?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I'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).

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
yourbob
Jan. 4th, 2011 07:02 am (UTC)
Have you gotten your monitor "balanced"? One of those spyder things are about $80 at Frys.
bovil
Jan. 4th, 2011 07:08 am (UTC)
I've got a ColorMunki. It calibrates both my monitor and printer.
yourbob
Jan. 4th, 2011 07:12 am (UTC)
calibrate! that was the word I couldna think of.
howeird
Jan. 4th, 2011 07:29 pm (UTC)
I humbly submit that if what you see on the monitor is not what you see on the print, ColorMunki is not doing its job.
bovil
Jan. 4th, 2011 08:17 pm (UTC)
No matter how good the profiling is, there's still going to be some difference between the color spaces available in print and display. As it is, my color fidelity between screen and print is really good.

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.
(Deleted comment)
bovil
Jan. 4th, 2011 07:15 pm (UTC)
I'm intimately familiar with highlight blinkies on my camera display. The trick is knowing what highlights should be blown out (direct reflections of a strong light source on a mirrored surface) and what highlights can be blown out (areas where there just isn't significant detail).

If you're shooting raw, there's quite a bit of highlight detail that can be recovered in the headroom above the limits of jpeg (if necessary). Shadow detail isn't going to recover as well, and is going to be more prone to noise.
inflectionpoint
Jan. 4th, 2011 04:03 pm (UTC)
good goals!

we were at the movies last night, seeing the king's speech. there was a poster in the film that said, Bovril nourishes you. I misread it as Bovil and had a good laugh.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )