# POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

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.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 21, 2014)

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with leaving "empty" spaces in the histogram as long as the photograph looks the way you want it to look.

My preference is toward low key shots so quite often I will have "empty" space at the right end. For other pictures I expose to the right and pull it down.

Unless you collect or sell histograms, I would only use it as a guide to help you get the photograph the way you want it to look like. By definition that is the "correct" histogram for your photograph.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Unless you collect or sell histograms







AcutancePhotography said:


> I would only use it as a guide to help you get the photograph the way you want it to look like. By definition that is the "correct" histogram for your photograph.



Well, problem here is "what I want it to look like" because it depends so much on the output device. I feel that a "normalized" histogram out of post is easier to handle because I know with what luminosity range I'm dealing with. After export, I often apply a gamma curve or some +-brightness with ImageMagick to get it right for whatever I have in mind.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 21, 2014)

I use the histogram only for the highlight and shadow regulation, I don't know if that is professional, but I do so.
I never cared about filling the histogram, I just want the photo to look good. 

As you said, you have to differ between "natural" and "creative" shots, noting that natural shots can also be creative 
Of course, a bird's eye should not drown in the shadow, as well as the wings shouldn't be blown out by highlights. In high contrast situations, making the eye brighter and the wings darker leads to an entirely boring, flat and uncontrasty photograph (at least with my 7D). Therefore, I try to make the best compromise between recovering details and maintaining a contrasty image despite not having a perfect histogram.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 21, 2014)

I put depends so here is my elaboration.

If the scene was a chess board then you would have very little between the spikes at close to black and close to white, if the scene was a grey card you would have one spike just below midpoint. 

Where the histogram should be is entirely dependent first, on what the tonal range of the scene was, and two, what you want to make it look like. If you want it to look 'natural' the histogram can look like anything because the composition of a scene can range from a polar bear in a snow field, nothing close even to mid tones, to a black cat in a mine, and everything in between.

If there were blacks and whites in the scene then setting the black and white points makes complete sense, but very often we are missing one or both of those within the scene so introducing one or the other is_ 'painting yourself into a corner'._


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> If the scene was a chess board then you would have very little between the spikes at close to black and close to white, if the scene was a grey card you would have one spike just below midpoint.



Indeed, that's why I was writing _natural_ as in "grass, bush, tree, sky, horse" which usually results in one or two histogram bumps around the center (at least around where I live and shoot).



privatebydesign said:


> If there were blacks and whites in the scene then setting the black and white points makes complete sense, but very often we are missing one or both of those within the scene so introducing one or the other is_ 'painting yourself into a corner'._



That's just it: There are black and white in _every_ scene, it just depends where you _define_ the black and white point to be. Basically it's about how much you change the relative histogram distribution in post. Lazy /me usually doesn't change it lot, but I try to find reference areas I can pull towards the left or the right if possible.

For me (again, in "natural" scenes") having these white/black points results in a more pleasing look as my eye has a reference what white/black is supposed to be. Only then can I recognize "this image is low or high contrast", otherwise it could just be that the specific output device or print is high or low contrast by default.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 21, 2014)

In my opinion, the histogram will vary a great deal depending on the scene. And in nature - during daylight - I would say that the majority of scenes would have no black and no white. Anything "pure" white is almost certainly overexposed and anything "pure" black underexposed. Of course, contrast is good, so I usually aim for the histogram to taper almost to white and black - unless there is something obviously white or black in the image.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 21, 2014)

I use the histogram when shooting, not editing. I make sure that images are exposed properly in the camera, but after that the histogram does not get any attention. 

Personally, I am creating images that an hang on the wall, not histograms. I edit each image based in the image...


----------



## sb in ak (Nov 21, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I use the histogram when shooting, not editing. I make sure that images are exposed properly in the camera, but after that the histogram does not get any attention.
> 
> Personally, I am creating images that an hang on the wall, not histograms. I edit each image based in the image...



This is typically my approach as well. Proper (or in my case, usually a slight overexposure) exposure in camera, and then only a little attention in LR.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 21, 2014)

If my eyes see objects completely black, and other completely white when I looked through the viewfinder, so I want the histogram to be filled in post production.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 21, 2014)

This makes me miss Lightroom  When I was doing proper editing (before my computer broke) I did fall into this habit. I think as others have said, you should do what looks good to you. But I liked the look I got this way - using as much of the histogram space as possible without going past the ends. That way I feel I'm making the most of the available display data. It usually involved pulling the extreme bright and dark parts a little, giving the images a little zing. But it does vary by subject - doesn't work with very low contrast images to begin with. Combined with ETTR I found it minimised shadow noise, too. But then I see some photos I know I could never produce, and I wish I had a little more variety in my approach. Maybe one day.

(It goes without saying I process from raw; I prefer to take a neutral image and apply sharpening, noise reduction, contrast, etc. by eye afterwards).


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> I use the histogram when shooting, not editing. I make sure that images are exposed properly in the camera, but after that the histogram does not get any attention.



Interesting how much the approaches differ - apart from the topic (fill the histogram or not) I often look at it in postprocessing to see the effect of operations on the channel distribution and if some channel clips. When starting with digital photography I was completely oblivious to it, but I find it more helpful the more I work with it. My impression is that is also speeds up recognizing what basic adjustments need to be done about the image.



scyrene said:


> This makes me miss Lightroom  When I was doing proper editing (before my computer broke) I did fall into this habit. I think as others have said, you should do what looks good to you. But I liked the look I got this way



Good to know I'm not the only one. I just looked through a pic thread on CR, and on every other image I think "Come on, this is clipped as hell on both sides by too much contrast" or "Ugh, this looks way too flat, you should have looked at the histogram and not just at your personal output device (whatever that is)".

One advantage of this "semi-normalization" approach is that I can quickly see by now how much work (i.e. local editing) a shot will need, and I can improve by getting it better in camera next time. With a subjective "I edit it according to my current feeling" approach I doubt I'd learn as much from my mistakes.


----------



## Canon1 (Nov 22, 2014)

Don't get me wrong, most of my images end up with a relatively balanced histogram, I just don't need a histogram to "see" when a properly exposed image with well processed highlights and shadows.  My workflow is not hindered by this approach.


----------

