P: Slow UI when using Mac and Custom Display Profile

[adamcrowe]

Hello,

Since upgrading to Lightroom Classic v10.0, all UI-related functionality is painfully slow. All editing functions are working correctly and quickly but scrolling through the catalogue or even scrolling a side panel is taking many long seconds to refresh. Unreasonably long.

Disabling GPU Accellaration has no affect on my Lightroom's performance.

macOS Mojave 10.14.6

Mac Pro (Late 2013)

3 GHz 8-Core Intel Xeon E5

32 GB 1866 MHz DDR3

AMD FirePro D700 6 GB

[Lhotka]

We'll agree to disagree on this one.  Even with individual RGB sliders (which are few and far between) and a colorimeter it'd damn hard to get it even close, and trying to do it with with other sliders (color temperature, hue, saturation, brightness) or visual matching is, well, remember the black knight from Monty Python?  Thinking it's color balanced doesn't mean it is.  

Now if your target output is images for SRGB on mobile devices or the web, it might be good enough.  But when you're printing 11' x 4' (my current project), well, no.  The workflow for that piece took massively longer than it should have because of this and the other 16" performance bug (it seems to be an exponential curve - 2x larger file is 4x worse performance).  Downgrading to 9.x isn't an option either, because the 16" performance is much worse in the older versions (though it's still not fully fixed).

The big issue here is that it has worked since 1.0, and then something broke and wasn't caught in QA, and now it's taken months to get a fix out.  It really does seem as if classic isn't a priority anymore.

If that's Adobe's business decision, to abandon the large file/large library/high performance market in pursuit of a consumer/prosumer/small file/small library user base, fine.  Then just let us know and we'll start making plans to migrate to a new platform.  They gave us years notice on Flash....we'd like the same if LR is also on its way out.

[TheDigitalDog]

We'll agree to disagree on this one.  Even with individual RGB sliders (which are few and far between) and a colorimeter it'd damn hard to get it even close, and trying to do it with with other sliders (color temperature, hue, saturation, brightness) or visual matching is, well, remember the black knight from Monty Python?  Thinking it's color balanced doesn't mean it is.  

I'll agree, you're not correct about that. It's easy to enter the three parameters that target sRGB (or Adobe RGB (1998)).

On a really well color managed color reference display, one simply clicks ONE button to set this up seen above:

[COBill]

Complaining is childish, reporting a problem is useful. Once reported, as it was quite awhile back, a mature person will wait for a solution. 

In the meantime, you have been given workarounds to help you be productive. That you don't appreciate the assistance is comment about you and not about the people on this forum who have been trying to help you. 

Lastly, ALL software has defects. Some are quick to resolve, some take some time and others are never resolved. That is just a fact of life. 

Go try some other photo editing program and see if it is perfect. I've not found one so I live with the occasional inconvenience of Lightroom and folks on this forum have provided solutions that have been useful to me. Not always the way I wanted something to work but then I gave up expecting the world to revolve around me a long time ago. 

And as I said in a prior post, at least Adobe's defects won't kill you. If you think their testing is insufficient, go buy a Tesla. They don't even to pretend to test. Ours has tried to kill us several times after "an update" and this is without any of the automatic driving features activated. 

It's a matter of perspective. 

[Lhotka]

Yes, if you have a very expensive reference display, that's mostly true (though still not as accurate as an external calibration).  Mid-range IPS panels don't have that capability - and rather than spend $1500-2000 on a 30" display, I spend $800 on a good one and $150 on a Spyder.  All about budgets.

[TheDigitalDog]

Yes, if you have a very expensive reference display, that's mostly true...

Do tell us, how untrue with a dE value it isn't. 

You own such a display system? 

Mid-range IPS panels don't have that capability

It does. And it's about the software used to target to (in this case) sRGB. But if you wish to throw up your hands and assume it's not possible, fine with me. 

$150 on a Spyder. 

And there's your biggest limitation; a POS as colorimetrically shown here:

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103094.msg1004707#msg1004707

IF or when you want to actually attempt to calibrate to sRGB so you can use the sRGB profile, OR you want other suggestions to use both your original calibration and profile along with the sRGB profile, you can ask. Maybe someone will help guide you to those kinds of additional solutions UNTIL the bug fix comes. 

[Lhotka]

We can't all afford multiple multi-thousand dollar high gamut reference displays, so we rely on the best our budget can handle.  So how about, instead of highlighting your 'insider NDA knowledge', demeaning other users and dismissing entirely legitimate frustration, why not write a blog post showing the easy to execute workaround and link to it?  That'd be much better advertising for your book than, as another poster put it, bad manners and snark.  

We are frustrated with Adobe because of a long history of performance and quality problems with Lightroom.  It got vastly better through 8, then with 9 and 10 it's back to horrible again.  This situation, with a mission critical piece of the software, is due to an introduced defect in the code that was not caught (and should have been) in regression testing prior to release.  It's been months without a fix.  Downgrading isn't a viable option because that reverts to a version with other performance defects.  Changing our entire calibration approach means having to spend time and money both to change to a band-aid approach, then time and money to change back to the right one, and that assumes it doesn't destabilize the camera-to-print process that's currently producing excellent results.  All that work because Adobe can't fix a bug they introduced in a timely manner. 

[COBill]

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. 

[TheDigitalDog]

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

[TheDigitalDog]

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>.

[thierryn48516695]

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

ROFL

[freeforest]

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!)

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

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...

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

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.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

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.

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

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).

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

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.

[COBill]

You fall to grasp that Adobe has accepted this as a problem and that they are working on it. 

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

The whole world and its (digital) dog has grasped that, bill_.

What you haven't grasped is the fact that Adobe's handling of the issue is a case study in poor communication and dismal customer relations.

Not to mention the self evident absence of quality control.

[TheDigitalDog]

What you haven't grasped is the fact that Adobe's handling of the issue is a case study in poor communication and dismal customer relations.

Only for those who refuse to read the post made here, three months ago by Adobe. Hint; it's the second answer in this long slog of pages. 

Not to mention the self evident absence of quality control.

And the self control to back up older catalogs and data, test a new build and find, within minutes of use IF (big if) the bug affects you, to roll back. 

You'd think some here, (who state they are in production environments) would know this for any mission critical software, would have attempted. 

[R-16]

Rodney, I have to say that three months seems an awfully long time for this issue to be ongoing, with no apparent progress and little communication from Adobe.

in my case, the problem with Lightroom went well beyond slow to a total lockup of the machine that required a hard reboot. After some time with Apple and Adobe tech support, I found that I could get passably slow performance by turning off GPU acceleration and using AdobeRGB color space. Since a) one of the calibrations of my Eizo monitor is AdobeRGB, b) I expected the wait time for a fix to something so fundamental to a professional workflow would be...well, less than it has been, and c) the program was usable with those mods, I opted not to downgrade.

But, as a result of sub-optimal performance in Lightroom, I’ve been turning to Capture One more and more. I’ve always liked its color interface, but thought it’s catalog was sub-optimal. Now, being able to scroll through a catalog of image files makes it altogether more pleasant than using Lightroom.

I’m sure that in the universe of LR users, I’m in a small minority, but it can’t be good for Adobe’s business for this to be going on for so long with so few updates from them. 

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Rodney, if you imagine that a post made three months ago constitutes excellence in business communications and customer care, you are as out of touch with best practice as Adobe.

I did, in fact, have the 'self control' to back up my older catalogues - a practice founded on hard experience of previous Adobe fiascos. So I'm OK using V9 for the time being.

But that's not the point is it?

We are not all in a production environment and we are not even all experienced users, so taking cheap shots at those in difficulty for not being clever enough to foresee Adobe's release of defective software is not all that endearing.

The average user shouldn't have to build a protective firewall before updating software to preempt sloppy implementation by its vendor.

[TheDigitalDog]

Yes, I imagine that a post made three months ago constitutes excellence in business communications and customer care; there is nothing new to report other than the issue has been detected and a fix is coming. 

So I'm OK using V9 for the time being.

Good for you. A fix is coming and “Patience is a virtue.” That is the facts and the point. 
There will be no wine or bug fix before it's time. 

[FeedbackCommunityMember]

Sadly, your answer encapsulates the problem to perfection.

Indifference, snarkiness and arrogance in equal measure.

In my business, an employee displaying these traits doesn't make it to the end of the day.

And businesses displaying this attitude to their customers are unconsciously handing their bread and butter to the competition.

Just imagine a waiter, a doctor or car mechanic giving you an answer like that? 

And for that reason Rodney, you're fired.

[TheDigitalDog]

OK fine, let's come up with a false narrative that makes you feel better:

Once upon a time.... .... Adobe deliberately released this bug, knowing full well it would cause issues for a small but vocal group. Then, they dragged their feet on purpose in fixing it, because again, they want to upset a certain group of customers. But that rare group gathered on one Adobe forum and screamed bloody murder. They threatened and purchased competitors software (that will show the evil empire). 

Now back to reality. 

And for that reason Rodney, you're fired.

I'm not an apprentice Belinda Trump <g> 

[thierryn48516695]

Andrew, the main problem on this thread is not Adobe, it is not the bug, it is not the time to fix it, the main problem is you.
With your permanent contempt, your decision to become a blind advocate for Adobe, Adobe who does not need you at all in this situation and may terminate all your contracts after some phone calls to Adobe top management, and your full ignorance of software development.