How does Byran Peterson do it?

I'm on my 3rd peterson book, and something that struck me as odd, he puts in photo from a few years ago, that he says is from film. Then he'll say it's xyz lens and 105mm, f/16 for 1/5 sec.

How does Byran Peterson do it? This type info isn't stored in film like it is with exif in digital, is it?

Each one of the photos was likely a keeper. And in the old film days (dang, makes me sound like I am thirty or something) you used to have to keep a little book with such information, for educational reasons and for posterity.

I only ever did that -frankly- on not many ocassions, as I knew if needed I could wing the response by looking at the film speed (grain), then guess DOF and calculate some shutter speed.

Anyhow, my experience.

(Hopefully somebody posts something a bit more comforting, eh? )

PhotoJourno wrote in post #5913317
Each one of the photos was likely a keeper. And in the old film days (dang, makes me sound like I am thirty or something) you used to have to keep a little book with such information, for educational reasons and for posterity.

I only ever did that -frankly- on not many ocassions, as I knew if needed I could wing the response by looking at the film speed (grain), then guess DOF and calculate some shutter speed.

Anyhow, my experience.

(Hopefully somebody posts something a bit more comforting, eh? )

thanks, i was beginning to think he had some crazy photographic memory.

he may have carried a note book and jotted the exif on the back of hte photos after developing.

When Shot: Write it in a notebook
Slides: Write info on the slide mount
Prints: Usually documented on the negative carrier sleeve

At least that's how I used to do it...

No idea what camera he uses, but I believe some of the top end film cameras do store this information and either print it on the last frame of the roll, between frames, etc. (or allow you to upload it to a computer, like the EOS 1v).

yeah, i still use film and what i do when i'm taking pics that are not candids such as landscape, i jot down the setting. that's how they used to do it in the old film days.

This is a good moment to point out what a huge jump forward it was to go (as it was for me in 2004) from a film camera that required attention and down time every 24-36 frames, to a 10/20D.

PhotoJourno wrote in post #5915285
This is a good moment to point out what a huge jump forward it was to go (as it was for me in 2004) from a film camera that required attention and down time every 24-36 frames, to a 10/20D.

Yeah but are your photos better today?

When you think about it, if they didn't jot it down at the time of taking the picture...how would they know what they should have done to improve on the pic if they don't know what settings they used. We are lucky...we can say "That pic is crap'...and look at the exif to see why and how we can improve on it next time.But with film...sometimes weeks or longer would pass between taking the shot and developing. Heck, I can't remember what I did yesterday.
Speaking of Bryan Peterson though...I have just finished reading 'Understanding Exposure" which is a great read....but I was disappointed with the print quality of the photographs. Why would you go to the trouble of making a book about taking great photographs and use a lousy printer? They all look like they have high noise levels...or maybe I just got a cheap spin off copy. I bought it brand new from Amazon.

Karl C wrote in post #5915844
Yeah but are your photos better today?

Yes, thank you, they are much better. One reason is that I shoot more of the same image at different settings (which can be reviewed).

I never could keep a notebook or log, and by the time the slides got back from the developer, I had forgotten the shutter speed and f/stop. The ISO was the easy part.

Another major advantage of digital is the ease and possibility of developing an image different ways.

Glenn NK wrote in post #5917469
Yes, thank you, they are much better. One reason is that I shoot more of the same image at different settings (which can be reviewed).

I never could keep a notebook or log, and by the time the slides got back from the developer, I had forgotten the shutter speed and f/stop. The ISO was the easy part.

Another major advantage of digital is the ease and possibility of developing an image different ways.

Amen to that.

I am so grateful to steam power and locomotives, I am actually a big fan.
But, I still fly everywhere when I have to. (Get the analogy?).

I think locomotives are much more of a work of art, a great craft to be driving one of those. In the other hand, the airplane lets you focus on what you are going to do when you arrive at your destination.

I gave up a little when I went digital, that is no secret and should be obvious to all those who shot film before digital.

But my single point was: I gained so much more by going digital. Sorry OP, I was just expressing my gratefulness to Digital Tech. I did not mean to ruin your thread.

Cheers,