How do you keep technical notes in the field?

[george013]

And to have the good looking shot on your wall you must have known how to take it so you will know how to do it again.

Having it on a bit of paper, a note book or on your phone would only work if you could (while standing about to take a photograph) recall that you once used a certain combination of settings (which would imply you knew what they were) and could then recall when you took them (unlikely) and then be actually able to find those scribbles (even more unlikely) then recall what the conditions were when you wrote them down (we're into the realms of fantasy now) then transpose them to suit the conditions in front of you....which at the end of the day would mean you were actually just about to create new settings to suit what is in front of you to get a shot that you want.

It was an answer on Donald's statement.
Beside that, there is nothing wrong on wanting to remember how you got that picture, being more than the camera settings. I never think my pictures are 100% or even 50%, I always want to learn from them. And if they are 100% it's getting time to look for another hobby.

George

[Manfred M]

If you want to be able to repeat that good looking image on the wall, yous must know how you made it.
George

Like a fiew others, George, I will also have to disagree, especially in the field. I have never been able to reproduce previous work, even when I think I have set up the same way. I can get the focal length, ISO, shutter speed and aperture settings from the metadata of an image. I can use an image to line things up as in the original image. Guess what; something will have changed; the light (quality, intensity and direction), something in the environment (the season?), etc. The same scene may need a totally different set of parameters to get a good (or better) image than the base.

I do sometimes take notes when I do studio work, but even in those highly controlled conditions, I can come close to reproducing my original image. It won't be exactly the same, but often more than good enough. Lights, modifiers, power settings, heights and distances from the subject can be reproduced reasonably well, but not exactly 100% right on, especially when I shoot tabletop work, rather than people. With people, I can never reproduce the exact same image either; even though I can control the room; expressions and stances change.

In fact, I usually analyse my work and continue with where I was going, rather than trying to make an exact copy of what I had already done.

I agree with Mike, Donald, Robin and Rob - the knowledge is far more important trying to use a "cookbook" approach. With knowledge one can create, with a cookbook approach one be a lot more constrained in their photography.

[george013]

Like a fiew others, George, I will also have to disagree, especially in the field. I have never been able to reproduce previous work, even when I think I have set up the same way. I can get the focal length, ISO, shutter speed and aperture settings from the metadata of an image. I can use an image to line things up as in the original image. Guess what; something will have changed; the light (quality, intensity and direction), something in the environment (the season?), etc. The same scene may need a totally different set of parameters to get a good (or better) image than the base.

I do sometimes take notes when I do studio work, but even in those highly controlled conditions, I can come close to reproducing my original image. It won't be exactly the same, but often more than good enough. Lights, modifiers, power settings, heights and distances from the subject can be reproduced reasonably well, but not exactly 100% right on, especially when I shoot tabletop work, rather than people. With people, I can never reproduce the exact same image either; even though I can control the room; expressions and stances change.

In fact, I usually analyse my work and continue with where I was going, rather than trying to make an exact copy of what I had already done.

I agree with Mike, Donald, Robin and Rob - the knowledge is far more important trying to use a "cookbook" approach. With knowledge one can create, with a cookbook approach one be a lot more constrained in their photography.

I made that statement as an answer on Donald. And I can agree with his answer. But if you are experimenting it wil be a good idea to know what experiments you did and understand the results of that. If it are camerasettings, its in the file, but other things not. It's what you say, analysing. But you must know what you did.

It's not my question, I'm not the topicstarter. And I never made notes, except in my head. My photography is simple. But I can understand others have that question.
George

[JR1]

Okay, pretend I'm in the field making photos:

I use a polarizer for a couple of shots. Once the image files are loaded onto my computer, how in the world will I know what frames those were?

I'm making a series of shots for a panorama, but how do I keep track of the first/last images?

I apply a neutral-density filter and take a bunch of shots, but how do I keep track of which frames had the filter applied?



Any ideas of an easy way to keep technical notes in the field?

I don't

No point never ever in the life of a human will the lighting, weather, etc ever be the same again, so why

[GeoBonsai]

Thank you for your responses to my question regarding keeping technical notes in the field.

I especially like the "one finger/two finger" images to mark pano first/last shots. For tracking filter use, I wrote the filter types (ND2, ND4, ..., CPL, Grad) on the back of some old business cards and plan to take a photo of the appropriate card before making the image.

~~~~~~~
But why document filter use anyway?

Clearly, from the comments, wanting to document filter usage is for the novice only. I'm new to using filters. After using a variety of filters in a recent photo shoot, I don't have a clue what filter did what to my images because I don't remember what filter/filter combinations were used for what image. I didn't learn anything about using filters

It may be I need to better organize my field work flow. I'm still trying to develop an efficient/organized/purposeful work flow in the field. I'm guilty of taking too many "grab" shots. My chaotic approach is to slap on a ND4 and take a shot; stack a ND2, take a shot; remove all filters, take a shot; apply a GND ... apply a CPL ... shoot, shoot, shoot, and so on. By the time I'm ready to process the raw files, I've completely lost track of what filter was used for which shot. Until I better organize my field work flow, I think the best way for me to learn about filters is to keep detailed technical notes in the field using the techniques described in your replies.

Nikon D3300 > Nikon 10-24mm > 24mm > ISO 100 > f/16 > stacked four images of different exposures: 1 sec > 1/4 sec > 1/50 sec > 1/80 sec

May have used ND8, grad, polarizer, no filters at all ... don't recall, but wish I knew so I'd learn what filters do what to the resulting image

Rodeo Beach, Sausalito, California.
::

[chauncey]

Quite a lot I use my camera for recording information when we're riding about...
for sale signs/plate numbers/addresses/whatnot.

[Mike Buckley]

That's a very nice image which would be even better if the halos were removed.

Nikon D3300 > Nikon 10-24mm > 24mm > ISO 100 > four images. May have used ND8, grad, polorizer, no filters at all ... don't recall, but wish I knew

Let's eliminate the possibilities:

Even if you used a hard-edged grad perfectly positioned on the horizon, evidence probably would have shown up unless you did some post-processing to remove all evidence of it. If the edge isn't soft, the evidence would be even more noticeable. If you had placed the edge on the horizon, the filter would have darkened the rock formations above the horizon unless you removed that effect during post-processing. So, my vote is that you didn't use a grad.

The water would surely look different if you had used an ND8, so my vote is also that you didn't use one.

If you display your shutter speed (the EXIF data has been stripped from the image file), you can use the Sunny 16 rule to determine with relative confidence whether you used a polarizer. You would have to modify the Sunny 16 rule to accommodate this scene by allowing probably for about 2 stops more exposure. (Others who use the Sunny 16 rule and its variants may be able to more precisely narrow that down.) Once you have a reasonable idea of what the shutter speed would have been without using a polarizer, you will probably be able to determine whether you used one; if you used a polarizer, the shutter speed would be about 1 1/2 to 2 stops slower.

Even though we don't have the information about the shutter, I would be willing to bet that you didn't or at least shouldn't have used a polarizer. (I've used one all too often not realizing it was mounted onto the lens.) That's because the polarizer will have little to no effect when directly facing the sun.

So, in the end, I would put money on the idea that you used no filters with this image unless perhaps a polarizer was unknowingly attached. No field notes needed.

[Stagecoach]

Okay, pretend I'm in the field making photos:

Any ideas of an easy way to keep technical notes in the field?

Geri,

With specific reference to your question another option could be to use a small 'White Board' and 'Erasable Marker'. (A more modern version to the chalkboard).

For convenience you could make this to hang off the tripod with pen on a bit of string and not have to fumble around in pockets sorting notebooks, cards etc.

[GeoBonsai]

Mike Buckley:

Four images merged in EasyHDR. No auto-bracketing available on Nikon D3300, so manually changed shutter speed: 1 sec > 1/4 sec > 1/50 sec > 1/80 sec (from the EXIF of each of the four images). On tripod, of course. My new-to-me Nikon 10-24mm lens does have a tendency to produce flare/halo in certain light. Properly handling wide-angle lens is yet another lesson for me to learn (Will I ever master photography!)

You are very astute. You may be correct about no filters used. I do recall removing all the filters at some point, but in the excitement of the very brief time frame of quickly fading light, I simple don't recall if I removed the filters before these four shots or after.

[FrankMi]

Having done this years ago when I first started photography, I can understand wanting to take notes to make it easier to associate actions and situations with results, particularly before cause and effect are clearly understood. I can also see making notes of a particular scene with a reminder to return for a reshoot under different weather or lighting situations.

If a written note isn't convenient, I would record a verbal message to myself on the voice recorder of my smart phone and may even snap a cell phone image to firmly link the note to the scene at hand.

Particularly when shooting flowers in a nursery, I use my cell phone to snap labels and signs to capture the correct spelling or variant of a flower, unusual animal at a zoo, or any other situation where having an easily grabbed piece of documentation is useful.

[Mike Buckley]

shutter speed: 1 sec > 1/4 sec > 1/50 sec > 1/80 sec

About your use of exposures intended for HDR post-processing: I have never made an HDR image but everything that I have read written by reliable authors is that the best results are accomplished when using 2-stop increments. Your first two exposures meet that criterion assuming you didn't change the aperture setting. To continue meeting it, your other two exposures should have been at 1/16 sec and 1/64 sec. Your third exposure at 1/50 sec is way off from that methodology. Your fourth exposure at 1/80 sec is slightly off and may not have produced unwanted results.

When I wrote my previous post, I mistakenly thought you had provided the aperture setting. My apologies! I assume you used the same aperture on all four images and we need to know what it is. Once we have that information (now that you have also provided the shutter speeds), we can use the Sunny 16 rule to surmise the likelihood of whether you used a polarizer.

[Mike Buckley]

My new-to-me Nikon 10-24mm lens does have a tendency to produce flare/halo in certain light.

I'm the farthest thing from a gear head, but I have never heard of a lens producing halos. My hunch is that your sharpening, whether done in-camera or in post-processing, produced them. That's especially true considering that the situation displayed in your image is particularly susceptible to halos induced by sharpening.

[GeoBonsai]

Mike Buckley: I appreciate your input.

Nikon D3300 > Nikon 10-24mm > 24mm > ISO 100 > f/16 > stacked four images of different exposures: 1 sec > 1/4 sec > 1/50 sec > 1/80 sec.

Wanted to get the image in one shot. I think a long exposure and a grad ND filter would have achieved this, but I don't really know. Didn't do anything right. Didn't learn anything about what filters can achieve. The sun slips away so quickly at the beach ... no time to experiment.

LESSON LEARNED: Practice using filters in a controlled environment and figure out what filter produces what result before an important photo shoot event.

[Mike Buckley]

We now know the three critical factors of exposure information: ISO 100, f/16 and a shutter speed of 1/8 sec that would have been the average of the HDR exposures (1 sec, 1/4 sec, 1/16 sec and 1/64 second) assuming those exposures would have been ideal. (If not, all bets are off.) The Sunny 16 rule indicates that we should use a shutter speed of 1/100 sec when using ISO 100 and f/16 during bright mid-day sunlight with no clouds. However, it might be reasonable to open the exposure up about 2 stops for this cloudy scene with the sun so close to the horizon. If I'm right about that, the Sunny 16 rule tells us to use a shutter speed of 1/25 sec for this scene.

Notice that the shutter speed of 1/8 sec determined above is about 1 1/2 stops slower than the shutter speed of 1/25 sec dictated by the Sunny 16 rule. That fact and the characteristics of the scene indicate to me that it is likely that you used a polarizer even though it would not have had any effect relating to polarization, as explained in a previous post.

The moral of the story: Manfred and others have explained that once you understand the effect of your various tools (camera settings, graduated filters, neutral density filters, polarizers, etc.) and how to properly use them, you should be able to review the characteristics of a photo and the details of its metadata to determine with reasonable certainty the tools that you used to make it. That would be without having manually recorded any other information at the time of capture. Even so, all available information will probably tell you more about how you made the photo than how you would make a future photo. Indeed, once you have achieved a command of those tools to the extent that you know when to use them or not and why to use them or not, you'll make high-quality photos such as this one much more consistently.

Returning to the subject of your thread, the corollary is that even if you use information recorded at the time of capture without having a thorough knowledge of the tools at your disposal, your analysis could be quite faulty and highly misleading. So, my recommendation is that you attend to gaining total command of your tools rather than recording in the field which tools you used.

[george013]

We now know the three critical factors of exposure information: ISO 100, f/16 and a shutter speed of 1/8 sec that would have been the average of the HDR exposures (1 sec, 1/4 sec, 1/16 sec and 1/64 second) assuming those exposures would have been ideal. (If not, all bets are off.) The Sunny 16 rule indicates that we should use a shutter speed of 1/100 sec when using ISO 100 and f/16 during bright mid-day sunlight with no clouds. However, it might be reasonable to open the exposure up about 2 stops for this cloudy scene with the sun so close to the horizon. If I'm right about that, the Sunny 16 rule tells us to use a shutter speed of 1/25 sec for this scene.

Notice that the shutter speed of 1/8 sec determined above is about 1 1/2 stops slower than the shutter speed of 1/25 sec dictated by the Sunny 16 rule. That fact and the characteristics of the scene indicate to me that it is likely that you used a polarizer even though it would not have had any effect relating to polarization, as explained in a previous post.

The moral of the story: Manfred and others have explained that once you understand the effect of your various tools (camera settings, graduated filters, neutral density filters, polarizers, etc.) and how to properly use them, you should be able to review the characteristics of a photo and the details of its metadata to determine with reasonable certainty the tools that you used to make it. That would be without having manually recorded any other information at the time of capture. More important, once you have achieved a command of those tools to the extent that you know when to use them or not and why to use them or not, you'll make high-quality photos such as this one much more consistently.

Returning to the subject of your thread, the corollary is that even if you use information recorded at the time of capture without having a thorough knowledge of the tools at your disposal, your analysis could be quite faulty and highly misleading. So, my recommendation is that you attend to gaining total command of your tools rather than recording in the field which tools you used.

There is one thing different with the general Sunny 16 rule. This photo was taken straight to the light source: the sun. And isn't clipping. For both of us counts no pp calculated.
George

[Mike Buckley]

There is one thing different with the general Sunny 16 rule. This photo was taken straight to the light source: the sun. And isn't clipping. For both of us counts no pp calculated.

That is why my post explains that my conclusion is based on important premises -- that the assumed HDR exposures were ideal and that opening up the exposure 2 stops for this scene more than the Sunny 16 rule would otherwise indicate is also reasonable.

[george013]

That is why my post explains that my conclusion is based on important premises -- that the assumed HDR exposures were ideal and that opening up the exposure 2 stops for this scene more than the Sunny 16 rule would otherwise indicate is also reasonable.

I mean that the Sunny 16 rule is based on general reflected light, this picture is taken straight against the sun. And has been edited.

Notice that the shutter speed of 1/8 sec determined above is about 1 1/2 stops slower than the shutter speed of 1/25 sec dictated by the Sunny 16 rule. That fact and the characteristics of the scene indicate to me that it is likely that you used a polarizer even though it would not have had any effect relating to polarization, as explained in a previous post

.
Since a polarizer filter doesn't have any effect in this situation, it can't change the characteristics of the image.
I still don't know if this image is one of the serie or the resulting of the HDR.

George

[Manfred M]

Geri - looking at your responses, I suspect that your issue is your rather random workflow and getting a notebook is not going to help nearly as much as developing a systematic approach to your photography. On top of that, I don't get a good feeling that you truly understand how your gear / filter choices impact your final image.

It is difficult to assess how a combination of stacked filters will impact your image, so just throwing them on your lens in a more or less random sequence is never going to give you consistent of repeatable results. Based on what you have written, it sounds like this may be what you are doing. The impact of adding filters can (and should be) seen as you craft your image through your viewfinder. I don't know your photographic experience level, so let me appologize if I am oversimplifying.

1. Polarizer - can darken the sky, but it's impact is strongest when shot in a direction that is at 90 degrees from the position of the sun. If the sun is directly in front of you or behind you, the only impact will be that if a neutral density filter (you will have to increase your exposure by around 2 eV to compensate for the impact of a polarizer. Shooting this way with a wide angle lens will produce an undesirable effect that is known as "banding" in the sky; where some parts of the sky colour are strongly affected by the polarizer and others parts less so and even not at all.

The second impact of a polarizer is that it reduces / removes reflections from non-metallic surfaces. This works in any direction. The exposure increase due to the density of the polarizer will again require around a 2 eV compensation.

2. Neutral density filters reduce the amount of light entering the lens, allowing you to either shoot at a larger aperture or lower shutter speed for a given ISO. In landscape shots, like the one you show, blurring the impact of the water movement is the most common use. I believe you were shooting on a tripod, so when the sun is that low to the horizon, a low ISO setting, a wide aperture and low shutter speed would already give you a significant amount of motion blur in the water.

3. Graduated ND filters are used to reduce the amount of light entering the lens for part of the scene. There are generally two types; hard (which work well when there is a distinct boundary (like the horizon) between the sky and landscape. Soft GND filters have a less distict boundary and tend to be used when the boundary between scene and sky is less distinct. There are tined GND filters that can change the colour of the scene as well as reverse grads, which tend to be used in shots like the one you have, where the sky is brightest near the horizon, and needs darkening.

Like Mike, I don't think you are shooting with any filters:

1. A polarizer pointed straight at the sun would have zero impact on the sky. There are significant reflections in the water, so again, no sign of a polarizer impacting the image.

2. The water motion is not particularly smooth or silky, which would tend to suggest no ND filter was used.

3. The shading on the large rock is consistent from top to bottom. The top of the sky is lighter than the midrange. These would be give-aways that no GND was used in this shot.

Our human minds can only process so much information. From a workflow standpoint (unless you already have a lot of experience in these types of shots), add one filter at a time, and only add more to the stack if the image is not coming out the way you want. Always observe; either in the viewfinder or on the screen to see if the change in filters / camera settings are moving your shot in the right direction. Writing these things down in a notebook are not going to be nearly as effective as you looking through your viewfinder or camera screen after taking a shot.

[george013]

Manfred,
I think it's the final photo out off 4, a HDR. There is nothing to deduce.
George

[rpcrowe]

I cannot comprehend why camera manufacturers don't generally include audio record capability which is linked to the still image. This would be a really valuable tool for many uses...

1. Recording names, emails etc. of subjects...

2. Recording information regarding the image which would be great for the OP'S use - EXIF is great but, the audio recording could provide more information regarding how and why an image was shot.

3. And how about being able to record information about images when doing travel photography. That audio record would be more valuable for me than GPS coordinates...

I have tried using a pen and pad for recording data and failed miserably in that attempt. I have used a separate audio recorder but, have often found it difficult to link up that data to the specific images. I have also used low quality video to record information - how about a tour guides talk about the subjects I am photographing.

After all these tries, the easiest way to record various snippets of information is on a separate audio file that is linked to the image. My oldie but goodie 1990's vintage Olympus C5050X had that capability and I really loved it. I believe some of the Canon 1D (series) cameras also have that capability. Why not all cameras?

IT WOULD BE ONE HECK OF A LOT MORE IMPORTANT TO ME (and I suspect to most other photographers) THAN THE SILLY "PRINT FROM CAMERA" CAPABILITY. HEY CANON! I'LL TRADE MY "PRINT FROM CAMERA" CAPABILITY FOR AUDIO RECORD ABILITY. HOW ABOUT IT?