Dynamic range and ISO 50

[Quarkcharmed]

With both Canon and Sony, if you shoot raw and the same shutter speed and f/number, then ISO 50 and ISO 100 produce the same raw data. So you could've shot at ISO 100 with the same result (but lowering "exposure" in post could be required with ISO 100)

The issue with extended ISO 50 is that it may show no highlight clipping in the histogram but there's clipping.

You can lower it in post but some areas are burnt out, no detail. By reducing the ISO areas are not burnt out.

Did you take those shots on exactly same scene and light, with exactly the same shutter speed and aperture and same lens? If all the conditions are the same, changing ISO from 100 to 50 doesn't change data in raw. It can be checked in RawDigger.

 

[PWPhotography]

With both Canon and Sony, if you shoot raw and the same shutter speed and f/number, then ISO 50 and ISO 100 produce the same raw data. So you could've shot at ISO 100 with the same result (but lowering "exposure" in post could be required with ISO 100)

The issues are 1) you'd need additional processing and 2) how you'd know to take on F11 (instead of F16) to purposely lower one-stop at scenes? You might to take on F8 or F9 that will over-expose quite lots that you'd be unable to recover highlight. This is simply unpractical in real scenes. I want to expose correctly regardless ISO.

The issue with extended ISO 50 is that it may show no highlight clipping in the histogram but there's clipping.

It's just one-stop prone in highlight clipping, true. But as I said I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes under bright sunlight. I'd not worry in highlight clipping on boring sky as nothing needs to recover ;-)

1.no more processing, in fact less. Lots of experience, can judge what aperture and more importantly length of exposure, after a few shots, you know what time you can use.

As I said, I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes, not landscape. It's simply unpractical to test exposures ;-) Why don't expose correctly on whatever ISO?

lf l was not getting long enough, l just dropped the ISO down to 50. On Sony for some reason l'm not getting long enough exposures. I though with more dynamic range l could get longer but it is the opposite. Struggling to even get 30 seconds with a 10 stop, even on a cloudy day.

Just wondering why you'd need to expose so long if a 10-stop is still not sufficient even under bright sunlight? You'd not get better result on more than 60 sec on water. Now I have two 82mm BT ND filters, 3-stop and 6-stop that can stack together to be a 9-stop which is sufficient to me. I use them via several step-down adapters to use on various lenses, max throat size is 82mm.

Why don't you use ND filters? You can take off in a second, same as changing ISO.

Unpractical and very inconvenient in airshow events. The scenes are changing rapidly. Frequently jet and prop-driven planes mixed each other, such as in so-called heritage flight where 3-gen planes (WWI prop-driven, Korean/Vietnam war old jet and modern stealth jet) fly together or follow each other quickly. Usually you use long lens, such as 100-400 GM or 200-600 G etc that would require a pretty big filter. You are unable to mount/un-mount screw-in filters on these lenses in seconds ;-) You'd miss many opportunities. You could try magnetic attachable filters but then would be bulky, expensive and still not secured as they could throw away in rapid waving of the lens, lol. It's just not practical and doesn't make a sense. Fortunately by lowing ISO 50 is sufficient that aperture will not be more than F16 even under bright sunlight usually so no worth to use a filter.

A ND filter is more appropriate in motor-sports however as the shutter speed is even much lower such as 1/30~60 and the scenes/lights don't change rapidly.

lt is cloudy today, not sunny, if sunny l would only be getting about 10 seconds.

What kind of water topic photos you take if you could give a few samples with full EXIF? Wondering why you'd need one or more mins exposure?

I'm doing mostly seascapes. It depends on the conditions and lighting. If the sea is calm and it not a dark day, then 30 seconds is often enough to give a smooth, milky effect but if the sea is rough you need a longer exposure. Also you obliviously have more cloud movement in longer exposures.
Some people do 10 minutes, get really smooth effect but that is too long for me.
Some even do overnight for 10 hours, such as Michael Kenna, again not for me.

the Reynisfjara Black Sand Beach

30 sec is already long enough for me to smooth rough sea at the above place, very windy then. Wondering how longer shutter can make sea looks much better? Show me an example of 10-min exposure on sea

--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[RaysJ]

With both Canon and Sony, if you shoot raw and the same shutter speed and f/number, then ISO 50 and ISO 100 produce the same raw data. So you could've shot at ISO 100 with the same result (but lowering "exposure" in post could be required with ISO 100)

The issues are 1) you'd need additional processing and 2) how you'd know to take on F11 (instead of F16) to purposely lower one-stop at scenes? You might to take on F8 or F9 that will over-expose quite lots that you'd be unable to recover highlight. This is simply unpractical in real scenes. I want to expose correctly regardless ISO.

The issue with extended ISO 50 is that it may show no highlight clipping in the histogram but there's clipping.

It's just one-stop prone in highlight clipping, true. But as I said I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes under bright sunlight. I'd not worry in highlight clipping on boring sky as nothing needs to recover ;-)

1.no more processing, in fact less. Lots of experience, can judge what aperture and more importantly length of exposure, after a few shots, you know what time you can use.

As I said, I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes, not landscape. It's simply unpractical to test exposures ;-) Why don't expose correctly on whatever ISO?

lf l was not getting long enough, l just dropped the ISO down to 50. On Sony for some reason l'm not getting long enough exposures. I though with more dynamic range l could get longer but it is the opposite. Struggling to even get 30 seconds with a 10 stop, even on a cloudy day.

Just wondering why you'd need to expose so long if a 10-stop is still not sufficient even under bright sunlight? You'd not get better result on more than 60 sec on water. Now I have two 82mm BT ND filters, 3-stop and 6-stop that can stack together to be a 9-stop which is sufficient to me. I use them via several step-down adapters to use on various lenses, max throat size is 82mm.

Why don't you use ND filters? You can take off in a second, same as changing ISO.

Unpractical and very inconvenient in airshow events. The scenes are changing rapidly. Frequently jet and prop-driven planes mixed each other, such as in so-called heritage flight where 3-gen planes (WWI prop-driven, Korean/Vietnam war old jet and modern stealth jet) fly together or follow each other quickly. Usually you use long lens, such as 100-400 GM or 200-600 G etc that would require a pretty big filter. You are unable to mount/un-mount screw-in filters on these lenses in seconds ;-) You'd miss many opportunities. You could try magnetic attachable filters but then would be bulky, expensive and still not secured as they could throw away in rapid waving of the lens, lol. It's just not practical and doesn't make a sense. Fortunately by lowing ISO 50 is sufficient that aperture will not be more than F16 even under bright sunlight usually so no worth to use a filter.

A ND filter is more appropriate in motor-sports however as the shutter speed is even much lower such as 1/30~60 and the scenes/lights don't change rapidly.

lt is cloudy today, not sunny, if sunny l would only be getting about 10 seconds.

What kind of water topic photos you take if you could give a few samples with full EXIF? Wondering why you'd need one or more mins exposure?

I'm doing mostly seascapes. It depends on the conditions and lighting. If the sea is calm and it not a dark day, then 30 seconds is often enough to give a smooth, milky effect but if the sea is rough you need a longer exposure. Also you obliviously have more cloud movement in longer exposures.
Some people do 10 minutes, get really smooth effect but that is too long for me.
Some even do overnight for 10 hours, such as Michael Kenna, again not for me.

the Reynisfjara Black Sand Beach

30 sec is already long enough for me to smooth rough sea at the above place, very windy then. Wondering how longer shutter can make sea looks much better? Show me an example of 10-min exposure on sea

There are plenty on the internet, search 10 minute exposure Vancouver, she does quite a lot around that time, don't look anything like yours. I don't do 10 minute exposures. Hardly any sea in that image and most is fast moving in the foreground. Very blue, you are using a Lee filter?

 

[PWPhotography]

With both Canon and Sony, if you shoot raw and the same shutter speed and f/number, then ISO 50 and ISO 100 produce the same raw data. So you could've shot at ISO 100 with the same result (but lowering "exposure" in post could be required with ISO 100)

The issues are 1) you'd need additional processing and 2) how you'd know to take on F11 (instead of F16) to purposely lower one-stop at scenes? You might to take on F8 or F9 that will over-expose quite lots that you'd be unable to recover highlight. This is simply unpractical in real scenes. I want to expose correctly regardless ISO.

The issue with extended ISO 50 is that it may show no highlight clipping in the histogram but there's clipping.

It's just one-stop prone in highlight clipping, true. But as I said I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes under bright sunlight. I'd not worry in highlight clipping on boring sky as nothing needs to recover ;-)

1.no more processing, in fact less. Lots of experience, can judge what aperture and more importantly length of exposure, after a few shots, you know what time you can use.

As I said, I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes, not landscape. It's simply unpractical to test exposures ;-) Why don't expose correctly on whatever ISO?

lf l was not getting long enough, l just dropped the ISO down to 50. On Sony for some reason l'm not getting long enough exposures. I though with more dynamic range l could get longer but it is the opposite. Struggling to even get 30 seconds with a 10 stop, even on a cloudy day.

Just wondering why you'd need to expose so long if a 10-stop is still not sufficient even under bright sunlight? You'd not get better result on more than 60 sec on water. Now I have two 82mm BT ND filters, 3-stop and 6-stop that can stack together to be a 9-stop which is sufficient to me. I use them via several step-down adapters to use on various lenses, max throat size is 82mm.

Why don't you use ND filters? You can take off in a second, same as changing ISO.

Unpractical and very inconvenient in airshow events. The scenes are changing rapidly. Frequently jet and prop-driven planes mixed each other, such as in so-called heritage flight where 3-gen planes (WWI prop-driven, Korean/Vietnam war old jet and modern stealth jet) fly together or follow each other quickly. Usually you use long lens, such as 100-400 GM or 200-600 G etc that would require a pretty big filter. You are unable to mount/un-mount screw-in filters on these lenses in seconds ;-) You'd miss many opportunities. You could try magnetic attachable filters but then would be bulky, expensive and still not secured as they could throw away in rapid waving of the lens, lol. It's just not practical and doesn't make a sense. Fortunately by lowing ISO 50 is sufficient that aperture will not be more than F16 even under bright sunlight usually so no worth to use a filter.

A ND filter is more appropriate in motor-sports however as the shutter speed is even much lower such as 1/30~60 and the scenes/lights don't change rapidly.

lt is cloudy today, not sunny, if sunny l would only be getting about 10 seconds.

What kind of water topic photos you take if you could give a few samples with full EXIF? Wondering why you'd need one or more mins exposure?

I'm doing mostly seascapes. It depends on the conditions and lighting. If the sea is calm and it not a dark day, then 30 seconds is often enough to give a smooth, milky effect but if the sea is rough you need a longer exposure. Also you obliviously have more cloud movement in longer exposures.
Some people do 10 minutes, get really smooth effect but that is too long for me.
Some even do overnight for 10 hours, such as Michael Kenna, again not for me.

the Reynisfjara Black Sand Beach

30 sec is already long enough for me to smooth rough sea at the above place, very windy then. Wondering how longer shutter can make sea looks much better? Show me an example of 10-min exposure on sea

There are plenty on the internet. I don't do 10 minute exposures. Hardly any sea in that image and most is fast moving in the foreground. Very blue, you are using a Lee filter?

Sunset was around 4:30pm and it's already around 6pm then. I used BT (Breakthrough) x4 6-stop ND filter then. It's true color then in winter time even in daylight without a filter. Sunrise around 10:30am and sunset around 4:30pm. Sun was only high 30~40 degree, very soft and pleasant ambient light. I much prefer winter than summer in the Iceland. Plan to go there another time in winter time.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums/72157703049069602/with/46142072225

--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[RaysJ]

With both Canon and Sony, if you shoot raw and the same shutter speed and f/number, then ISO 50 and ISO 100 produce the same raw data. So you could've shot at ISO 100 with the same result (but lowering "exposure" in post could be required with ISO 100)

The issues are 1) you'd need additional processing and 2) how you'd know to take on F11 (instead of F16) to purposely lower one-stop at scenes? You might to take on F8 or F9 that will over-expose quite lots that you'd be unable to recover highlight. This is simply unpractical in real scenes. I want to expose correctly regardless ISO.

The issue with extended ISO 50 is that it may show no highlight clipping in the histogram but there's clipping.

It's just one-stop prone in highlight clipping, true. But as I said I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes under bright sunlight. I'd not worry in highlight clipping on boring sky as nothing needs to recover ;-)

1.no more processing, in fact less. Lots of experience, can judge what aperture and more importantly length of exposure, after a few shots, you know what time you can use.

As I said, I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes, not landscape. It's simply unpractical to test exposures ;-) Why don't expose correctly on whatever ISO?

lf l was not getting long enough, l just dropped the ISO down to 50. On Sony for some reason l'm not getting long enough exposures. I though with more dynamic range l could get longer but it is the opposite. Struggling to even get 30 seconds with a 10 stop, even on a cloudy day.

Just wondering why you'd need to expose so long if a 10-stop is still not sufficient even under bright sunlight? You'd not get better result on more than 60 sec on water. Now I have two 82mm BT ND filters, 3-stop and 6-stop that can stack together to be a 9-stop which is sufficient to me. I use them via several step-down adapters to use on various lenses, max throat size is 82mm.

Why don't you use ND filters? You can take off in a second, same as changing ISO.

Unpractical and very inconvenient in airshow events. The scenes are changing rapidly. Frequently jet and prop-driven planes mixed each other, such as in so-called heritage flight where 3-gen planes (WWI prop-driven, Korean/Vietnam war old jet and modern stealth jet) fly together or follow each other quickly. Usually you use long lens, such as 100-400 GM or 200-600 G etc that would require a pretty big filter. You are unable to mount/un-mount screw-in filters on these lenses in seconds ;-) You'd miss many opportunities. You could try magnetic attachable filters but then would be bulky, expensive and still not secured as they could throw away in rapid waving of the lens, lol. It's just not practical and doesn't make a sense. Fortunately by lowing ISO 50 is sufficient that aperture will not be more than F16 even under bright sunlight usually so no worth to use a filter.

A ND filter is more appropriate in motor-sports however as the shutter speed is even much lower such as 1/30~60 and the scenes/lights don't change rapidly.

lt is cloudy today, not sunny, if sunny l would only be getting about 10 seconds.

What kind of water topic photos you take if you could give a few samples with full EXIF? Wondering why you'd need one or more mins exposure?

I'm doing mostly seascapes. It depends on the conditions and lighting. If the sea is calm and it not a dark day, then 30 seconds is often enough to give a smooth, milky effect but if the sea is rough you need a longer exposure. Also you obliviously have more cloud movement in longer exposures.
Some people do 10 minutes, get really smooth effect but that is too long for me.
Some even do overnight for 10 hours, such as Michael Kenna, again not for me.

the Reynisfjara Black Sand Beach

30 sec is already long enough for me to smooth rough sea at the above place, very windy then. Wondering how longer shutter can make sea looks much better? Show me an example of 10-min exposure on sea

There are plenty on the internet. I don't do 10 minute exposures. Hardly any sea in that image and most is fast moving in the foreground. Very blue, you are using a Lee filter?

Sunset was around 4:30pm and it's already around 6pm then. I used BT (Breakthrough) x4 6-stop ND filter then. It's true color then in winter time even in daylight without a filter. Sunrise around 10:30am and sunset around 4:30pm. Sun was only high 30~40 degree, very soft and pleasant ambient light. I much prefer winter than summer in the Iceland. Plan to go there another time in winter time.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums/72157703049069602/with/46142072225

OK, problem in winter is the short days.

lf you want to see around 10 minute exposures, google 10 minute exposures Vancouver, there is a pro there, that does that sort of thing.

 

[RaysJ]

The problem on my Sony is the information is very misleading, it looks like they are well over exposured but many when opened in Raw are not.

ls there anyway to turn off the blinkies?

On my Canon the histogram was pretty accurate, what was on the camera matched closely, what l got in Raw.

 

[PWPhotography]

With both Canon and Sony, if you shoot raw and the same shutter speed and f/number, then ISO 50 and ISO 100 produce the same raw data. So you could've shot at ISO 100 with the same result (but lowering "exposure" in post could be required with ISO 100)

The issues are 1) you'd need additional processing and 2) how you'd know to take on F11 (instead of F16) to purposely lower one-stop at scenes? You might to take on F8 or F9 that will over-expose quite lots that you'd be unable to recover highlight. This is simply unpractical in real scenes. I want to expose correctly regardless ISO.

The issue with extended ISO 50 is that it may show no highlight clipping in the histogram but there's clipping.

It's just one-stop prone in highlight clipping, true. But as I said I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes under bright sunlight. I'd not worry in highlight clipping on boring sky as nothing needs to recover ;-)

1.no more processing, in fact less. Lots of experience, can judge what aperture and more importantly length of exposure, after a few shots, you know what time you can use.

As I said, I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes, not landscape. It's simply unpractical to test exposures ;-) Why don't expose correctly on whatever ISO?

lf l was not getting long enough, l just dropped the ISO down to 50. On Sony for some reason l'm not getting long enough exposures. I though with more dynamic range l could get longer but it is the opposite. Struggling to even get 30 seconds with a 10 stop, even on a cloudy day.

Just wondering why you'd need to expose so long if a 10-stop is still not sufficient even under bright sunlight? You'd not get better result on more than 60 sec on water. Now I have two 82mm BT ND filters, 3-stop and 6-stop that can stack together to be a 9-stop which is sufficient to me. I use them via several step-down adapters to use on various lenses, max throat size is 82mm.

Why don't you use ND filters? You can take off in a second, same as changing ISO.

Unpractical and very inconvenient in airshow events. The scenes are changing rapidly. Frequently jet and prop-driven planes mixed each other, such as in so-called heritage flight where 3-gen planes (WWI prop-driven, Korean/Vietnam war old jet and modern stealth jet) fly together or follow each other quickly. Usually you use long lens, such as 100-400 GM or 200-600 G etc that would require a pretty big filter. You are unable to mount/un-mount screw-in filters on these lenses in seconds ;-) You'd miss many opportunities. You could try magnetic attachable filters but then would be bulky, expensive and still not secured as they could throw away in rapid waving of the lens, lol. It's just not practical and doesn't make a sense. Fortunately by lowing ISO 50 is sufficient that aperture will not be more than F16 even under bright sunlight usually so no worth to use a filter.

A ND filter is more appropriate in motor-sports however as the shutter speed is even much lower such as 1/30~60 and the scenes/lights don't change rapidly.

lt is cloudy today, not sunny, if sunny l would only be getting about 10 seconds.

What kind of water topic photos you take if you could give a few samples with full EXIF? Wondering why you'd need one or more mins exposure?

I'm doing mostly seascapes. It depends on the conditions and lighting. If the sea is calm and it not a dark day, then 30 seconds is often enough to give a smooth, milky effect but if the sea is rough you need a longer exposure. Also you obliviously have more cloud movement in longer exposures.
Some people do 10 minutes, get really smooth effect but that is too long for me.
Some even do overnight for 10 hours, such as Michael Kenna, again not for me.

the Reynisfjara Black Sand Beach

30 sec is already long enough for me to smooth rough sea at the above place, very windy then. Wondering how longer shutter can make sea looks much better? Show me an example of 10-min exposure on sea

There are plenty on the internet. I don't do 10 minute exposures. Hardly any sea in that image and most is fast moving in the foreground. Very blue, you are using a Lee filter?

Sunset was around 4:30pm and it's already around 6pm then. I used BT (Breakthrough) x4 6-stop ND filter then. It's true color then in winter time even in daylight without a filter. Sunrise around 10:30am and sunset around 4:30pm. Sun was only high 30~40 degree, very soft and pleasant ambient light. I much prefer winter than summer in the Iceland. Plan to go there another time in winter time.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums/72157703049069602/with/46142072225

OK, problem in winter is the short days.

The quality not quantity of light matters Yes, you have short ambient light in winter there but basically entire day is under golden light. Summer ambient light is harsh and too long actually that really bothers me. You'd need to get very early or stay to mid-might for sunrise or sunset basically which is not a fun. I have been there twice, the other time is end of Sept, just not impressive as the first time in January. Next time I'd go there at end of Feb or early of March that daylight will be noticeably longer but still not too long and still relative soft ambient light.

lf you want to see around 10 minute exposures, google 10 minute exposures Vancouver, there is a pro there, that does that sort of thing.

I'd imagine in evening but in daylight? Strange and not sure if it's better. Someone tried that but that doesn't mean is a formula for others.

--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[RaysJ]

With both Canon and Sony, if you shoot raw and the same shutter speed and f/number, then ISO 50 and ISO 100 produce the same raw data. So you could've shot at ISO 100 with the same result (but lowering "exposure" in post could be required with ISO 100)

The issues are 1) you'd need additional processing and 2) how you'd know to take on F11 (instead of F16) to purposely lower one-stop at scenes? You might to take on F8 or F9 that will over-expose quite lots that you'd be unable to recover highlight. This is simply unpractical in real scenes. I want to expose correctly regardless ISO.

The issue with extended ISO 50 is that it may show no highlight clipping in the histogram but there's clipping.

It's just one-stop prone in highlight clipping, true. But as I said I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes under bright sunlight. I'd not worry in highlight clipping on boring sky as nothing needs to recover ;-)

1.no more processing, in fact less. Lots of experience, can judge what aperture and more importantly length of exposure, after a few shots, you know what time you can use.

As I said, I only used ISO 50 in airshow events on prop-driven planes, not landscape. It's simply unpractical to test exposures ;-) Why don't expose correctly on whatever ISO?

lf l was not getting long enough, l just dropped the ISO down to 50. On Sony for some reason l'm not getting long enough exposures. I though with more dynamic range l could get longer but it is the opposite. Struggling to even get 30 seconds with a 10 stop, even on a cloudy day.

Just wondering why you'd need to expose so long if a 10-stop is still not sufficient even under bright sunlight? You'd not get better result on more than 60 sec on water. Now I have two 82mm BT ND filters, 3-stop and 6-stop that can stack together to be a 9-stop which is sufficient to me. I use them via several step-down adapters to use on various lenses, max throat size is 82mm.

Why don't you use ND filters? You can take off in a second, same as changing ISO.

Unpractical and very inconvenient in airshow events. The scenes are changing rapidly. Frequently jet and prop-driven planes mixed each other, such as in so-called heritage flight where 3-gen planes (WWI prop-driven, Korean/Vietnam war old jet and modern stealth jet) fly together or follow each other quickly. Usually you use long lens, such as 100-400 GM or 200-600 G etc that would require a pretty big filter. You are unable to mount/un-mount screw-in filters on these lenses in seconds ;-) You'd miss many opportunities. You could try magnetic attachable filters but then would be bulky, expensive and still not secured as they could throw away in rapid waving of the lens, lol. It's just not practical and doesn't make a sense. Fortunately by lowing ISO 50 is sufficient that aperture will not be more than F16 even under bright sunlight usually so no worth to use a filter.

A ND filter is more appropriate in motor-sports however as the shutter speed is even much lower such as 1/30~60 and the scenes/lights don't change rapidly.

lt is cloudy today, not sunny, if sunny l would only be getting about 10 seconds.

What kind of water topic photos you take if you could give a few samples with full EXIF? Wondering why you'd need one or more mins exposure?

I'm doing mostly seascapes. It depends on the conditions and lighting. If the sea is calm and it not a dark day, then 30 seconds is often enough to give a smooth, milky effect but if the sea is rough you need a longer exposure. Also you obliviously have more cloud movement in longer exposures.
Some people do 10 minutes, get really smooth effect but that is too long for me.
Some even do overnight for 10 hours, such as Michael Kenna, again not for me.

the Reynisfjara Black Sand Beach

30 sec is already long enough for me to smooth rough sea at the above place, very windy then. Wondering how longer shutter can make sea looks much better? Show me an example of 10-min exposure on sea

There are plenty on the internet. I don't do 10 minute exposures. Hardly any sea in that image and most is fast moving in the foreground. Very blue, you are using a Lee filter?

Sunset was around 4:30pm and it's already around 6pm then. I used BT (Breakthrough) x4 6-stop ND filter then. It's true color then in winter time even in daylight without a filter. Sunrise around 10:30am and sunset around 4:30pm. Sun was only high 30~40 degree, very soft and pleasant ambient light. I much prefer winter than summer in the Iceland. Plan to go there another time in winter time.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums/72157703049069602/with/46142072225

OK, problem in winter is the short days.

The quality not quantity of light matters Yes, you have short ambient light in winter there but basically entire day is under golden light. Summer ambient light is harsh and too long actually that really bothers me. You'd need to get very early or stay to mid-might for sunrise or sunset basically which is not a fun. I have been there twice, the other time is end of Sept, just not impressive as the first time in January. Next time I'd go there at end of Feb or early of March that daylight will be noticeably longer but still not too long and still relative soft ambient light.

lf you want to see around 10 minute exposures, google 10 minute exposures Vancouver, there is a pro there, that does that sort of thing.

I'd imagine in evening but in daylight? Strange and not sure if it's better. Someone tried that but that doesn't mean is a formula for others.

When we went to lceland in summer, hardly saw any sun, so the light was not harsh at all. Yes you can shoot 24 hours, never got dark.