Raising ISO without clipping important highlights and without changing exposure has its benefits as described earlier.

I am just calling things as I see them with the reasons why and you haven't posted anything that proves what I have posted in this thread is not 100% accurate.

You are still running away from these questions I posted earlier:

"When you use the word "information" when referring to raw files in your posts, what definition are you using for the word and how do you differentiate what you call the information in a raw file from the data in a raw file?"

I am not trying to change the way you do your photography but am just asking the same questions I ask any professional photographer if they are trying to get me to take them seriously so I can get a feel for their competency.

Running away from my questions as you are here, gives me greater confidence in my belief that you are not sure of what you are talking about and that you use words in your posts that you either do not properly understand or you make up meanings for to suit whatever agenda you are pushing at the time.

You are on my available on request list of photographers I avoid with my reasons why.

tbcass · Apr 19, 2021

sybersitizen said:
tbcass said:

The Sunny 16 rule was designed for 35mm (FF). It will get you into severe diffraction with small sensors, particularly M43 and smaller.

Click to expand...

It was not designed for a particular format. It applies to any format, and any ISO (ASA), and it does not demand actually shooting at f/16. Look at my post right above yours.

I stand corrected but remember that 35mm was the smallest generally used format in the olden days with 8 and 16mm being uncommon for still photography. The Minox used an unusual 9.2mm film based on 8mm without sprocket holes. It's still true that f16 is not a good idea with smaller than FF sensors. Despite the fact I started shooting film without a light meter in the mid 60s I had never heard of the term "sunny 16". Instead I used the recommended settings that came on the instruction sheet with the film. Whether the term sunny 16 was mentioned on that sheet I don't remember.

--
Tom

R Liewenberger · Apr 19, 2021

Al D said:
Your camera is packed with technology to analyze any scene you wish to show it. Why would you want to guess when you have all the tools at your disposal to make an informed decision?

Exactly! As if we were still in the days of the box cameras of the 40s and 50s! Geez!

Liewenberger

Quarkcharmed · Apr 19, 2021

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

David1961 said:

Which information in raw files are you claiming is constrained by the ISO setting?

Click to expand...

The information contained in digital numbers (per-pixel values representing the photon count).

Click to expand...

How is that different to what is commonly called raw data?

Why does it have to be different or not different? It was your question I answered.

David1961 said:
David1961 said:

so I guess the current conversation is also based on your misunderstanding of some very basic concepts and implementation of ISO.

Click to expand...

I am not misunderstanding the concept of ISO and its implementation.

But you seem to struggle to cope with me saying that in manual mode ISO is a lightness control and not an exposure control and that I have no hesitation in raising ISO if the camera histogram says I still have highlight headroom after maximising the exposure within my DOF and motion blur requirements.

You're arguing with something I never said. Whether or not you raise ISO by looking at the histogram is totally irrelevant. I never claimed ISO was an exposure control. And I never claimed it's not a lightness control.

But I claimed it does more than just lightness control. You seem to be struggling with the simple fact that when you change the ISO speed on any given scene, you change the range of acceptable exposures you can use without clipping.

David1961 said:
Raising ISO without clipping important highlights and without changing exposure has its benefits as described earlier.

Of course it has some benefits. Again you're fighting against something I wasn't talking about. Not this time at least.

David1961 said:
You are still running away from these questions I posted earlier:

"When you use the word "information" when referring to raw files in your posts, what definition are you using for the word and how do you differentiate what you call the information in a raw file from the data in a raw file?"

The difference between information and data in this case is too subtle. Before it's processed it's data, but it's also information in terms of digital processing.

What matters here is the reduced bandwidth.

The more you raise the ISO setting, the less bandwidth you get, so in the end you get less information to work with in postprocessing and exporting into the final jpeg.

Bill Ferris · Apr 19, 2021

sybersitizen said:
Bill Ferris said:

While it makes sense for the current iteration of Sunny 16 to date to the ASA change or later, the biggest clue of an earlier origin is the use of f/16 as the reference f-stop. It's not the first f-stop one generally thinks of when doing 35mm photography.

Click to expand...

I've already explained twice in this thread (once in an earlier reply to you) why f/16 is part of the rule. Again, here is the explanation:

Nobody needs you to explain anything. Your explanation wasn't needed the first time, is not needed now, and won't be needed the 100th time you decide to lecture folks rather than making the effort to read posts with an open mind to understand the other person's perspective and point.

robert1955 · Apr 19, 2021

Quarkcharmed said:
David1961 said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

Which information in raw files are you claiming is constrained by the ISO setting?

Click to expand...

The information contained in digital numbers (per-pixel values representing the photon count).

Click to expand...

How is that different to what is commonly called raw data?

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be different or not different? It was your question I answered.

Quarkcharmed said:

Quarkcharmed said:

so I guess the current conversation is also based on your misunderstanding of some very basic concepts and implementation of ISO.

Click to expand...

I am not misunderstanding the concept of ISO and its implementation.

But you seem to struggle to cope with me saying that in manual mode ISO is a lightness control and not an exposure control and that I have no hesitation in raising ISO if the camera histogram says I still have highlight headroom after maximising the exposure within my DOF and motion blur requirements.

Click to expand...

You're arguing with something I never said. Whether or not you raise ISO by looking at the histogram is totally irrelevant. I never claimed ISO was an exposure control. And I never claimed it's not a lightness control.

But I claimed it does more than just lightness control. You seem to be struggling with the simple fact that when you change the ISO speed on any given scene, you change the range of acceptable exposures you can use without clipping.

Quarkcharmed said:

Raising ISO without clipping important highlights and without changing exposure has its benefits as described earlier.

Click to expand...

Of course it has some benefits. Again you're fighting against something I wasn't talking about. Not this time at least.

Quarkcharmed said:

You are still running away from these questions I posted earlier:

"When you use the word "information" when referring to raw files in your posts, what definition are you using for the word and how do you differentiate what you call the information in a raw file from the data in a raw file?"

Click to expand...

The difference between information and data in this case is too subtle. Before it's processed it's data, but it's also information in terms of digital processing.

What matters here is the reduced bandwidth.

The more you raise the ISO setting, the less bandwidth you get, so in the end you get less information to work with in postprocessing and exporting into the final jpeg.

But it is not a given that you will always lose significant highlights in the raw data, nor that this necessarily reduces your options in going to an 8 bit file.

For me the reduction in dynamic range determines how I set up my preferred auto-ISO setting. My camera is dual gain and I set u[ my 1st auto ISO to make the best use of that, the 2nd for what I find acceptable. As usual, the lunch may be free, the beer is not.

sybersitizen · Apr 19, 2021

Bill Ferris said:
sybersitizen said:

Bill Ferris said:

While it makes sense for the current iteration of Sunny 16 to date to the ASA change or later, the biggest clue of an earlier origin is the use of f/16 as the reference f-stop. It's not the first f-stop one generally thinks of when doing 35mm photography.

Click to expand...

I've already explained twice in this thread (once in an earlier reply to you) why f/16 is part of the rule. Again, here is the explanation:

Click to expand...

Nobody needs you to explain anything. Your explanation wasn't needed the first time, is not needed now, and won't be needed the 100th time you decide to lecture folks rather than making the effort to read posts with an open mind to understand the other person's perspective and point.

I really do need to keep explaining because of your statement that is now bolded.

Nobody chose f/16 for the Sunny 16 rule. f/16 just happens to be the f/stop where ASA rating is the reciprocal of the suggested shutter speed. It was not a choice, so nobody could do anything about the fact that it is not the first f-stop one generally thinks of when doing 35mm photography. f/16 was unavoidable when the rule was invented, and it was unavoidable for any format size. It would still be unavoidable today if the rule were invented today.

spider-mario · Apr 19, 2021

sybersitizen said:
Bill Ferris said:

sybersitizen said:

Bill Ferris said:

While it makes sense for the current iteration of Sunny 16 to date to the ASA change or later, the biggest clue of an earlier origin is the use of f/16 as the reference f-stop. It's not the first f-stop one generally thinks of when doing 35mm photography.

Click to expand...

I've already explained twice in this thread (once in an earlier reply to you) why f/16 is part of the rule. Again, here is the explanation:

Click to expand...

Nobody needs you to explain anything. Your explanation wasn't needed the first time, is not needed now, and won't be needed the 100th time you decide to lecture folks rather than making the effort to read posts with an open mind to understand the other person's perspective and point.

Click to expand...

I really do need to keep explaining because of your statement that is now bolded.

Nobody chose f/16 for the Sunny 16 rule. f/16 just happens to be the f/stop where ASA rating is the reciprocal of the suggested shutter speed. It was not a choice, so nobody could do anything about the fact that it is not the first f-stop one generally thinks of when doing 35mm photography. f/16 was unavoidable when the rule was invented, and it was unavoidable for any format size. It would still be unavoidable today if the rule were invented today.

It still presumes that the benefit of stating the rule in terms of the reciprocal without an additional factor is more than the cost of stating it with an f-number that practically no one will use.

So, yes, someone did choose. They chose to state a rule at all in the first place and give it a catchy name, and they chose “f/16 and reciprocal” over f/11 and a factor of 2 or f/8 and a factor of 4.

spider-mario · Apr 19, 2021

I hereby propose the “Cloudy 8” rule: in cloudy weather, a good starting point at f/8 is when the ISO value and the shutter speed are reciprocals of each other.

This is just as true but much more contemporary.

Trebor1 · Apr 19, 2021

Mark Scott Abeln said:
Overrank said:

In its current form it cannot be older than 1960 when the ASA specification changed. At that time all ratings were doubled, so 100ASA film was re-rated as 200ASA with no change in the film. Before 1960 you would have set the shutter speed to 1/ twice the box ASA to get the same exposure, or use f/22 instead of f/16.

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, as film speed definitions didn't stabilize until quite late in history.

Mark S Abeln said:

It wouldn't surprise me if “the early years of photography” is 1990s - 2000s for the phrase “Sunny 16”.

Click to expand...

According to Google books search, the earliest occurrence of the phrase "sunny 16 rule" is in 1980, by George Thomas Yeamans, and it was frequently repeated throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

This does not mean that the rule didn't appear in magazines, newsletters, or in conversations before 1980, or in some book not digitized and indexed by Google, nor does it mean that some variation of the phrase wasn't used, although searching for "sunny sixteen" or "rule of sunny 16" didn't come up with anything earlier.

I couldn't find anything before 1980 that referred to "sunny 22" but of course that isn't proof that the rule didn't exist

*****

There is an interesting rule of thumb from the old days, the "One, Three, Five, and Double Rule" or "1-3-5-10 rule" for outdoor exposure. Basically, take the shutter speed settings needed for a bright sunny day, and multiply that by 3 for a hazy day, 5 for a cloudy day, and 10 for an overcast day. This is found in American Photography, Volume 19, from the year 1925. Obviously this doesn't tell you what all your settings ought to be, but if you already have a good exposure for one, you can guess the others. It was noted that these values weren't quite accurate, but close enough.

Tabulated exposure values, such as found in a Wikipedia article, have a somewhat different series, 1-2-4-8, which gives a fractional stop difference of exposure from the 1-3-5-10 rule in each cloudy situation. The 1-2-4-8 rule is what's found printed inside of many Kodak film cartons, although there are variations—sometimes the "2" for hazy conditions is omitted, or sometimes varying shutter speeds are shown, with faster speeds for sunny conditions, or sunny beaches and snow.

Pre-1960 there was an exposure safety factor of 2.5X ie. overexposure was standard practice, because it was felt to be far more desirable than underexposure. In 1960 black and white film speeds doubled overnight without any changes being made to the film emulsion, by removing the majority of the previous safety factor. Colour films, both negative and transparency, retained their existing speed.http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Film_Speeds_1960.html

Exposure guides, of the circular slide-rule type, were available from Ilford in 1892. These very early guides require the month and time of day as additional inputs, here is a 1893 review: http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Exposure_Meters/Instruct/ExpMtr_Jul1893.pdf

Other exposure guides were available such as the Imperial Exposure Reckoner (1901), used H&D film speeds, with different versions for use in the Northern and Southern hemisphere, optimised for a particular latitude range. http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Exposure_Meters.html

Exposure guides from the 1930s can be found on the back of Rollei TLR cameras, such as the Automat (1937). By converting from the old DIN speed of 21/10 ° = 50 ASA it appears that they were then using a Sunny 11 rule, corresponding to the safety factor mentioned above. Or looked at the other way, post-1960 (with Black and White films) this would have needed to change to the current Sunny 16. :-D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rolleiflex_exposure_guide.JPG

There are also also widely some held misconceptions, regarding metering and particularly calibration constants/average reflectance etc. that are addressed in the following article:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/conrad-meter-cal.pdf

Continued discussion -- Sunny 16 rule

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts