P: RGB Parade and Vectorscope in Lightroom?

A round trip to Photoshop just to check scopes? I don't know about that.

In that case, I can just open the image on DaVinci Resolve and check the scopes there. Or I can simply switch to DaVinci Resolve fully and edit all my RAWs there. On top of that, DR is completely free.

If a vectorscope is added, please add it to Lightroom directly. No round trips just to check some scopes.

This may be considered off-topic for this forum, but just in case there are any Adobe people following it, it may be one approach. It may make sense to introduce the scopes as a Photoshop, rather than Lightroom feature first. Photoshop is almost universally used in video for the creation of graphics. Another option would be to attach the feature to Adobe Camera Raw. I believe both Lightroom and Photoshop share the ACR codebase (at least it sure looks like that). 

Looking at this through Adobe's lens (full disclosure: I covered Adobe for MacDirecotry Magazine for over 20 years), they are likely assuming that photographers are not familiar with video scopes, and rightly so. The fact is that in digital imaging, the vectorscope would be an immensely vaulable tool. The things that it measures are easily controllable in Photoshop and Lightroom. If photographers could learn the basics of the scope, or be given a simplified version of it, I am sure they would find it indespensable, even if it simply let them pinpoint an average fleshtone. This would give one or both products an even greater leg up on the competition. 

@Conrad_C Well said.

Histogram and Vectorscope are not interchangeable. They both serve completely different purposes, and it's about time Adobe implements them into Lightroom if they want to cater to professional photographers, editors, and colorists.

Keep in mind that many photographers are learning to become videographers and adapting to a hybrid shooting approach due to the rise in demand for video in the last few years. Many users are getting used to color-grading videos and getting familiar with Vectorscope and other useful scopes. So it will not be completely foreign to every photo editor. On top of that, a lot of the time, you don't know that you need a tool until you are introduced to it.

Adobe, at least give it to us as an option. It's about time.

Professional photographers tend to use histograms and are satisfied with them, and do not even understand what vectorscope does. Video people prefer vectorscopes.

By @F1XX 

It’s not just a simple preference. For many years I have primarily been involved in photography and print, where everybody got trained on the histogram and nobody knows what a vectorscope is. 

But when I started getting into video, my eyes were opened to waveforms and vectorscopes, and now it’s easy for me to list the ways they’re objectively better than the histogram. So, despite having worked with histograms for around 30 years, I now think histograms are the weakest of these tools. Histograms provide you with the least amount of useful information about image tonality, compared to waveforms and vectorscopes. And I say that as someone who still does mostly photography and print. The feature of the Lightroom/Photoshop histogram I actually use the most is the clipping display, because the histogram graph can’t tell you anything about where in the actual image that tones are high, low, or clipping. But a waveform does, because it has a spatial component that the histogram has no match for.

If more photographers understood the vectorscope, the more they would become dissatisfied with the histogram. The job of portrait photographers in particular would be simplified by the vectorscope’s much simpler and more direct identification of correct flesh tones. But if they’ve only used traditional photo apps and haven’t been trained on video, they just have no idea what they’re missing.

ofcourse professionals want to professionaly know if their colors are correct. 
I do video and photo and I do miss the accuracy of scopes. 
It is so, so easy for adobe to implement it, they just don't care. Could even allow it to be disabled by default and just toggle in on through the settings.. implementation is such a low cost for them.. 

What professional photographers are not aware of is that vectorscopes and histograms provide entirely different information. The histogram serves the function of a waveform monitorin video in what referred to as the parade mode (red, green, blue displayed separately). The colored hump of the waveform monitor (below left) shows the range of light and dark for each color channel, scanning the frame from left to right. A lot of videographers prefer just to see luminance information, which can be represented by a single hump on the scope. Now, note the line on the vectorscope (below right) at about 11 o'clock. That's the all-important "flesh vector". That is the color of human flesh (all ethnicities). The image I used for this is a head shot, so there are not a lot of other prominent colors in the image. The vectorscope provides other information, like if the blacks (the glob in the very center of the scope) have a color shift that may affect the balance of the rest of the image. 

If there is a professional photographer out there who can tell me how to find a correct flesh tone in a histogram, I would be most grateful. Otherwise, I would say that we are talking about two completely different measuring tools here.

Ric

 Do you think many "professionals" would use this to adjust their pictures?

Professional photographers tend to use histograms and are satisfied with them, and do not even understand what vectorscope does. Video people prefer vectorscopes. 

Yes, a vectorscope with skin tone line a 10000%! Need it so badly!