 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| This histogram is very underexposed. We have some serious clipping in the shadows. |
This corrected version of the image to the left is better, but much of the detail is still lost in the solid black, clipped shadows. |
A slightly deceptive histogram. At first glance it appears to have low contrast (the cluster of values centered largely in the middle), but that's only the flat green wall throwing the histogram off a little. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| An OK histogram with some slight clipping in the shadows and highlights. It would be a purely aesthetic choice to fix the shadows and highlights. |
Slightly underexposed with some clipping going on in the shadow values and some lesser clipping in the highlights. *Note: The dark background causes the histogram to be weighted to the left. |
A better histogram that tapers off on both sides without too much clipping. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Overall, a decent histogram despite some clipped highlights (which are probably in the red channel). |
Notice the standard RGB histogram can't really tell you much about your white balance. |
Another example of an underexposed histogram. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| A very overexposed histogram with severe clipping in the highlights. Not much can be done to salvage this one. |
Way too underexposed. |
After a big correction, this histogram is very healthy. It now has a nice, broad tonal range tapering off at both ends before any clipping occurs. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Another overexposed histogram. While it might not appear to be that bad by looking at the histogram, the highlights that are clipped are beyond recovery. |
This histogram is just a little underexposed. While this image could be corrected, it would be best to get the better exposure in camera. |
Overall, this is a pretty good histogram. There is some minor clipping in the shadows and highlights, but nothing a slight color correction couldn't fix. |