Adobe Employee

Pregunta

Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback

Forum|Forum|15 years ago
December 2, 2010
62 respuestas
144126 visualizaciones

Please use this discussion topic for your feedback on Lightroom 3.3 RC and the final Lightroom 3.3 release when it becomes available. The Lightroom team has tried very hard to extract useful feedback from the following discussion topic but due to the length and amount of chatter we need to start a new, more focused thread. Please post specifics about your experience and be sure to include information about your hardware configuration.

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom Product Manager

Este tema ha sido cerrado para respuestas.

Mostrar respuestas anteriores

D

dwterry

Known Participant

AHA! I found the solution to my performance issues. I promise ... I didn't do it.

The cache size was set to just 1.0 GB. It's not a setting I look at .... ever. If I ever set it ... it was probably clear back in LR 1.x or early LR 2.x days, certainly it wasn't something I set in recent times. When/if I did set it, I seriously doubt I picked 1.0 GB (that just seems terribly small to me, when I regularly shoot over 16GB per photo session). And I definitely did *not* set it when LR 3.3 came out (and the catalog I am using today was first started when LR 2.0 came out and simply upgraded by LR over time).

So I wonder .... did installing LR 3.3 over top of my LR 3.2 cause the cache setting to change?

I know you'll say it shouldn't have, but the performance for me definitely dropped as a result of installing LR 3.3.

Anyway, I'm back to being a happy camper. I get lightning fast switches between images in library mode again.

areohbee

Legend

Are you talking about the Camera Raw Cache Settings (under Preferences -> File Handling)? If so, those shouldn't affect

Library mode performance- just Develop mode.

Its the Preview Cache settings (under Catalog Settings -> File Handling) that determine Library mode performance, or at least that's how its supposed to work. And you want standard size to be set at least as wide as your monitor. I set preview quality to 'Medium' which takes a bit longer to compute initially but is not noticeably slower to load from cache than the 'Low' quality preview. And set discard 1:1 Previews to "Never". I can tell the difference between Low quality and Medium, although Low isn't that Low at all. But, my crude eye can tell little difference between Medium and High.

If changing the ACR cache size seemed to have affected Library switching speed, it may have been a "Red Herring". - Try setting it back to 1G to test that hypothesis...

Rob

T

thewhitedog

Inspiring

I disagree with Rob's suggestion that you need to set the preview size to at least as wide as your monitor. Whether that's optimal or not will depend on how you use Lightroom. If you regularly view images with all the panels, top and sides, hidden, then a large preview size can save a bit on rendering time. On the other hand, if you generally - as I do - leave the panels showing, a smaller preview size will be adequate. It's really a workflow issue and the right answer depends on your workflow preferences.

D

dwterry

Known Participant

I've decided Lightroom 3.3 is just obnoxiously slow.

In Library mode it is taking a couple of seconds to switch between images. That just ain't right. This is on an internal SATA drive. LR 3.2 never behaved like this (again: LIBRARY mode, lest anyone think it was a typo).

areohbee

Legend

I have the feeling sometimes Lr does not use the previews when it should. I've experienced blazing fast switching when things are being pulled from the cache the way they should (small fraction of a second), but sometimes there are re-rendering lags (2-3 seconds) when it seems like the photo should have been pulled from the preview cache. I haven't studied this too rigorously, but I've certainly noticed it.

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: 837.9 MB (10.5%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1011.0 MB
Memory cache size: 512.5 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 1920x1200, 2) 1920x1200

T

thewhitedog

Inspiring

Lightroom 3.3 performs adequately on my three year old 3GHz quad-core Mac Pro with 8GB of RAM and OS X 10.6.5. My concern is that it does less well for what is apparently a significant sub-set of users, who report their issues on these forums. I spent very little time here before I started using the Lightroom 3 beta so I don't know if there was a similar volume of problem reports for earlier versions - with which I had few issues personally (and I've been using Lightroom since it became available in the first beta program). Indeed, it was that beta program that hooked me on Lightroom, so that I absolutely had to buy the release version.

What seems clear to me, though, is that Adobe made significant changes to version 3, many of which impact performance. So though the code was optimized and made 64 bit capable, overall performance seems not to have improved. Which means Adobe did over-promise when promoting Lightroom 3 - which has led to disappointed expectations. Even though I'm having no problems myself, I cannot help feeling the pain of those who are. And I wonder why they are having these problems with what should be, by now, a fairly mature and stable product.

Despite my original surmise, hardware seems not be a central issue. My own computer is hardly the newest, though it's still a very capable machine - which is why I got a Mac Pro in the first place. Yet people with hardware far superior to mine are having more trouble than I am. This is a puzzle for which I see no solution as yet. There are things you can do, as I have suggested, that will improve the program's performance, yet the problems people are having seem to go beyond these manageable variables.

I can only hope that Adobe is having some success in finding the bottlenecks that are causing so much grief among their users. And that they will, sooner or later, resolve these issues - before adding any new functionality to the program that will inevitably cause yet another round of trouble.

T

ttoivonen

Participating Frequently

Lightroom 3.3 has utterly slow import. And it gets worse when importing to NAS as DNG.

Any tips or ideas to speed up the import are greatly appreciated!

Here's my setup:

iMac i7 w/ 8 GB RAM, 2 TB standard HDD from Apple, running Snow Leopard with latest updates

Buffalo TeraStation III 2 TB NAS

1 Gigabit network

CF card reader

35 raw images (CR2) on Transcend 133x 32 GB CF

Photos taken with Canon 7D (CR2 raw size approximately 24 MB)

Lightroom 3.3, 120 000 images in library

And here comes the problem...

Here are the transfer times for the import of 35 test images to HDD.

CR2 from CF to HDD in LR3.3 as CR2: 1 minute 7 seconds (1,9 seconds per image)
CR2 from CF to HDD in LR3.3 as DNG: 3 minutes 0 secons (5,1 seconds per image)

So DNG conversion takes almost two minutes...

How about converting imported CR2 files on HDD to DNG?

CR2 from LR3.3 to DNG: 1 minute 25 seconds (2,4 seconds per image)

So I get rid of 30 seconds. wonder where LR3.3 spends that time...

Let's try this same import to NAS.

CR2 from CF to NAS in LR3.3 as CR2: 4 minutes 34 seconds (7,8 seconds per image)
CR2 from CF to NAS in LR3.3 as DNG: 6 minutes 56 seconds (11,9 seconds per image)

Still almost same DNG conversion time (2:20), slower transfer rate to NAS, which is sort of expected...

...but it is telling that copying those 35 images takes almost 3 minutes 30 seconds with LR3.3 (4:34-1:07=3:27 and 6:56-3:00=3:56).

Doing standard file transfer from HDD to NAS then to see the real file transfer rate...

CR2 from CF to HDD: 0 minutes 45 seconds (1,3 seconds per image)
CR2 from CF to NAS: 1 minute 12 seconds (2,1 seconds per image)
CR2 from HDD to NAS: 1 minute 0 seconds (1,7 seconds per image)
DNG from HDD to NAS: 0 minutes 55 seconds (1,6 seconds per image)

So at worst the transfer of those 35 images as CR2 takes 1 minute 12 seconds. How come LR3.3 wants to use 3 minutes and 27 seconds for the same operation? That's 2,8 times longer! And compared to DNGs from HDD it takes LR3.3 more than 4,2 times longer for file transfers!

Basically for best performance to get DNGs to NAS under these conditions I should...

Import images as CR2 to LR3.3: 1 minute 7 seconds
Convert CR2 to DNG in LR3.3: 1 minute 25 seconds
Move DNG from HDD to NAS: 0 minutes 55 seconds
Re-import (add) DNG from NAS to LR3.3: 0 minutes 9 seconds
TOTAL TIME: 4 minutes 36 seconds (7,8 seconds per image)

Doing same in LR3.3 from CF to NAS as DNG would take 6 minutes 56 seconds (11,9 seconds per image). That's 2 minutes 20 seconds extra and takes 50 percent longer.

I would easily waste that 2+ minutes in just clicking the menus (or getting another bottle of beer) to do all four phases described above. But consider import of 1000 images? Using just LR3.3 takes 4,1 seconds longer per image. That's 1 hour 8 minutes extra for a set of 1000 images.

Overall this is telling me that I should stick with CR2 on HDD for everything but archive, which I do not exactly like. DNG is open raw format that's likely to last long into the future, and NAS with RAID lets me sleep my nights well in case I decide to edit images days, weeks or months later than the original photo shoot.

Couple recommendations to Adobe to improve LR performance:

Let Lightroom utilize all 8 cores on when converting CR2 to DNG.
Improve file transfer solutions to NASes. Something is wrong there...

Now as You read this far, do You have any ideas for more optimal solution to my issue?

How about Your import times?

Cheers,

Timo

T

thewhitedog

Inspiring

Before version 3, Lightroom was not intended as a file management application. I assume Adobe got a lot of feedback on the issue because the file import procedure was among the most dramatically changed elements in the upgrade. It's not surprising this would add a lot of overhead to the process of importing images. At one time Bridge was a part of Photoshop; Adobe broke it out as a separate application precisely because of these kinds of overhead issues. At a guess, the new import procedures in Lightroom 3 are, shall we say, immature and in need of further refinement. But there are things you can do to speed things up.

Perhaps the most significant factor in image import performance in Lightroom is the preview size settings. The larger the specified size of the preview, the longer images will take to import because Lightroom has to render those previews as the files are imported - this is in addition to the standard thumbnails created at the same time. Conversely, after import, the smaller the imported preview, the longer it takes for Lightroom to render the image in Loupe view when you select it.

In general, previews are managed in two separate locations. In the Catalog settings, under File Handling, you can set the size of previews in cache; if you look at these settings you will see quite a few options. Naturally, the higher the preview size and quality, the longer it will take Lightroom to write files to cache. Beyond this, the preview size is set for specific imports in the import dialog. At the top right-hand side of the import window is File Handling; the first item there is Render Preview, with a pull-down menu offering four options. You can speed up the import process by choosing Minimal; however, once imported minimal previews will take longer to render in Loupe view and in the Develop module. When importing from a camera or flash card you will also have the option to import additional copies to a separate location for backup purposes. This automates the backup process but, of course, takes additional time.

There is a third preview size control in the Lightroom preferences under File Handling: in the Import DNG Creation box you can determining the size, if any, of the accompanying JPEG preview. And, if you really want to slow things down, check the Embed Digital RAW File box. This will almost double the size of the DNG file, but is there, I suppose, for folks who are really insecure. (?)

My recommendation for your particular workflow would be to import your pictures in their original RAW format (without selecting the backup option). Then do some basic processing, deleting any "bad" images. Once you have winnowed the group a bit, you can then export the remainder as DNG files for archive purposes.

I think part of the problem is that those of us who have been using Lightroom for a long time may assume we know how to use the program effectively. But Lightroom 3 includes some very significant "improvements" that we may not fully understand. The solution is to do some reading on the new version of the program. I like - and can recommend - Scott Kelby's books on the subject because he explains things quite well and includes step-by-step instructions on the various processes and procedures in Lightroom. His latest is "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom3 book for digital photographers." The first section, on importing images, is almost a hundred pages long now, which, in itself, is a good indication on how much Lightroom 3 has changed.

T

ttoivonen

Participating Frequently

Thank you for your comment!

Just to clarify: times in my example above did not count for LR preview rendering, so it does not matter whether previews are minimal, standard or 1:1. Also just in case someone thought so: I do not take separate backup in the import options.

There is a third preview size control in the Lightroom preferences under File Handling: in the Import DNG Creation box you can determining the size, if any, of the accompanying JPEG preview.

I did, however, test the DNG import from CF without embedded JPEG previews (original raw is not embedded nor was):

CR2 from CF to NAS in LR3.3 as DNG with full size JPEG preview: 6 minutes 56 seconds (11,9 seconds per image)
CR2 from CF to NAS in LR3.3 as DNG without JPEG preview: 5 minutes 20 seconds (9,1 seconds per image)

Quite an improvement. Filesizes shrink by about 10 %. Processing time is reduced by 23 %.

Now in my "optimal" solution I also changed JPEG previews from medium to none, but did not recieve significant improvement. About three minutes per 1000 imported images...

Import images as CR2 to LR3.3: 1 minute 7 seconds
Convert CR2 to DNG in LR3.3
- with medium size JPEG preview: 1 minute 25 seconds
- without JPEG preview: 1 minute 22 seconds
- IMPROVEMENT: 3 seconds
Move DNG from HDD to NAS
- with medium JPEG preview in file system: 0 minutes 55 seconds
- without JPEG preview in file system: 0 minutes 51 seconds
- without JPEG preview in LR3.3: 0 minutes 54 seconds
- IMPROVEMENT: 4 seconds
Re-import (add) DNG from NAS to LR3.3: 0 minutes 9 seconds
TOTAL TIME: 4 minutes 29 seconds (7,7 seconds per image)
- IMPROVEMENT: ~0,2 seconds per image

Still faster than doing everything in LR3.3... but only by 51 seconds (~1,5 sec/image). Still this process is 27 minutes faster for 1000 images than doing everything in LR3.3.

My recommendation for your particular workflow would be to import your pictures in their original RAW format (without selecting the backup option). Then do some basic processing, deleting any "bad" images. Once you have winnowed the group a bit, you can then export the remainder as DNG files for archive purposes.

I guess this has to be the way. If I want to get to work straight away, it definitely means importing CR2 to HDD (and render 1:1 previews). That operation leaves me so much more time to work actually on the photos. It takes only 25 % of the time of getting files to NAS as DNG. Also working on files in LR3.3 is faster from HDD than from NAS.

Then later after doing intial (maybe all) processing, I would convert files to DNG without JPEG previews and finally move files to NAS. That I'd do directly in LR3.3 to get rid of additional import move (time lost 2 minutes / 1000 images) as this would likely be a background job. For the remaining 75 % time there would be time reductions as fewer files would need to be transferred to NAS.

Sounds a lot better...

I think part of the problem is that those of us who have been using Lightroom for a long time

Since 1.0.

D

dwterry

Known Participant

I'm still just getting my feet wet with 3.3 (having been using LR since 1.0), but I've noticed a drastic slow down in the Library Loupe view.

Prior to 3.3, I could generally flip between images in the film strip pretty quickly as long as I was in Library mode (Develop mode has always been slower and, from what I've read, for good reason).

But with 3.3 ... it now seems as if Library mode is at least as slow as Develop mode. This is making it much more difficult to rapidly compare and rate images prior to going into develop mode.

Background info: Using the Canon 5D Mark II (yes, the raw files are huge). The raw files are on one physical hard drive, the cache and catalog are on another physical hard drive (both are internal SATA drives). Core i7 processor with 8G of memory. (edit to add: running Win7 64-bit)

As I said, performance with 3.2 in Library mode was acceptable. This is a change in 3.3.

F

Farlco

Participant

I have been using Lightroom 3.3 for 3 days now on the same system that I have used 3.2 on for the last 6 months (MacBook Pro) and have had a number of serious performance issues. In particular when exporting files, it slows to a crawl - it also seems to affect Photoshop's performance drastically too - to the point where I can't effectively use it. This is a deal-breaker, I will need to revert to version 3.2 as it truly is crippling my workflow, beware.

J

JayS_In_CT

Participating Frequently

FarlcoD wrote:
I have been using Lightroom 3.3 for 3 days now on the same system that I have used 3.2 on for the last 6 months (MacBook Pro) and have had a number of serious performance issues. In particular when exporting files, it slows to a crawl - it also seems to affect Photoshop's performance drastically too - to the point where I can't effectively use it. This is a deal-breaker, I will need to revert to version 3.2 as it truly is crippling my workflow, beware.

FarlcoD,

There is a separate thread going on export perfomance issues with a request from Dan Tull of Adobe to run a diagnostic test if possible. Some others are seeing export issues as well.

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/762825?tstart=0

Jay S.

N

nat_s

Participant

About the Final 3.3 release:

I installed it last night, and boy is it slow! I feel like I'm using 1.4 again, seriously.

I really noticed it when I was exporting a bunch of photos after doing some minor adjustments on them. I exported 140 photos with my watermark on them (default LR watermark, just my copyright, nothing fancy). The were all 800x600, 72 dpi, so they were pretty small files. The first time I tried it took over an hour to get to 36% exported. At that point my whole system got hung up and I had to reboot. The remaining photos took another hour to export after I rebooted.

I'm running Vista on a dual core pentium 3.6GHz, with 4 gigs of RAM. I had zero issues with 3.0 through 3.2 (all ran way faster than 2.7), but now this version literally sucks. I can't continue using it as-is; I need it for my photography business. Please fix this issue soon as I have no idea how to go back to 3.2.

L

Lee_Jay-ZyZk56

Participating Frequently

Nat...just uninstall 3.3 and re-install 3.2. You should do that anyway to see if you can replicate the problem. I've have no such problems with 3.3RC or 3.3 final. Maybe you have a corrupt catalog or something.

A

Anonymous

Nat - just another confirmation of what Lee Jay said - I was having horrible problems with 3.0, 3.2 was better and 3.3 seems even more stable. If you can't replicate the problem by going back to 3.2, you may want to reinstall 3.3 and give it another shot.

I'm FINALLY starting to enjoy going back into LR with 3.3

J

joseluisnt69

Participant

I have noticed that there is a diference in color rendering between Develop and Library modules (mainly the reds). I corrected a photo in Develop module and then when I go to Loupe the colors are somehow different (it is also happening in Print module).

Do any of you have noticed that?

Environment:

MacBook Pro 17", 2010

NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi²

L

Lee_Jay-ZyZk56

Participating Frequently

joseluisnt69 wrote:
I have noticed that there is a diference in color rendering between Develop and Library modules (mainly the reds). I corrected a photo in Develop module and then when I go to Loupe the colors are somehow different (it is also happening in Print module).
Do any of you have noticed that?
Environment:
MacBook Pro 17", 2010
NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi²

That's not unexpected. The Develop module uses the raw data and the ProPhoto color space, the Library module runs on JPEGs in Adobe RGB.

J

joseluisnt69

Participant

I was going krazy re-installing, re-calibrating the display, etc.

Lee, it is AdobeRGB for the Library module or sRGB? I have some pretty intense reds that fit into AdobeRGB but are outside sRGB and those are the ones that came to my attention.

The external NEC is AdobeRGB, and it is quite noticeable. Of course it doesn't occur in the MacBook Pro Display itself (less than sRGB gamut).

Thanks for your promptly reply.

G

Gordon Cahill

Participating Frequently

I'm using modest specs compared to many. Sony Vaio AW series laptop. Win 7 64 bit. Core 2 duo 2.53. 8GB ram. The catalogue and images are stored on an external esata drive and internal drives have been upgraded to 7200 RPM.

The only "slow" thing is the generation of 1:1 previews. Definitely slower than 2.x. Export is also slower but I dont tend to process out on an urgent basis. Grid mode is definately faster than 2.x. I have no issues with spot tool, gradients or brushes.No issues with keywording, collections or searching for images. In the develop module with 5D2 files it takes about 1.5 seconds till the sliders are available and 5-6 seconds until the image is fully rendered.

I have 170K images in my catalogue and often work on collections of 1500-2500 in one session. Have had no memory issues in ant of the 3.x versions including the RC. LR also runs well with CS5 open. Some of my plug ins are slow but that's not LR's fault.

Gordon

p.s. the only "bug" I get is that in develop module the image is not re-rendered and goes blurry after making a change, until/unless the mouse is over the image and then it happens.

J

J453

Legend

Lightroom 3.3 update now available.Details here:http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/12/lightroom-3-3-and-came ra-raw-6-3-now-available.html

A

Agnus1

Participating Frequently

Wow will you look at all the new lenses being supported! That is a nice addition as there was no Pentax support at all before. That makes me want to download the update right this minute. I am cautiously excited.

R

Rancher53

Participating Frequently

Wow I am really glad to have checked this performance issue with LR 3.3 as I was a tester in the jump from 2.0- to 3.0 I was real pleased with the speed,

though at the time it was not for me, as the pricing would of LR would of been 300 bucks now I am going to install the 3.2 since reading these post its allot more stable and its faster in reading these feedbacks. I do hope Adobe polishes up the software for release and does not discriminate from a PC or a Mac in useage. Yes some might ask why I posted, having utilized hundreds of programs in the past it is not uncommon for a new release to not work as well as an older release. Hope this is not how Adobe hopes to add a few new cameras in its raw engine. This ia a Proffesional software which should be treated as such. Thanks

A

Anonymous

I've been using the same system since LR first came out and only experienced a significant performance drop with LR3. My system in a Macbook Pro 2.33 dual core with 2g of ram with a cinema display attached running os 10.5.8. I've been watching my activity monitor with LR3 & LR3.2 open and for a while it was using up all my available ram (1.5gb) and I had about 500mb in page outs. (The only apps open were activity monitor and LR3.2). LR3.2 never dropped below 1.2gb of ram usage regardless of activity. As a reference LR2.7 never went above 600mb of ram usage and normally operated at 300mb.

When I moved the location of my camera raw cache settings from the default location to an external hard drive (lacie d2 firewire 800), LR3.2 ram usage dropped to 480mb. It increases to 740mb when I open an image in the develop module (if its my first time opening that image during the session otherwise 500mb). The only time ram usage goes back up to 1.2gb is when I use the adjustment brush/spot removal tools or navigate to an image in dv module that has had an adjustment brush applied. When I navigate to a previously viewed image the ram usage drops. Prior to moving the location of the camera raw cache my ram usage never went below 1.2gb regardless of what I was doing or what module I was in. At least now there is some movement.

Other issues:

I was seeing color shifts when using the adjustment brush in LR3 & LR3.2 (not in LR2.7). When I set the cinema display as the default display this issue stopped.

Sometimes in develop module when I hit the previous(sync) button the history will show the step but no actual changes will be applied to the active image. It may be related to image still loading or having just loaded. Sometimes I have jump back to the previous image and do it again.

Exporting 100 images to a jpg (resized down) has taken an hour in LR3.2

J

JayS_In_CT

Participating Frequently

Mark Byron wrote:
<snip>
Other issues:
I was seeing color shifts when using the adjustment brush in LR3 & LR3.2 (not in LR2.7). When I set the cinema display as the default display this issue stopped.
Sometimes in develop module when I hit the previous(sync) button the history will show the step but no actual changes will be applied to the active image. It may be related to image still loading or having just loaded. Sometimes I have jump back to the previous image and do it again.
Exporting 100 images to a jpg (resized down) has taken an hour in LR3.2

Tom,

I've likewise reported an issue with export timing on JPEGs through the formal process. Becky S. has picked that one up and said she was forwarding the information (timings) I has supplied. It is a significant difference over 2.7 for the same 7D image. I have tried it with both 2003 and 2010 models.

Jay S.

Mostrar más respuestas

Regístrese

Social Login

Bienvenido

Social Login

Escaneando el archivo en busca de virus

Este archivo no se puede descargar