[rayallen]

There were not many good waves at Soldiers Beach this morning so when a good one came, everyone wanted to be on it. K10D and Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Tele-Macro 1:2 LD Di.

[voles]

Okay, so here's the basic principle: direct sunlight never changes in intensity. The sun is always the same brightness at any time of the day, on any day of the year (except sunrise and sunset). Remember that one stop of exposure is a doubling or halving of light, and common sense is enough to tell us that the sun never doubles or halves in power. If it ever did, we'd have much more important things than photographic exposure to worry about - such as surviving an extinction level catastrophe.

This means that for any camera there will be a "Sunny 16" exposure that will always be correct in direct sunlight. The classic rule is to match the shutter speed to the ISO and use f/16, so 1/125 at ISO 100 at f/16 is a good place to start.

An easy way to establish the Sunny 16 exposure for your camera in your part of the world is to take some test shots on a nice sunny day with some fluffy white clouds in the sky. Set up on a tripod with the sun out of the frame, but with the brightest highlights of the clouds easy to see. Start at f/22 at 1/125 at ISO 100 and then take a series of shots opening the aperture by a half or a third of a stop each time. You only need to go as far as f/8. And shoot raw files.

Now look at the raw files on your computer. completely unprocessed, and look for the frame where detail is still just visible in the brightest parts of the clouds. That's Sunny 16 for your sensor at your latitude. For me it's f/11 at 1/125 at ISO 100, or any reciprocal of that. f/8 at 1/250 or f/5.6 at 1/500 are exactly the same amount of exposure. Using this baseline exposure guarantees that I will always get the clouds right on the very edge of blowing out to white at the edges, which is exactly where I want them.

So now that you know where you're starting from with Sunny 16, you can use it as the basis for exposures in other light too. This is turning into a long post, so I won't go into detail about the adjustments for cloudy light as there are plenty of websites that explain it.

As Steve (Wtlwdwgn) says above, starting with Sunny 16 and checking the histogram on the playback screen is a great method to work with. It's about using your own eyes as your main exposure meter, with the camera's meter as an aid rather than a master. This is really only scratching the surface, but I hope it helps as a starter.

Dave

Me again, Going back to your excellent introduction to the 'Sunny 16' rule: given that a camera body has a minimum shutter speed, (1/4000 in the case of the K10D) then there must also be a maximum aperture that can be used in the conditions you describe?

[Dartmoor Dave]

There were not many good waves at Soldiers Beach this morning so when a good one came, everyone wanted to be on it.

The guy surfing in a hat gets my vote for sheer sartorial chutzpah.

Going back to your excellent introduction to the 'Sunny 16' rule: given that a camera body has a minimum shutter speed, (1/4000 in the case of the K10D) then there must also be a maximum aperture that can be used in the conditions you describe?

That's a good question. I'll have to consult my hi-tec exposure reciprocity calculator.

(Quickly counts on fingers. . . )

Yep, the Sunny 16 that I personally use would max out at f/2.0 at 1/4000 at ISO 100 in direct sunlight. Beyond that, I would know that the brightest parts of any clouds in the shot would be blown. But if it was a shot where blowing out clouds wasn't an issue, then f/1.4 at 1/4000 would probably work fine. I suppose f/2.0 at 1/4000 might become an issue for the razor thin depth of field types, who want to shoot portraits in full daylight where only the tip of one eyelash is actually in focus. But that's not an approach that I can imagine myself ever using. The present day obsession with thin depth of field in portraits is mostly about showing off that you can afford to spend thousands on a full frame DSLR with a very fast lens.

[BigMackCam]

The present day obsession with thin depth of field in portraits is mostly about showing off that you can afford to spend thousands on a full frame DSLR with a very fast lens.

I said much the same thing in another thread yesterday, Dave:

Very shallow depth-of-field can be a valid creative tool, no doubt about it - but it's of surprisingly limited utility beyond experimental play, and showing others on forums like these just how shallow it can be

[rayallen]

The guy surfing in a hat gets my vote for sheer sartorial chutzpah.

He is just following the advice on how to avoid skin cancer! Wearing a hat is just one of those.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I said much the same thing in another thread yesterday, Dave:

I'm glad you made that point on that other thread, Mike. I was reading it last night and ended up almost having to sit on my hands to stop myself typing a snarky reply about bokeh fetishists. But I've learnt the hard way that posting after a couple of glasses of wine isn't always a good idea.

[voles]

The guy surfing in a hat gets my vote for sheer sartorial chutzpah.






That's a good question. I'll have to consult my hi-tec exposure reciprocity calculator.

(Quickly counts on fingers. . . )

Yep, the Sunny 16 that I personally use would max out at f/2.0 at 1/4000 at ISO 100 in direct sunlight. Beyond that, I would know that the brightest parts of any clouds in the shot would be blown. But if it was a shot where blowing out clouds wasn't an issue, then f/1.4 at 1/4000 would probably work fine. I suppose f/2.0 at 1/4000 might become an issue for the razor thin depth of field types, who want to shoot portraits in full daylight where only the tip of one eyelash is actually in focus. But that's not an approach that I can imagine myself ever using. The present day obsession with thin depth of field in portraits is mostly about showing off that you can afford to spend thousands on a full frame DSLR with a very fast lens.

Thanks. Something else to bear in mind. I don’t have a lens that opens above f/2.8 so I should be ok

[paulh]

palms and lemons at f/8 with the kit lens (not very shallow DOF)

[dbs]

Hi Paul
Is that a "sweet and sour " garden

Dave

[dbs]

Hi Ray

Is that the if you want to get a head get a hat moment

Dave

[rayallen]

Hi Ray

Is that the if you want to get a head get a hat moment

Dave

Ha! Yes, it could be, Dave. He had a strap down under his chin so he obviously did not want to lose it.

[dbs]

Ha! Yes, it could be, Dave. He had a strap down under his chin so he obviously did not want to lose it.

Hi Ray

He was" serious" then

Dave

[paulh]

Hi Paul
Is that a "sweet and sour " garden

Dave

I guess you could say that...

DA18-55 from Calif. again:

[dbs]

I guess you could say that...

DA18-55 from Calif. again:

Hi Paul

Well done you've caught a couple of ufo's

Dave

[aaacb]

Just a random macro taken on a rainy day