I made a Solid Color preset (see the values in the screenshot below) which should be close to average flesh tone and which leaves an indication point in the vectorscope. It sorted to be helpful for my color correction workflows.

As we all know, "flesh tone" is a moving target. Having a reference point such as those shown can be useful for comparison in some regions of the Northern Hemisphere.

That said, this industry gem hasn't let me down since I began doing weddings on film forty years ago. Most of my brides were not Gűeras (Caucasians), btw. .Best thing is, ColorChecker was retooled for digital acquisition and a->d conversion, making it a worthy survivor of the golden era of still color photography (Gretag/Macbeth/X-Rite). And after all these years, it is still 75 bucks. How about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ColorChecker

Seems like an excellent idea for VP. BTW, how does it assist?

I just want the line there so when I mask some skin I can see where it falls on the vectorscope. In Vegas, you have to hover the mouse over the reading and see how many degrees it is. I believe 123° is where it should be.

As we all know, "flesh tone" is a moving target.

Fleshtone is fleshtone when it comes to scopes. The only real moving part is the amount of saturation.

Here is a good read: https://larryjordan.com/articles/color-correction-make-people-look-normal/

Again, it's a moving target, so matching a vector and calling it flesh is not a complete technique. We would like to match the model's deviation from the side-by-side nearest chart reference after WB.

The notion of a universal "flesh" chroma as presented in that article is an overinflated joke, other than as a rational starting point for soccer moms. It will make beautiful African skin look green as moss under indigenous equatorial lighting, the regions from where all human flesh evolved.

The arrogance of 19th century European "correctness" today is pervasive, if not unilaterally off-center. Something like "correct" church music... ha

I learned my skin tone theory from the legendary Frank Ishihara at Technicolor Laboratories more than four decades ago, before we got the Gretag chart, but when Diana Ross still had to look as good as Doris Day on film.

Again, it's a moving target, so matching a vector and calling it flesh is not a complete technique. We would like to match the model's deviation from the side-by-side nearest chart reference after WB.

The notion of a universal "flesh" chroma as presented in that article is an inflated joke, other than as a rational starting point for soccer moms. It will make beautiful African skin look green as moss under indigenous equatorial lighting, the regions from where all human flesh evolved.

The arrogance of 19th century European "correctness" is pervasive, if not unilaterally off-center.

I learned my skin tone theory from the legendary Frank Ishihara at Technicolor Laboratories more than four decades ago, before we got the Gretag chart.

And it doesn’t work on Asians either. My kids are mixed and have more of an olive tone, especially when they spent a lot of time outside in the sun.

It will make beautiful African skin look green as moss under indigenous equatorial lighting

I have two shots on a timeline right now, a Caucasian and African American. Their skin tones are like only a couple of degrees difference from each other and the African American is less saturated and both look great.

My question isn't about color correcting skin tones and I'm not challenging your experience and such, I'm asking if there's a way to magically get the fleshtone line to appear on Vegas' vectorscope so I can use as a quick visual reference instead of having to hover over the scope to get the reading.

It will make beautiful African skin look green as moss under indigenous equatorial lighting

I have two shots on a timeline right now, a Caucasian and African American. Their skin tones are like only a couple of degrees difference from each other and the African American is less saturated and both look great.

My question isn't about color correcting skin tones and I'm not challenging your experience and such, I'm asking if there's a way to magically get the fleshtone line to appear on Vegas' vectorscope so I can use as a quick visual reference instead of having to hover over the scope to get the reading.

 

I think what @Musicvid is questioning is where the line is or should be to cover all possible skin tones.

I'm asking if there's a way to magically get the fleshtone line to appear on Vegas' vectorscope 

Yes, I already showed you that. As did Marco. You are always welcome to submit your query as a Feature Request to Magix.

And it doesn’t work on Asians either.

It sure as hell doesn't. Everybody here knows by now I use an Asian "Shirley" for a lot of my work, only because the skin chroma is inherently more sensitive. And yes, I even fudged her yellow axis as recorded on GH2 to dampen typical Anglo prejudice, and I still catch it, especially from armchair critics who don't calibrate their monitors, either.She lives comfortably at 126 degrees, although an Asian color grader would say she is too blue. 'Nuff said about that.

I had never heard of the fleshtone line so I read up on it on the internet. Apparently it coincides with the I of the I Q points on a vectorscope. But the thing I noticed on most examples was they were isolating the images of the various skin tones. I didn't see an example where all skin tones were in one image. Musicvid, I would be curious of your input after you read some of the information on the web. Apparently, this is a new thing, not just isolated to his one thread.

Yes, the I-line vector scale is newer than the cie 1931 scale values listed in my graphic above, I agree. And again, it is representative only of one reference chroma value, not all or even any sample values, as can easily be demonstrated.

The relative flesh tone creates the chroma vector, not the other way around.

Put the two white babies on your vectorscope and compare the red angles -- 116 and 106 degrees, respectively. Or, we could just make all our babies blonde. Because as all of Barbieville already knows, Barbie mommies don't have red babies, agreed?

Cultural mass gentrification, nothing more significant.

Guess I’m spoilt with the NewBlue ColorFast Skin Tone Mask and Cosmo.

Though isolating the faces them flesh tones are about 122° +/- 1°.

Though isolating the faces them flesh tones are about 122° +/- 1°.

Yep.

Though isolating the faces them flesh tones are about 122° +/- 1°.

Do you mean the three faces in musicvid’s last post or mankind in general?

Though isolating the faces them flesh tones are about 122° +/- 1°.

Do you mean the three faces in musicvid’s last post or mankind in general?

Look at the image I attached. It was of the three faces in the post.

Though isolating the faces them flesh tones are about 122° +/- 1°.

Do you mean the three faces in musicvid’s last post or mankind in general?

Look at the image I attached. It was of the three faces in the post.

Well, put an Asian, Southern Indian and Northern European in the mix and see where the spread goes.

I'd say the wouldn't deviate from the flesh tone line angle much more than 3° - 4° (up and down).

One too many examples, I guess.

The two-headed monster against the same white background I posted previously more than amply illustrates my concern with applying a benchmark reference unilaterally. Those two Caucasians arguably deviate by 10 degrees.

More red babies!

Having researched the green-skinned African issue further, I discovered on the internet that the same excuse I gave my clients 45 years ago, that of heat-damaged negative film, may have in fact been true.

Lots of undelineated variables out there, folks.