P: Brighten the Histogram as LrC 13.0 histogram is much darker than LrC 12.5

[Alexey Danilchenko]

Lightroom Classic 13.0, macOS Ventura 13.6

New histogram look in develop module draws histogram in afancy stule with a line contour that envelops the histogram and stretches all the way from blacks to highlights. The line contour stretches the whole length of the histiogram all the time and this makes it impossible to see the real data distribution or where highlights or blacks need to be adjusted and how much of the range is left. The histogram view is basically useless. This fancy displaying is style over substance change and negates the reason to use histogram - please revert to old style histogram where empty areas are easy to see and there are no fancy line contours. Better yet - make your developers coming up with these fancy ideas to actually use the product themselves.

The clipping iundicators are no help either because I have a situation where clip indicator show no clipping yet when selected shows some small areas of clipping in image - see screenshot with clipping indicator shows no clipping in highlights yet when selected shows blown highlights on swans.
I had no issues using histogram in Lightroom Classic 12 and it was far more useful when presenting information to the user, please reinstate it!

[Rikk Flohr: Photography]

Not a bug. Moving to Ideas. 

[Alexey Danilchenko]

It is a bug - it prevents photographers using workflow that was working previously.

[Alexey Danilchenko]

And by the way, Library mode shows gistogram better without that stupid continuous contour line so it is a bug.

[GoldingD]

Is not a bad design decision by Adobe coders a bug?

To me, something we want added, or improved, or yes changed is an Idea. Adobe going opps, customers hate this is a bug.

[GoldingD]

Adding my 2 cents in, as a request for change.

Add a option button in the Histogram, to select Histogram version.

[williamp5279033]

Is there any way to change the histogram back to version 12? You are right the new version sucks.

[Justin Hoch]

For what it's worth, @Alexey Danilchenko @GoldingD, what Rikk is saying is that the change was a feature choice and it is working as intended. A bug is something that's not working as intended. So from the designer perspective, it's not a bug, no matter how much users hate it. Might be semantics, but makes a difference to the coders and designers.

I prefer the old histogram as well.

[Alexey Danilchenko]

It may work as intended from designers prospective but it prevents workflow that was working previously for users from working. What is it that not a bug then? And as I said - the same design works better in Library module - where at least thoso controur lines going past real gistogram values are less visible so you can to a degree see better where range ends/begins. So they already have inconsistency in a design. It is a bug in a word

[Justin Hoch]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the line contour stretches the whole length of the histogram all the time" @Alexey Danilchenko. The screenshot you included looks as I would expect the histogram to look, even in the old style. The colors are just transparent now, as far as I can tell. What did yours look like before that was different? And your histogram looks different in the Library and Develop modules? I'd call that a bug, yeah. They should look the same if no settings are changed.

I was trying to elaborate on what Rikk said about it not being a bug. If you're experiencing a behavior that's not what it's intended programming is, then yes, that would be a bug. If it's a change that you don't like about how a new thing works, then it's not a bug, it would be considered a poor design. Different solutions would be needed for those two different issues, so how they're labeled matters.

[Alexey Danilchenko]

Sounds like you don't remember how 12 histogram looked or you have not used it perhaps to judge exposure? This is histogram of the underexposed show by 1.5 stop in Develop module ane libnrary module:

 

Now in Library:

 

The latter is what I would expect to see showing the free space to the right of the histogram not some line like in develop module looking like some faint highlight data is there where it is not. Lightroom Classic v12 did not have that contour line at all so the parts of histogram to the right would be empty clearly showing even with the small hightlight data that there is still space to move white point to (or black point for the other end).

[Alexey Danilchenko]

Granted, library module still have that contour line going all the way in screenshot but at least looking at it on my monitor, its colour is fainter and I can at least see where histogram ends a bit more pronounced. In v12 there was no line like that - those 1.5 stop were completely empty.

[Justin Hoch]

Ah, I understand what you're saying now. I hadn't even noticed that.

I use the histogram a lot because I often work in areas with large lighting differences from each other and so it can be difficult to see exposure in the image itself. I just hadn't registered a zero pixel spot on the lines as being different from v12 to v13. They're close enough to me to be interchangeable in that regard. But I can understand how that would be annoying! Maybe I'll find it annoying now that I'm aware of it, too! Haha

[Alexey Danilchenko]

This is for comparison how V12 histogram looked - clean and clear way to see the range remaining in hightlight and blacks and none of those fancy lines:

 

[Alexey Danilchenko]

> If you're experiencing a behavior that's not what it's intended programming is, then yes, that would be a bug
I doubt very much that programmer's intention was to make histogram unusable yet pretty so it is a bug in my eyes because to me it is exactly this - pretty but unusable.

[Alexey Danilchenko]

> hey're close enough to me to be interchangeable in that regard

Not really - look at screenshots from V12 to refresh the memory. The new ones are only not a problem when you have a lot of highlights/blacks so the histogram is bunched on the ends and easy to see even with that blasted contour line. Yet I frequently have a situation when some just a few highlighted areas in otherwise dark image (landscape with overall dark mood and dark clouds but a few spots that go towards highlights for example) that ends up showing as a tiny areas at the edge of the histogram. Those cases make the new model completely useless because all you do in those cases is strain your eyes to spot whether you set your white point correctly of there is still a gap and the only way to do it is to turn on the clipping indicator and look all over image for indicated blown areas. This destroys the workflow that used to be quick and easy.

[Justin Hoch]

Yeah, I don't think they wanted it to be unusable. It can be difficult to design things for different people who have different needs and different ways of using things. Even here, we both prefer the old version. Whereas you consider it unusable, I merely don't like how it looks. Same conclusion, but very different levels of frustration.

I definitely see what you're saying about the line at zero; it just doesn't bother me. It isn't a big enough of a difference to affect my workflow. If I have to strain my eyes to see if the number of pixels at a given brightness level is zero or non-zero, then to me it's not a big enough area to be too concerned about. But I can understand if that level of finesse is important to other people. I definitely have areas where pixel-level specifications can be infuriating.

[BlueRanger]

Totally agree. I just upgraded and as soon as I saw the histogram, I thought something had gone wrong with the install. It's unreadable and I want the old one back.

[Alexey Danilchenko]

It is not about bothering - it is about not being able to determine
white/black latitude when looking at histogram since you cannot deduce if
the line represents empty data or some small amount of data not represented
by the scale

[DdeGannes]

My experience, 

I am not sure if I what the problem is?

See the screen captures.

The first image is a screenshot from my iMac running Big Sur and Lightroom Classic 12.5.

The second is a snip from my Win 11 laptop and Lightroom Classic 13.0.1.

OK I think I get it now, you are referring to how the edges are highlighted?

[Alexey Danilchenko]

> I am not sure if I what the problem is?

Seriously? You showing screenshots with exposure where white/black point set already with lots of data in hightlight and blacks to allow ends of the histogram to look distinguishable. Look at screenshots I gave - all those at least 1 stop underexposed. Or in your case move white point/exposure to be under exposed to see the difference between 12 and 13.

I just happened to edit a few shots after update with highlight area being not so greatly represented so on a new histogram you cannot see where empty area ends and those highlights and histogram actually begins and I spent ages tweaking what used to be 1-2 seconds job.

[Alexey Danilchenko]

So looking at this histogram for example (it should be the size corresponding what I see on 14" laptop) please tell me whether the image is underexposed or not.

 

[GoldingD]

Does anyone have a link for an Adobe document addressing the new histogram? The why, the how.

All I can find are third party documents (well, Ok, one document) on how this is a big mistake. ( and Adobe, a mistake in design, IS a bug)

https://www.alex-kunz.com/new-features-in-lightroom-classic-13/

[DdeGannes]

So this is not about how the histogram functions but it's about how the results are displayed.

[alexskunz]

I see two problems with the v13 histogram display:

1. it is generally much darker (which is a design problem)

2. the "thin line" that is always extending all the way to pure black and pure white (which is, I'd say, a bug)

The 2nd can be reproduced by applying extreme settings. This depends on the photo but it could be something like this. First, no thin line:

Then I adjusted the Blacks just a tiny bit — and the thin line shoots all the way to the Whites in the Histogram, but needless to say, there are absolutely no tones in the actual image at this point that would reflect this.

Cheers

Alex.

[Alexey Danilchenko]

> So this is not about how the histogram functions but it's about how the results are displayed.

Both - how results are displayed affects the functionality. How it functions under the hood is irrelevant since photographers don't know/don't care about that.