P: RGB Parade and Vectorscope in Lightroom?

[Simqplicious]

Hi
I do a lot of video editing and really like using the RGB Parade and Vectorscope.

Histogram for photos aren't as detailed. Is there any plugins or features that have similar functions like RGB Parade and Vectorscope for use inside Lightroom or maybe as an external editor?

Best regards Simon

[Conrad_C]

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.

[makedits]

@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.

[Ric G]

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. 

[makedits]

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.

[Conrad_C]

@makedits Your points are also well taken. For many, photography and video are no longer silos. And, Adobe already seems to know this and are willing to migrate features across the disciplines. For example, when the more user-friendly color controls in Premiere Pro and After Effects were overhauled a few years ago, they were redesigned to look like Lightroom color controls and names (Highlights, Shadows, Vibrance…), and that led to what is now the prominent Lumetri Color panel in those apps.

Some photographers have become aware of the powerful selective color curves in Premiere Pro (which may have been in DaVinci Resolve first) such as the Hue vs Sat curve. Similar to this waveform/vectorscope thread, a few of those photographers, after seeing what those curves can do, are asking why we don’t have those curve types in Lightroom and Photoshop, and why we are still stuck with basically the same curves most photo apps have had since 1990.

Photography and print certainly do not have any kind of monopoly on the best color correction tools. Hopefully Adobe will continue to spread more of the best features between the photo and video apps, in both directions, as appropriate.

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.

By @makedits 

It depends on which competition it is. Although most photo apps don’t have them, one prominent photo editing app added the waveform and vectorscope a few years ago. It’s an app that is often considered one of the primary competitors to Photoshop. If Adobe added the waveform and vectorscope to Lightroom or Photoshop, it would not be a leg up on that app…it would be catching up.

[marvinaustin]

Isn't it easier to develop photos in RPP (raw photo processor), where the quality of development is better (by an order of magnitude) and there is a vectorscope? And then refine the resulting tiff file in Lightroom/Photoshop.
You shouldn't pray to the big guys at Adobe. There are completely different tasks there.

[Ric G]

RPP is nice to know about, but the Mac version doesn’t appear to have been updated since 2014 and does not support currently availale cameras. (Raw formats are unique to each camera model’s sensor data.)

[Julian38785165g6lj]

Hi, 

I have also been wanting to use some vectorscopes and waveforms in my workflow. I created a interface which can display the most common scopes for a certain part of your screen (basically you define a region of interest which is being tracked). Its free and it is not super fancy, but for me it does the trick. You can download it on github

https://github.com/JulianOstertag/Vectorscopes-and-Waveforms

[marvinaustin]

>RPP is nice to know about, but the Mac version doesn’t appear to have been updated since 2014 and does not support currently availale cameras. (Raw formats are unique to each camera model’s sensor data.)

https://raw-rpp.livejournal.com/216443.html 
Last update - year 2024. The program is being updated. In particular, profiles for different cameras.

[marios94]

Hi Adobe Team,

I'm coming from a video and color grading background, and I'm really missing proper scopes in Lightroom. In tools like Premiere Pro, Lumetri Scopes provide waveform, vectorscope, RGB parade, and more — these are essential for accurate color correction and exposure control.

In contrast, Lightroom only offers a basic histogram, which is frankly quite limited. It's surprising that such a powerful photo editing tool still lacks advanced scopes, especially considering how useful and standard they are in professional workflows.

Are there any plans to introduce real-time waveform or vectorscope views in Lightroom? This would be a massive improvement for anyone who takes color seriously and wants precise feedback beyond what a histogram can offer.

Thanks for considering this!