Sunny 16 rule?

Roland Karlsson wrote in
:

The ISO sensitivity for digital sensors is defined for clipping,
i.e. 255 / (0..255). The value at medium grey can be almost anything,
depending on e.g. gamma and contrast settings.



In a round about way, I believe you have actually answered the original
question.

So the sunny f/16 rule works for film, because if you set a gray card on
the mall in Washington DC at noon, the light meter will read the
reciprocal of the ISO at f/16.

But it doesn't work that way for digital, because digital sensors have a
different curve than film, and probably vary from camera to camera.

It should be true though that for any given camera, there is some rule
that works equally well. If it is a bright sunny day at noon and I go
outside and meter a gray card, *some* exposure should accurately record
it, and it should be the same exposure the next day.

fwiw, I used to use the sunny f/16 rule for real estate photography. It
allowed me to work quickly, and yielded better results than the
"average" meter built into my camera. Of course in order to use the rule,
I needed to know how to adjust for clouds and shadow. And it wasn't
supposed to be art, just a record of the building.

I think it's fairly easy to test the exposure speed of the camera by
taking a photo of something moving at a known speed. You are correct that
they could lie about f stops, but it doesn't really make sense that they
would.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

Roland Karlsson wrote in
:

The ISO sensitivity for digital sensors is defined for clipping,
i.e. 255 / (0..255). The value at medium grey can be almost anything,
depending on e.g. gamma and contrast settings.



In a round about way, I believe you have actually answered the original
question.

So the sunny f/16 rule works for film, because if you set a gray card on
the mall in Washington DC at noon, the light meter will read the
reciprocal of the ISO at f/16.

But it doesn't work that way for digital, because digital sensors have a
different curve than film, and probably vary from camera to camera.

It should be true though that for any given camera, there is some rule
that works equally well. If it is a bright sunny day at noon and I go
outside and meter a gray card, *some* exposure should accurately record
it, and it should be the same exposure the next day.

fwiw, I used to use the sunny f/16 rule for real estate photography. It
allowed me to work quickly, and yielded better results than the
"average" meter built into my camera. Of course in order to use the rule,
I needed to know how to adjust for clouds and shadow. And it wasn't
supposed to be art, just a record of the building.

I think it's fairly easy to test the exposure speed of the camera by
taking a photo of something moving at a known speed. You are correct that
they could lie about f stops, but it doesn't really make sense that they
would.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

Need a C1 review?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/capture-one.shtml


Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

Need a C1 review?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/capture-one.shtml


Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

I think it's fairly easy to test the exposure speed of the camera by
taking a photo of something moving at a known speed.

Bob-

One "known speed" is a phonograph turntable. Using a piece of paper with a
radius line drawn on it, you can test a leaf shutter's speed by measuring the
angle subtended by the line in the resulting photo. (I used to use a black
paper with a thin, white sliver of paper glued on.) However, a focal-plane
shutter might produce funny results at speeds where both curtains were moving
at the same time!

Fred

I think it's fairly easy to test the exposure speed of the camera by
taking a photo of something moving at a known speed.

Bob-

One "known speed" is a phonograph turntable. Using a piece of paper with a
radius line drawn on it, you can test a leaf shutter's speed by measuring the
angle subtended by the line in the resulting photo. (I used to use a black
paper with a thin, white sliver of paper glued on.) However, a focal-plane
shutter might produce funny results at speeds where both curtains were moving
at the same time!

Fred

Or a TV screen - just count the lines! NTSC - 480 lines, 30 times per
second. At around 1/1000 sec you should see just under 16 full lines...

Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I use C1, and find it vastly suerior to Photoshop CS' RAW plug-in.
The workflow is excellent, and the results are superior.

I would disagree.

OK...in all candor, I'm fairly new to CS's plug-in, so if you ask me again
in a month, I may change my mind.

It could be that I've just grown accustomed to the C1 and am more
comfortable with it.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I use C1, and find it vastly suerior to Photoshop CS' RAW plug-in.
The workflow is excellent, and the results are superior.

I would disagree.

OK...in all candor, I'm fairly new to CS's plug-in, so if you ask me again
in a month, I may change my mind.

It could be that I've just grown accustomed to the C1 and am more
comfortable with it.

In article kLw%c.284941$Oi.44231@fed1read04,
Mark M wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

I use C1, and find it vastly suerior to Photoshop CS' RAW plug-in.
The workflow is excellent, and the results are superior.

I would disagree.

OK...in all candor, I'm fairly new to CS's plug-in, so if you ask me again
in a month, I may change my mind.

It could be that I've just grown accustomed to the C1 and am more
comfortable with it.

The two have very different workflows. I came from the other side - was
comfortable with CS before I tried C1 and couldn't really get into it.