I'm currently post-processing a bunch of wildlife shots (horses, my favorite subject) and would like to know how you feel a histogram should look like after postprocessing. I'm using ACR (Lightroom).
Personally, I try to adjust sliders and tone curve until I get whites and blacks somewhere, i.e. the shot fills the histogram with the main data neither to the very left or right. If I cannot manage that straight away, I usually resort to some local editing with ACR's tools like the brush.
At times, this can be a bit awkward if the scene was low-contrast in reality. The other problem is that if for example an animal's eye is the darkest part, it tends to cave in if I adjust black clipping accordingly and I need to do local editing (contrast) to make it look "alive" again.
Question: Am I painting myself into a corner with that approach, i.e. should I simply leave some part of the histogram empty? What's your take on "histogram after postprocessing"?
Note: I'm talking about natural scenes like wildlife or landscape, not about shots that are meant to be "artistic" from the start.
Personally, I try to adjust sliders and tone curve until I get whites and blacks somewhere, i.e. the shot fills the histogram with the main data neither to the very left or right. If I cannot manage that straight away, I usually resort to some local editing with ACR's tools like the brush.
At times, this can be a bit awkward if the scene was low-contrast in reality. The other problem is that if for example an animal's eye is the darkest part, it tends to cave in if I adjust black clipping accordingly and I need to do local editing (contrast) to make it look "alive" again.
Question: Am I painting myself into a corner with that approach, i.e. should I simply leave some part of the histogram empty? What's your take on "histogram after postprocessing"?
Note: I'm talking about natural scenes like wildlife or landscape, not about shots that are meant to be "artistic" from the start.