P: Slow UI when using Mac and Custom Display Profile

This is your notice: Lightroom Classic is NOT on it's way out ("Yeah, we need those millions of dollars in revenue!") Unless you are a conspiracy theorist, then whatever. PS-they didn't want to give up on Flash, the rest of the world (led by Jobs) did.

Kapish is formally spelled as capisce (pronounced as cah-peesh) which is derived from the italian word capire "to understand" and from latin capere "to grasp or to seize". It is now used in american slang to say "got it?" or "understand?"

-Urban Dictionary

I learned something! (I thought it was Yiddish).

So bill_,

You don't print.

You use prosumer displays (which will never attain accurate colour).

You 'calibrate' these fundamentally flawed monitors with a notoriously inaccurate device.

And then you feel qualified to berate others about their hardware choices and software problems.

It's hardly surprising then, that you so profoundly fail to grasp the issues facing those who know what they are talking about.

You are missing the point.

I am one of those that did keep the old catalogue (based on my experience with previous Adobe cock-ups) and so was able to roll back to V9. So I don't need anyone's help in finding a hack.

The point is Adobe are repeat offenders and suffer from terminal deafness. The issue is not whether or not a programme has bugs, nor even how long it takes to fix them, the issue is their attitude to customer service.

Andrew keeps mentioning using the default Adobe RGB profile as a work-around. I would be more than happy to, since my displays are calibrated to this color space, but LrC runs just as slow with this profile as with my custom ones. Does using Adobe RGB result in performance improvements for anyone dealing with this issue? The only profiles I've found to help are sRGB and Apple RGB, neither of which being particularly useful to me...

As far as the vast majority of recent posts is concerned, I certainly don't want to pour more oil into the fire - too much has been said about this, much of which repetitive and far from constructive, in the process wasting the most precious resource in all of our lives: time.

My personal conclusion is that we're once again dealing with the fall-out of a situation where quarterly sales figures, shareholder value and the opinions of paranoid corporate lawyers have become more important than happy customers. This applies to both five-letter Silicon Valley corporations whose names begin with an A and end with an e. It's the way the cookie crumbles, and we as customers must decide whether to put up with it or to look elsewhere.

My solace is that customer choice drives just about everything in our economy and that the entire free marketplace is in effect a grass roots movement. And that is why this ignorant corporate attitude, infuriating as it may be in the short term, eventually causes inflexible behemoths to die and nimble, creative startups to rise and shine, Kodak being just one example of the former. For now, I wish us all the patience we need until this sad chapter becomes history - and a good hand with exercising our choice in the future...

bill:

you write:

“So you expect an upgrade with more features and performance to run on the same old hardware? If you are going to use V9 level hardware then use V9.”

seeing you repeatedly harp on the same theme throughout this thread, i’ll admit i don’t really understand what’s up with your apparent adobe fetish.

however, for someone who participates here a lot, and who obviously thinks he has a worthwhile perspective and information to share (almost a guru of sorts, right, if you’re not being overly modest?), your record of over 800 responses but less than 200 likes (if i’m understanding the stats correctly) — might prompt you to reconsider the value of continuing to contribute.

but before you go, i’d love it if you could just point me to the spot where i shared with you the details of my inadequate gear setup.

you wouldn’t have just assumed that, right?  you know that saying about what happens when you “assume”, don’t you, bill?  (in this case just “u”, though.)

anyway, i can see that you’re a guy who does things right — so whenever you get any new software, you make sure to throw out that ancient, ridiculous machine from a couple months ago and replace it with the latest and greatest hardware so that you can flawlessly run the all the latest and greatest from adobe.

personally, i like to replace my entire computer for every point release.  so obviously i got a new one when LR 10 came out, and then another one for 10.1.  currently i’m shopping for new hardware in anticipation of 10.2.  

i mean, it does add up, but anything less would just be unprofessional, and honestly, almost disrespectful to adobe!

oh, also…since you keep talking about “yesterday’s hardware” and “today’s software”, i keep trying to find the chart you’ve obviously made where it breaks down all the hardware in the “yesterday” category and all the software that’s “today”.

dude, if you could just get that list over to adobe asap, i’m sure they’d be super appreciative!

of course, you must have already addressed the tough philosophical question of whether lightroom classic 10.x should be considered “today’s software” — or tomorrow’s , or yesterday’s.

lots to chew on here!….dying to hear your thoughts.

and here’s another one: 

maybe if adobe spent less time chasing amateurs who want to use lightroom on their phone for insta, they’d have more resources to create a product that professionals can actually use — you know, several months after it was released (and paid for).

(btw, so excited…i heard LR for the Apple Watch will be out soon!)

"I'm not about talking and finger-pointing and complaining. I'm about getting things done." 

ROFL

Bill, the issue with those Spyders, compared to the competitors is they are out in the woods in terms of correlation with each other. It's like you going into a store to buy a pound of chicken and the first scale used is off by 5oz. The 2nd scale is off by 3oz in the other direction. This is a device to measure color. One should expect it to measure consistently from unit to unit. It doesn't. NOR does it correlate with a known, vastly more accurate reference instrument costing about $10K. The competitors unit does. 

And then, we can go into the differences in the software driving the measuring device. Bottom line; I'd avoid the Spyder as if I were a fly <g>.

You need a blog post "Mountingoat":

https://mailchi.mp/lightroomqueen/newsletter_2021-02?e=90d02d3347

You need help trying to calibrate to sRGB, ask, although what you need to know was supplied. 

I'm not advertising my book it's out of print. Not that it wouldn't help you tremendously. 

Had you kept your old catalog around for like a day after updating to this version, yes, you could have downgraded. 

"I'm not about talking and finger-pointing and complaining. I'm about getting things done." - Christine Quinn

I don't print. Viewing on my monitors, primarily the BENQ, with a target of a Samsung 2019 Q80 (not the lower quality 2020 model). 

I've been using a Spyder3Pro and later the Spyder5Pro for years but I'm not an expert at color management. The only thing I noticed is that my monitors don't exactly match which doesn't matter a lot since I do everything on one monitor anyway. Using a BENQ PD3200Q and Dell P2751Q which are certainly not great monitors, probably shouldn't expect them to exactly match. As I'm on Windows and not affected by all the issues affecting Mac users, is there something I'm missing? 

Aside, I do also have a 27" HP 5K monitor that is no longer in use due to Nvidia driver issues. But when it worked and calibrated, the images were subtly superior.