I am unsure as to whether this constitutes a beginners question or not, but thought it might stimulate some discussion.
From the moment I started using photoshop, curve adjustments were basically relatively straight forward s curves to boost contrast - for images that require it that is.
This wasn't an entirely straight forward process.
Only recently I started using the whitepoint, black point dropper, or manually shifting white points or black points according to where the information "begins" for each point in the histogram.
This is providing some great results, universally across the image. It may not save all highlights (if already blown) or shadows (if already clipped) but it is much more straight forward and consistent than a standard s-curve as preached by many online tutorials. Colours also "pop" a lot more and the whole photo looks like it appeared to me at the time - minimal curve adjustment also seems to reduce the likelihood of dreaded posteris/zation.
This then begs me to question - why would you apply a s-curve if this powerful tool is producing these great results?
Also, with regards to clipping, if I turn my rgb image to "difference", add a clipping mask, "apply to image" and check invert, then turn the layer to normal again, I'm seeing some details regained in bright clouds and dark shadows - most of my work is done?
I can understand that detailed curve manipulation and multiple layers can be used to put life into heavy shadows, etc - but the method I have provided above seems to work quite well for urban snapshots and the like and general fluff I add to flickr.
I wouldn't mind your opinions in regards to the above. Please note I am a newbie to image processing, so please try not to over complicate the matter.
Thanks!