![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bovilI've got two that are reasonably achievable.
I'm going to recover from the fall's missing gym visits. Some of them were triggered by bad sleeping habits (which I'm getting away from). Some were triggered by work project madness (which should be getting more manageable). But I'm going to get back up to an hour on the treadmill on my cardio days, and back to over 6 miles per session.
I'm going to print more photos. Specifically, I'm going to print at least one photo a week and I'm going to print at least one new photo from every session. I'm still a bit off on my exposures (both auto and manual) and while the pics look OK on the screen, they're often shown to be underexposed when it comes to print. I need to see what the pictures look like printed. I need to get a better feel for what good exposures should look like on the histogram. Raw files allow for a bit of exposure latitude and avoid loss of detail in the highlights and shadows, but I want to have to do less correction. Better photos in the camera mean better photos on the web and in the prints with less work (and I'm by no means the kind of person who likes to spend hours in Lightroom or Photoshop doing major post-production).
I'm going to recover from the fall's missing gym visits. Some of them were triggered by bad sleeping habits (which I'm getting away from). Some were triggered by work project madness (which should be getting more manageable). But I'm going to get back up to an hour on the treadmill on my cardio days, and back to over 6 miles per session.
I'm going to print more photos. Specifically, I'm going to print at least one photo a week and I'm going to print at least one new photo from every session. I'm still a bit off on my exposures (both auto and manual) and while the pics look OK on the screen, they're often shown to be underexposed when it comes to print. I need to see what the pictures look like printed. I need to get a better feel for what good exposures should look like on the histogram. Raw files allow for a bit of exposure latitude and avoid loss of detail in the highlights and shadows, but I want to have to do less correction. Better photos in the camera mean better photos on the web and in the prints with less work (and I'm by no means the kind of person who likes to spend hours in Lightroom or Photoshop doing major post-production).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-04 07:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-04 07:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-04 07:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-04 07:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-04 08:17 pm (UTC)There's also going to be some difference between tonal ranges of pigment and phosphor (well, backlit LCD). Underexposed shadows will show better detail on a screen than in a print, no matter how well linearized the curves are.
Part of it is I'm running a crunky old flat panel; profiling can only correct the contrast and brightness within its limits. The blacks just aren't that black. I need to get a higher-contrast display one of these days.