P: RGB Parade and Vectorscope in Lightroom?

"Please don't add that, because I struggle with learning new things and currently have a speed advantage compared to others since I've memorized every RGB combination of skin tone and would like to continue working that way.**"

Someone should inform them it is pointless and impossible considering the massive myriad of RGB color spaces that are device-dependent. 

Someone should inform them it is fast and easy to use Lab, a device-independent color space in Lightroom Classic, Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop, using only two sets of values. 

Here's a video on correcting skin tones without having to resort to such frustrations:

Low Rez (YouTube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWaFDKrNrwc

High Rez
http://digitaldog.net/files/SkinToneVideo.mov

**“There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.” -Warren Buffett

Well, yes. You just asked the same question that this entire thread is about.

It has become pointlessly heated also, as people object to a feature that they don't have to use but already exists, just not in their software. 

This should exist also in Photoshop.

The people who don't want it, don't need to use it. Good for them.

The rest of us, can use the same workflow in both video and photography. You could now check skin tones without having to reference stupid skin color charts or worry about your monitor being calibrated and viewing in proper lighting. 

I assume in adding vector scopes RGB parade would also be part of that, which then also means you can white balance in the same way. Images with multiple color light sources make white balancing a pain in the butt, and with RGB parade you can visually see what is happening all across the image and get a good average as your starting point. 

I've asked several professional photographers what they thought. They all agreed that they don't think they need it. And HA, they also didn't understand it because they hadn't ever used it in video software. So I opened up an image in AfterEffects and showed them how it worked. And every single one of them then changed their mind and said they would like to have that tool available in their software as well. 

Unless it would harm the software in some way, like making it incredibly slow as a result, then it would be silly Not to consider adding it. That would be like if they wanted to add something like the essential graphics text panel to Photoshop and me objecting to it because I don't think I would use it. It'd probably be useful to some people, and with how that may change how people create mogrts already, maybe that would increase adoption and there would be improved mogrts out there that aren't limited to a single font and size (because making them responsive is a lot of extra work). So leave your objections to yourself unless you are able to state facts that contribute to the harm it would cause you.

One objection you might have would be, "Please don't add that, because I struggle with learning new things and currently have a speed advantage compared to others since I've memorized every RGB combination of skin tone and would like to continue working that way."

Just curious if people would find a vectorscope to be a useful feature in Lightroom Classic?

I know I tend to waffle on where I want my white point to be in an image, and atleast with video and using the vectorscope its alot easier to get a base white balance, remove colors cast, etc.

Since we have the Color Grading panel now, I don't think having a vectorscope (maybe waveform too) would be a tall ask at this point. Of course there's hardware options but just to have it built in to use in conjuction with the histogram would be amazing.

Just throwing that out there, thanks for your time!

Funny how some people here would actually waste everyone's time by objecting to a feature request... It's as though the inclusion of a vectorscope would mean the end of the world for them. Guys, you know you can choose to show or hide, right? And if a feature helps the workflow for some, then it's up to Adobe decide. What's the point of objecting? There are many features in LR that I don't use, but those features might be useful to the work of some others. Isn't this the more... mature way of thinking?

Hallo 🙂

Hat jemand eine Idee wie ich in Lightroom mit Scopes und Waves arbeiten kann? Diese zarte Histogramm ist quasi nichtsagend und aus Premiere usw. habe ich die Erfahrung gemacht, Farben sowie generelle Bearbeitung auf ein höheres Level zu heben mit Scopes und Waves. Kennt jemand einen 3. Anbieter oder hat sonstiges Tipps? Gibt es eine Alternative zu Adobe wo sowas integriert ist? ( Frage mich ernsthaft wieso es das in Lightroom nicht gibt, Rätselhaft ) 

Danke! 

The fact that there aren't "more people" on this is an objective indication of the Real World interest in it, among the majority of Lr users.

It's a super-niche feature that the vast majoriy of us clearly couldn't care less about: as usual, a vociferous minority think that because they want it, everybody else is bound to feel the same way.

Speaking as part of "everyone else" - we don't. 

Bitter little man, aren't you?

Yes! We need more people on this right now! 

Having used DaVinci Resolve in the last few years, i was mindblown that it had so much more advanced tools for working with color.

What i sometimes need (and miss in LR and PS) is a way to view RGB values in their spacial relation to the photo. It's great for quickly identifying and removing color casts/shifts, for example in old analog photo and negative scans.

Therefore, i gladly add my voice to the choir: Please add scopes to LR and PS, Adobe.

HDR image output has entered beta for Camera RAW in Bridge, which makes me assume (hope) that HDR image output is also on its way to Lightroom. Unfortunately the only scope available for image data is the histogram, and for HDR where NIT-values are more useful, an RGB waveform would be more useful to judge image brightness. Though, I also wish the waveform view to be compatible with SDR images.