Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback

Legend

Windows vs Mac performance.

This is techy, but may be pertinent:

A simple Lightroom task yield on Windows is over a 100 times slower on Windows than Mac.

Thus any operations in Lightroom that loop a bunch and have a yield or sleep in them will be extremely slow on a Windows machine.

This is as seen from the point of view of a plugin, but I'm guessing the plugin function for a task yield is just a thin wrapper around the same function used in Lightroom proper - but I dont know...

Rob

ChBr02

Participating Frequently

Rob,

When you say That you are seeing this "from the point of view of a plugin", do you mean running Winows as a task on a Mac?

Charlie

Legend

I meant the LrTasks.yield function that plugins call to yield a plugin thread - takes 100+ times longer on Windows than Mac

i.e. when plugins yield, it takes 100+ times longer on Windows than Mac. Same may be true when Lightroom threads within Lightroom itself yield (independent of plugins...).

V

Vlican

Participant

lightroom is still slow at browsing files... even after creating several GBs of thumbnails and previews, lightroom is still damn slow and that is unacceptable... this has not improved since LR1.3... ACDSee blows lightroom out of the water in this aspect

i cannot open lightroom and expect to flick through my images without the thumbnails lagging behind (while i can easily do that in other photo managers such as ACDsee pro)

lenovo sl400

core2duo t9400

4gb ram

LR is managing 28023 photos

D

dwterry

Known Participant

Yup, that's why I still use ACDSee to manage photos. LR is just a raw processor for me, ACDSee is my image manager.

J

JayS_In_CT

Participating Frequently

All,

So a new performance question around previews. I understand that there is some correlation between the Library Preview cache and Develop module in the Library provides the base level but I've also found a direct connection... meaning, if I render a 1:1 Preview (simply by going to 1:1 size) in the library module and then switch to develop, the load time (at 1:1) is instantaneous.. This includes heavily edited files previously not viewed as 1:1 in Library. Am I wrong in the understanding that a 1:1 rendering in Library mode does not include all the edits and is, as I said, the base from which the Develop image is built on? My "standard" size image which I build on import are 1680 on a 24" screen which is 1920.. I do have the viewing window in Library smaller given the side panels. If I use 2048, which is still smaller than full size, would I gain more?

Jay S.

L

Lee_Jay-ZyZk56

Participating Frequently

JayS In CT wrote:
All,
So a new performance question around previews. I understand that there is some correlation between the Library Preview cache and Develop module in the Library provides the base level but I've also found a direct connection... meaning, if I render a 1:1 Preview (simply by going to 1:1 size) in the library module and then switch to develop, the load time (at 1:1) is instantaneous..

That's becuse rendering the 1:1 previews populated the Camera Raw cache. If that cache isn't set large enough for the number of images you rendered, some images won't be in the cache when the rendering is done.

J

JayS_In_CT

Participating Frequently

Lee Jay wrote:
JayS In CT wrote:
All,
So a new performance question around previews. I understand that there is some correlation between the Library Preview cache and Develop module in the Library provides the base level but I've also found a direct connection... meaning, if I render a 1:1 Preview (simply by going to 1:1 size) in the library module and then switch to develop, the load time (at 1:1) is instantaneous..
That's becuse rendering the 1:1 previews populated the Camera Raw cache. If that cache isn't set large enough for the number of images you rendered, some images won't be in the cache when the rendering is done.

Lee Jay,

So then I'm back to the question that keeps going round and round (and my ACR cache is 60GB) about the 2 different cache's.. I rendered the 1:1 in the Preview cache, not the ACR cache, yet Develop access is now instant with no load time (practically none).. Shouldn't the 1:1 in Library be stored in the Previews cache file in some location as the catalog files? Wish I had a flowchart diagram with a "If this ... than that .. but if you branch this way, than that occurs" :-) Again I thought that the Preview cache only provided the basis for a Develop module image.. note I said heavily edited.

Jay S.

D

dustybush

Participant

My issues seem to be related to the Print module. When I launch LR into the Library module, it uses about 150 MB of RAM. Whenever I switch to the Print module (or launch LR into the Print module), the RAM usage jumps up to over 3 GB and my computer becomes virtually unusable. I never used the Print module before 3.3, so I can't say if it is a new issue or not, but that memory usage seems excessive. Strongly considering re-installing 3.2 at this point.

Running Windows 7 64-bit, FWIW.

Inspiring

@ Rob: Glad to hear some Windows users are doing OK. Unfortunately, as far as I know Adobe doesn't release sales figures for the Mac and PC versions of their software so I couldn't even pretend to offer an educated guess which platform has more Photoshop and Lightroom users. Though we might assume that, given the Mac's proverbial popularity among graphics professionals, that the proportion of Macs running Adobe products is larger than its market share in general. In any case I think it's safe to say that each platform has its strengths and weaknesses. Since they use much of the same hardware now the differences between them have certainly diminished.

Back to the subject of performance, when Lightroom stalls out on me it's not because I have used an unusual number of adjustment brushes on a single image; it seems to be cumulative. When I'm running through a batch of pictures, applying the adjustment brush is one of the last operations I perform. So I will move from one image to the next brushing out imperfections. I will also use the gradient tool to balance uneven lighting, but this seems to cause fewer problems. Anyway, it's not unusual, after processing a number of images, for the adjustment brush to freeze up on me. I then quit and restart Lightroom and good performance returns. This is different than what other people are reporting, I think; they seem to have trouble when they apply a lot of brushes to the same image. Personally, if I find an image needs more than a dozen brushes, I prefer to do the work in Photoshop where the healing brush doesn't require a target.

H

H_D_

Participating Frequently

@thewhitedog

In my setup Lightroom freezes for a few seconds with every (and also the first) Spot removal adjustment (only jpg, RAW works fine).

Meaning I mark the spot, move the source circle around to find an appropiate source and voila the system freezes.

A

Anonymous

Computer Hardware/Software:

I have an Intel Duo Core processor running at 2.0ghz with 4 GB of ram and it has Windows 7 x64 running on it.

I just recently started reworking an older photo taken with a Nikon D50 in Lightroom 3.3. The photo was captured using the RAW .NEF file format on the camera. It was imported and worked in Lightroom 1, and then I changed over to Lightroom 3. Now I'm on Version 3.3 and this is where I was reworking the file. I updated the file to process version 2010, and started working the file over (like from import in the history) using the local adjustment brush. The file started slowing down when I was over half way through my edit, and I had to edit a copy to finish it because it was just horrible! I started losing brush strokes (it would show up using the 'show selected mask overlay') then the harddrive would make a write and the stroke would dissapear. Eventually the program started freezing up and making it impossible to work the file any more. I beleive there were some other tweaks made to the photo before the brush was used, and it would be things like exposure, clarity, saturation, vibrance. Before I exported this file to a .TIFF it used all my RAM (it was only program open except task manager, and I even ended the explorer process so it was only Lightroom and Task Manager running) and started Caching onto the harddrive and that's when the computer was unuseable. Switching between Task Manager and Lightroom was a big job for it to do.

Inspiring

I'm not gloating, but there does seem to be a serious problem with Lightroom 3 on Windows. I have experienced some slowdowns with Lightroom 3 on my Mac Pro, but the same problems existed in Lightroom 2.x. And I've seen nothing as drastic as what Windows users are reporting here - nor do I remember another post by a Mac user with issues this serious. I'm not even saying that Mac OS X is better than Windows; I'm just remarking on the differences with Lightroom 3 on the two platforms. Given how long this has been going on, Adobe is clearly having difficulty isolating the problem. I don't envy them the chore.

Legend

More problems are reported by Windows users, but its hard to know whether its because there are more WIndows users, or also because they have proportionally more problems (which would not surprise me, I just dont know) - never seen the numbers... Lr3.3 running well for me now on Win7/64.

PS - There are Mac vs. Windows benchmarking comparisons on the SDK forum which indicate there are some notable differences in performance behavior under the hood between the two platforms (even when working well on both platforms) - mostly but not always favor the Mac if my qualitative guestimate is correct (it may not be).

H

H_D_

Participating Frequently

Hi,

I've performance problems with the Heal Brush in Lightroom 3.3 (there is already a very long thread for this topic but I didn't see an entry if the guys use 64 or 32 bit or if it's related to jpg only).

My configuration:

Win 7 Home Premium 64 Bit (AMD 1050 six core CPU).

4 GB of RAM

Lightroom 3.3 64 Bit

Photoshop CS5 64 Bit

10000 images in my catalogue (mainly jpg)

Using the Heal brush with Raw images works very fast. Using the brush on an jpg file is very, verly slow (have to wait a few seconds till the result is visible. Also depends on the brush size. Bigger brushes => more delay).

If I use the Camera Raw module from Photoshop everything is fine, also with the jpg files.

I've already deinstalled Lightroom but this has had no effect (I didn't clean up the registry and the file system).

Hope this helps a little bit to locate the error,

Holger.

JW Stephenson

Inspiring

Holger,

Everyone's experience is a bit different, most apparently having no issue at all with this tool, but you are not alone. I too have a 64-bit, multi-core processor and a variety of RAW and JPEG images, probably 8k each. Many of the JPEG images are antique images and require a fair amount of spot removal. As with you I have noted that JPEG (and TIFF files as well) are materially more difficult to work with using the Spot Healing Tool than with RAW, but even the RAW files will slow down after a certain number of applications.

Through a bug report and some correspondence Adobe has been made aware of this behavior difference and they have added it to the list of symptoms but there doesn't seem to be a common theme as to who has this problem and who doesn't. However, as you and I can demonstrate it isn't due simply to lack of power. As you have noted, I too can operate this tool in Camera Raw via Photoshop with no apparent lag and as an additional point of reference, I can run LR v2.5 with absolutely no lag in any tool or feature or anything, so even though this problem might be hardware configuration related, it was not an issue with some prior versions - this behavior started for me with v3.0.

I turned off hyper-threading and my performance with the tool improved quite a bit, allowing me much more edit time before an image becomes sluggish if at all. Not sure if AMD processors have that feature turned on by default (or if they have it at all) but it might give you some short-term relief until Adobe is able to isolate and fix the problem. Some have had some success in completely uninstalling LR and reinstalling (described earlier in this thread) but that actually cost me some performance - still, probably worth a try.

Best of luck while we wait.

Jeff

H

H_D_

Participating Frequently

Thank you Jeff.

I've deleted my Lightroom catalogue and have imported the pictures again.

The effect was that I could use the Spot Removal tool (I do not know the exact english terminology, in german it's "Bereichsreparatur-Pinsel") a little bit longer (meaning moving around the source circle) before now the whole application has frozen for a few seconds.

The last thing I will try is to deinstall Lightroom and delete also the registry settings.

Hopefully this problem is solved soon.

Thanks again for the information,

Holger.

A

Anonymous

I am also having the problem with the Spot Removal tool that others have described - the tool will sometimes stop working (freeze). I have noticed something interesting when I have the problem. I'll click on an area using the clone brush and drag the circle to another area. As I'm dragging or after I let go, LR stops responding. If I go to another application window or even just minimize all windows and then go back to LR, it will start responding again. However, sometimes the circle is not where I left it.

My environment:

- LR 3.3 final

- Windows 7, 64-bit version

- Dual core with 8GB memory

- ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series Display Adapter

- wanting for a fix for this problem since LR 3.2

Good luck on shooting this bug. If anyone from Adobe that is working on this wants to remote into my computer to help see what is going on, let me know...

Inspiring

This is a problem that I have experienced as well on my 3GHz quad-core Mac Pro with 8GB of RAM running OS X 10.6.5 (and earlier). It was also present in Lightroom 2. I was hoping version 3 would resolve the issue, but it has yet to do so. After using the healing brush on multiple images eventually it will stall Lightroom. I've been using a quit and restart to get around the problem - one of the seldom noted advantages of Lightroom is that you don't lose any work if the program freezes or quits. But I'll try the strategies ffennema mentions - switching apps and minimizing windows as these would be even less time consuming - though restarting Lightroom is hardly arduous if you don't have to do it too often - though you shouldn't have to do even that if Lightroom managed resources more efficiently.

web-weaver

Inspiring

Yesterday I was using the clone / healing tool quite a bit. I hadn't used it for a while, so it was my first time in LR3.3.

I have to say that the tool is now much more responsive and faster than it had been in LR 3.2.

Using the tool in LR 3.2 I was "twiddling my thumbs" a lot while waiting for the tool to resume responsiveness.

But now in LR 3.3 there is no time for any "twiddling."

Thanks guys.

BTW I am running LR 3.3 on a 5 year old dual-core machine with 4GB RAM under Win XP SP4.

WW

Legend

Spot tool has been working good for me (reasonably responsive), but recently I had a bout where it was extremely slow to respond to re-positioning the source circle. Hadn't happened before and hasn't happened since - dunno what might have happened to cause it or what happened from time it started acting wonky to time it started behaving normally again (possibly a restart of Lightroom or my computer...).

Lightroom version: 3.3 [711369]

Operating system: Windows 7 Ultimate Edition

Version: 6.1 [7600]

Application architecture: x64

System architecture: x64

Physical processor count: 4

Processor speed: 3.4 GHz

Built-in memory: 7934.1 MB

Real memory available to Lightroom: 7934.1 MB

Real memory used by Lightroom: 1842.9 MB (23.2%)

Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 2000.4 MB

Memory cache size: 1381.9 MB

System DPI setting: 96 DPI

Desktop composition enabled: Yes

Displays: 1) 1920x1200, 2) 1920x1200

Rob

A

Anonymous

I have been using Lightroom for quite a while but with the 3.2 and 3.3 upgrade the performance have been abysmal when using local edits for simple stuff as increasing/decreasing exposure. I have concluded that lightroom just hogs ALL the ram that is availible and switching from one photo to another can add another 1-200Mb in RAM increase so i can only use it for 20-30 min before my RAM goes to 99% (and it seems like lightroom belives it goes to 11 ) and the whole systme becomes unresponsive. Minimizing lightroom actaully unloads alot of the memory it uses but it goes straight back up after a while

My system is q6600 (tried both under and overclocking), 4gb RAM, Geforce 8800GT and windows 7 64bit

R

Rancher53

Participating Frequently

I also have to agree it is a Ram hog as you put it, I had ,we'll still do

run Idimger the latest one and I thought it ran allot of Ram but Lightroom

3.3 uses more, One thing that is allot better is the export, import and

moving files is allot more stable in LR 3.3, along with labels and ratings

stay with the photos as I had a few problems with IDimger not keeping the

tags.

thejeremiah

Participant

Lightroom 3.3 does seem to do almost everything slower, from loading previews (even images which have already had the 1:1 preview pre-loaded), to it's ability to respond to local adjustments while using a Wacom.

The thing I like the very least about this upgrade to 3.3 as been that I have lost all of my presets. ALL of them. From my develop presets to watermarks, it's all gone. Unsatisfactory.

Legend

My guess is that your presets are still on your disk but Lightroom is looking for them in a different place now.

Did you also lose preferences?

Have you tried to find the preset folders/files on your hard disk?

The default location can be obtained via the presets tab in preferences, but I always keep mine with my catalog.