Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 10 May 2009 (Sunday) 16:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

beach photos, overexposed

 
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
May 11, 2009 15:29 |  #16

tzalman wrote in post #7897390 (external link)
Sunny 16 at the beach needs adjusting. The sand is an excellent reflector and you have a lot more light coming from below than with a subject on grass. Sunny 16 minus one stop would be better.

sunny 16 doesn't need adjustment at the beach since it's starting point is for seashore and snow: f16 1/125 for iso100

tdodd wrote in post #7900753 (external link)
This was shot using Av mode before I knew of things such as Sunny 16. Exposure compensation was set to zero and I used evaluative metering. I picked f/8 and 100 ISO and the camera picked a shutter speed of 1/800. That exposure is equivalent to Sunny 16 minus 1 stop. This has had no edits and I think the exposure looks a tiny bit dark, but very useable. That said, it can take another 1/2 stop added to the exposure in Lightroom without blowing anything (even the white teeshirt) or looking overexposed.

IMHO your first photo there is under exposed by about 1 stop, and it isn't just a "tiny bit dark". So again sunny 16 at the beach would have been the right call to use since you under exposed it by about 1 stop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,948 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2254
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 11, 2009 15:57 |  #17

Sunny 16 applies to distinct sun, average scen...snow/beach in the sun is f/22.

tdodd wrote in post #7900753 (external link)
I am actually surprised that you get overexposure for a beach scene. Normally you would be more likely to get underexposure. There are a number of reasons that spring to mind which explain why you might get overexposure.... .

Yup, a meter reading a beach/snow scene could read even brighter than 'sunny 22' because it sees the brightness of the snow itself, not merely the higher brightness falling onto an average subject


IMAGE: http://www.eyescoffee.com/collectcamera/sunny16rule/sunny16rulekodakfilm.jpg

http://guidetofilmphot​ography.com/sunny-16-exposure.html (external link)

Only in the snow or at the beach will you need to stop down one more stop beyond Sunny 16, because of reflection of even more light onto the subject, off the snow and sand.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdodd
Goldmember
Avatar
3,733 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
     
May 11, 2009 16:03 |  #18

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #7901033 (external link)
IMHO your first photo there is under exposed by about 1 stop, and it isn't just a "tiny bit dark". So again sunny 16 at the beach would have been the right call to use since you under exposed it by about 1 stop.

Well I did say it could take a +0.5 stop boost in Lightroom and that had I shot this with manual exposure it would have been brighter by 2/3 stop. Here is the image processed in DPP as shot and with +1 added to the exposure. IMO +1 is too much. At +1 the red channel is completely blown in the orange top, some of the skin and the sunlit sand. The blue channel is blown in the white teeshirt. Even at +2/3 it is touch and go for the red channel in several places and there are signs of those channels still blowing a little at +1/3.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO
IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO


Here it is with +2/3 added in DPP, which looks like the best version to me....

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO


So, it is about 2/3 stop darker than it need be. Whether that is considered a little or a lot is somewhat subjective and hardly worth debating. The point I was attempting to make was not about how good or bad this shot was, but what a "good" exposure would/should have been. For this scene the correct exposure, IMHO, should have been Sunny 16 - 1/3 stop, which is exactly what I said in my earlier post.

EDIT : I just sampled a few pixels from the unadjusted original file and even at Sunny 16 -1 stop the red channel is at 255 in some places and the white teeshirt has a handful of pixels clipping the blue channel. Clearly it's not a problem for this image but I thought it was worth noting.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
May 11, 2009 16:18 |  #19

Wilt wrote in post #7901161 (external link)
Sunny 16 applies to distinct sun, average scen...snow/beach in the sun is f/22.

QUOTED IMAGE

Well as I read the pictures in that scan, the f/16 looks like it's by the water, but you say it's f/22 for the water/snow.

And Fuji shows f/16 for beach/snow here:
http://www.fujifilmusa​.com/shared/bin/Sup_Re​ala.pdf (external link)

And kodak's Ektar datasheet, top of page 2 shows f/16 for sea/snow:
http://www.kodak.com …d=0.2.26.14.5.1​4.16&lc=en (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,948 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2254
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 11, 2009 16:32 |  #20

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #7901272 (external link)
Well as I read the pictures in that scan, the f/16 looks like it's by the water, but you say it's f/22 for the water/snow.

And Fuji shows f/16 for beach/snow here:
http://www.fujifilmusa​.com/shared/bin/Sup_Re​ala.pdf (external link)

And kodak's Ektar datasheet, top of page 2 shows f/16 for sea/snow:
http://www.kodak.com …d=0.2.26.14.5.1​4.16&lc=en (external link)

Ektar is ISO 100, yet Kodak listed 1/125 f/16 on the same sheet...a bit less ( -1/3 EV) than 1/100 f/16. Obviously, from comparing that Ektar sheet and the Kodak box end, they are not perfectly consistent with the rule of thumb! :)

Some confusion might also arise because some tables refer to EV16 amount of light, like the one that this is taken from http://www.fredparker.​com/ultexp1.htm: (external link)

EV15 =Subjects in bright or hazy sun (Sunny f/16 rule).

EV16= Subjects in bright daylight on sand or snow.



Vast majority of references on the web talk about about 'distinct sun' associated with Sunny 16, and not the additional reflectance of snow or sand filled scenes.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdodd
Goldmember
Avatar
3,733 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Essex, UK
     
May 11, 2009 16:37 |  #21

I think people should do what works for them and their equipment :)

Firstly, the "Rule" is only a guideline after all. (and how many versions/variations of the rule are there?)

Secondly, is it correct to assume that what is good for colour negative film is also good for modern digital sensors?

Thirdly, is it true that what is good for JPEG is also good for raw? (and what about shooting with HTP enabled?)

Fourthly, there seems to be some wiggle room when the quoted guides include "bright sun and hazy sun" within the same exposure grouping. Hardly definitive, is it?

Fifthly, the true ISO sensitivities are not all the same for all cameras. e.g. it is generally recognised that the 100 ISO setting on the 30D is actually equivalent to a true ISO value of 125.

Sixthly, the film oriented references seem to keep harping on about shutter speeds of 1/125 rather than 1/100 for 100 ISO at f/16, which makes a bit of a mockery of the easy to remember reciprocal of ISO that seems to work perfectly well for digital gear with 1/3 stop exposure adjustments available. So which is correct - 1/100 or 1/125?

Seventhly, is there much variation in the intensity (brightness) of the sun across substantial changes in latitude, or season? Is a winter midday sun in Scotland going to be as strong (bright) as a midday sun at the equator in March/September (or even a sun 2 hours after sunrise)?

So rather than argue the toss about what various contradictory reference sources say, why not just get out there and shoot? Then you can decide what works for you and your gear. Sunny 16 (f/16, 100 ISO, 1/100) works really well for me, as a starting point, on a bright sunny day. Beyond that I am quite happy to fine tune as conditions dictate, be they sun, sea, snow, haze or whatever. Of course, metering off my palm at +1 1/3 works equally well and automatically factors in adjustments for all these additional variables.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
May 11, 2009 16:45 |  #22

Wilt wrote in post #7901360 (external link)
Ektar is ISO 100, yet Kodak listed 1/125 f/16 on the same sheet...a bit less ( -1/3 EV) than 1/100 f/16. Obviously, from comparing that Ektar sheet and the Kodak box end, they are not perfectly consistent with the rule of thumb! :)

It shows 1/125 because the rule was developed when there were only full stop film cameras. That's the only reason. Plus film as wide exposure latitude where 1/3 a stop difference of exposure will hardly be noticed (unlike digital)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,948 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2254
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 11, 2009 17:06 |  #23

OK, one last try...the Bright Sunny Day is the EV15 value of exposure, where EV0 is f/1.0 at 1 sec at ISO 100....EV15 works out to 1/100 f/16 at ISO 100.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,373 views & 0 likes for this thread
beach photos, overexposed
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mynxacari
689 guests, 290 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.