Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

[laurencec]

Hi

I just upgraded from lightroom 2.7 to lightroom 3. I then proceeded to import my old catalog. this all went fine but lightroom is so slow, the thumbnail previews take forever to load if I manage to have the patience to wait  for them.

is there a quick solution?? How can it be sped up?

thanks

Laurence

Message title was edited by: Brett N

[Rico_LR3]

Dan, I'm experiencing massive memory consumption particularly in the library module while editing and rating / labelling pictures.

• How long does it take : 3 to 5 minutes (a bit more if I'm set my 24 inches monitor on a lower resolution than 1900*1200)
• How high is it getting : > 2 Go
• Are there any particular controls : flagging with X/U/P shortcuts or using loupe view at 1:1 (and also sometimes with the dust removal tool)
  
• 32 bit version : not tested yet, can it run alogside the 64 bits on Windows 7 64 bits?
• What kind of files : RAW files from 5dMkII at full resolution.

Actually I just cannot work with LR3 and... that's my job! Grrrrrrr... I hope you adobe LR crew will fix it soon!

My config:

Windows 7 64 bits family edition

Intel Core i7 860

ATI Radeon 4870 with latest drivers

4 Go RAM

Eizo CGW241 (24 inches)

If you need more informations, please ask me! Hope it can help!

Eric

[Rico_LR3]

LR3 beta was running smooth on my computer, can't we go back to the beta while waiting for a fix?

[csaager]

>

>LR3 beta was running smooth on my computer, can't we go back to the beta

while waiting for a fix?

>

Yes, please ... although I'll be missing the perspective control

Yesterday: importing 70 NEF-images from memory card - everything fine and

fast for picking the first 10 images (Loupe view), then slowdown with

freezing the OS (CPU use almost 0). Developing (crop&exposure sometimes a

correction brush) them after restart - no problem until image 40 - heavy CPU

usage (70+% on a 4-core) but Lr still somehow reactive, but OS stalling. Two

images later everything back to normal...

[asu_chic]

Bingo!  This to me is where the argument that an release that does so much more should ergo be slower doesn't wash. The beta and beta 2 worked fine on my same exact system and was considerably faster than 2.7, so logically it would seem something changed in the final release.  That logic would imply the problem will be found in code/changes/additions done between the release date of the Beta 2 and prior to the actual LR3 release. (Using 10.5.8 on Intel 2.26 GHz Core Duo, 4 GB with external monitor and currently trying 32 bit mode.)

asu_chic

[DanTull]

That's definitely one of the leads I'm following. The trouble is there were a lot of changes after the second beta. Really, beta in this context is more than a bit misleading as I think it tends to imply something that's mostly just picking up some bug fixes and final polish and not something that's very much a work in progress with features and other significant alternations (even and in this case, especially, under the hood ones) still to come.

Still, the fact that so many are reporting that beta 2 worked better is a lead I'm keeping in mind.

DT

[imajez]

DanTull wrote:

Still, the fact that so many are reporting that beta 2 worked better is a lead I'm keeping in mind.

But obviously there were other beta drops during the test cycle after the public beta, so maybe iterating through them and their changes may narrow things down a bit as to when slowness was first noticed.

Lens correction being added would be a major thing as that was quite late in the testing cycle and ACR 6 had some slowing down issues too during testing, specifically with 6.1 when lens correction was added and particularly in comparison to ACR5's performance. May be worth checking ACR pre-release forums for extra info as there is a thread on this particular topic.  I do not recall having this problem whilst others did, which is similar to LR's issues.

[asu_chic]

I hear you, but this is one of the frustrations, that the Beta2 worked very well and in fact was usable for production, though I did keep it "quarantined in a cage" via backups lest it bite me.  What it does appear to do is give a time line of where to start looking.  Perhaps this reduces the haystack to only covering half the barn?!?!?

asu_chic

[JayS_In_CT]

asu_chic wrote:

Bingo!  This to me is where the argument that an release that does so much more should ergo be slower doesn't wash. The beta and beta 2 worked fine on my same exact system and was considerably faster than 2.7, so logically it would seem something changed in the final release.  That logic would imply the problem will be found in code/changes/additions done between the release date of the Beta 2 and prior to the actual LR3 release. (Using 10.5.8 on Intel 2.26 GHz Core Duo, 4 GB with external monitor and currently trying 32 bit mode.)

asu_chic

Sometimes when coding, logic doesn't apply!    Problem (I'm guessing) is trying to find which of probably hundreds of builds they did between the beta and production is causing which issues.  Not knowing how Adobe codes LR, e.g. are the folks working on the Library module working separate from the Develop module, are they all the same folks, do they bounce from Memory / CPU management one day to Print the next?  Probably (I'm hoping) not, but we don't know at what points they reconnect the dots on all those functions.  Obviously it came together as a "whole" for the betas, but after that who knows.  Clearly though something(s) changed from the Beta to now but it is highly unlikely it is just "a" thing, and more likely a chain of issues that play on each other.  Hopefully they've got a Change Management system in place though that lets them click back through the builds...

Will be interested to see if you also see 32 bit mode being more RAM friendly than 64 bit.

Jay S.

[asu_chic]

Agreed!!! It does strongly suggest to me a timeline of where to start the search.  We have no idea how many teams worked on how many projects to  accomplish all of the total package.  Which is outstanding, by the way, when it works!!!

asu_chic

[csaager]

Sometimes when coding, logic doesn't apply! Problem (I'm guessing) is

trying to find which of probably hundreds of builds they did between the

beta and production is causing which issues. Not knowing how Adobe codes

LR, e.g. are the folks working on the Library module working separate from

the Develop module, are they all the same folks, do they bounce from Memory

/ CPU management one day to Print the next? Probably (I'm hoping) not, but

we don't know at what points they reconnect the dots on all those functions.

>

It might be that or that the modules share common resources and get into a

fight about them instead of doing their work - just imaging one module

thinks it is a good idea to cache the first 50 files, and another module

thinks (after a "small" change) caching the last 50 files is better - when

they are both active (Import seems to be just an overlay on Library), they

will constantly invalidate the cache of each other without making much

progress. Individual tests of the modules won't show this problem. Logic

still applies, but it gets easily beyond the limits of human comprehension.

Will be interested to see if you also see 32 bit mode being more RAM

friendly than 64 bit.

Well one thing is sure: it cannot eat all your memory as a 32-bit process

can only access 4GB, thus the OS will be responsive at least.Perhaps Lr3 is

stopped from doing too many (stupid) thing if its bound by memory.

[molwizard2]

DanTull wrote:

There are some cases where things were accepted as being slower in order to make them more responsive (and provide progress indicators). Some people will say that "feels" faster due to the responsiveness, but some notice the walltime slowdown and don't like it. The develop rendering is shunted off to a background thread so the sliders aren't as "chunky" but it adds a little bit of extra latency to the adjustment rendering. Which is better is subjective at that point.

More tradeoffs:

Cache things to avoid needing to go back to disk or re-doing work you've already done, but not too much or you'll swap (swap is the performance kiss of death). Pre-compute some things so they'll come up faster when the user asks for them, but not at the expense of what they're asking for right now. Check that things on disk haven't changed externally so there's not a long lag before the changes show up in LR, but not so much that we never quiesce or rebuild things unnecessarily.

Anyway, now I'm just rambling, but you get the idea.

DT

I agree that it is really difficult to balance all the tasks LR has to do. And since the user or task-specific requirements are very different I don't think it will be possible to optimize everything automatically. So I would suggest to add some user control here.

The only obvious performance related options I could identify in LR3 were "cache size" and preview type and size. As a bioinformatician I know that you have to find a balance between flexibility and simplicity. But LR is already very complex and requires a lot of learning to make full use of it. And performance is really crucial. So the benefit of a few more options will easily outweigh the tradeoff in complexity. At least if the performance tweaks can be reset easily to defaults. Even Windows allows the user to adjust the priority of running tasks manually. A similar system with six (or maybe seven for more symmetry) relative priority levels would look promising for me. Besides the ability to adjust a specific job that is currently running also the default priorities should be adjustable. And since it looks to me as if not only CPU is balanced but also I/O a similiar system here might also be beneficial.

[goodlux7]

Strongly disagree that LR needs yet more ways for the user to tweak it.

Take for instance, "Standard size preview"

Adobe gives the user not 2 or 3 options here, but 12 different options for

preview size/quality, but no explanation of what might be better, or why.

There are no sensible defaults, no quantitative facts.

A user has to go in and rebuild his catalog using each setting...then

somehow guess which setting was actually the best, based on their "sense" of

what is going on, and possibly their stopwatch. I just tried doing this,

rebuilding catalogs using 3 of the 12 different settings. It was hard for me

to distinguish which was actually "the best", other than a vague sense

something was slower than the previous time I had looked at it.

I think Adobe needs to work on cutting out the many unnecessary features out

and make a "fast/usable mode" or a "lightroom lite".

Once they get things working a production speed, then maybe go back and add

new ways to tweak it.

I agree that it is really difficult to balance all the tasks LR has to do.

And since the user or task-specific requirements are very different I don't

think it will be possible to optimize everything automatically. So I would

suggest to add some user control here.

The only obvious performance related options I could identify in LR3 were

"cache size" and preview type and size. As a bioinformatician I know that

you have to find a balance between flexibility and simplicity. But LR is

already very complex and requires a lot of learning to make full use of it.

And performance is really crucial. So the benefit of a few more options will

easily outweigh the tradeoff in complexity. At least if the performance

tweaks can be reset easily to defaults. Even Windows allows the user to

adjust the priority of running tasks manually. A similar system with six (or

maybe seven for more symmetry) relative priority levels would look promising

for me. Besides the ability to adjust a specific job that is currently

running also the default priorities should be adjustable. And since it looks

to me as if not only CPU is balanced but also I/O a similiar system here

might also be beneficial.

>

[molwizard2]

goodlux7 wrote:

Strongly disagree that LR needs yet more ways for the user to tweak it.

Take for instance, "Standard size preview"

Adobe gives the user not 2 or 3 options here, but 12 different options for

preview size/quality, but no explanation of what might be better, or why.

There are no sensible defaults, no quantitative facts.

A user has to go in and rebuild his catalog using each setting...then

somehow guess which setting was actually the best, based on their "sense" of

what is going on, and possibly their stopwatch. I just tried doing this,

rebuilding catalogs using 3 of the 12 different settings. It was hard for me

to distinguish which was actually "the best", other than a vague sense

something was slower than the previous time I had looked at it.

I think Adobe needs to work on cutting out the many unnecessary features out

and make a "fast/usable mode" or a "lightroom lite".

Once they get things working a production speed, then maybe go back and add

new ways to tweak it.

Identifying and eliminating severe bugs should of course have highest priority.

The information about the different preview options might be too scarce. But actually I can't judge this because I don't have a functioning LR3 help.

As I have learned here on the forum (since I just started using LR with LR3 beta) previews mainly affect performance in the library module. In my view the different options there are mainly for balancing between speed (import, library view) and required disk space, fortunately allowing a rather fine grained control.

I would consider LR a professional level piece of software (in general, disregarding the current problems). In my opinion flexibility and adjustability are essential to achieve this. That is because there are a lot of different workflows and user preferences that require a different behaviour and an adjusted user interface. (And LR still has to catch up in this respect.) I hate working with those oversimplified applications and lite versions that don't really fit for solving my current task adequately.

Goodlux7, what would you consider unnecessary features in LR3? Any of the adjustement tools?

Currently the "Web" and "Diashow" module are unnecessary for me. But they might be essential for others. I don't mind that they are there. I rather prefer to have some extra features I currently don't need than the other way round

[goodlux7]

The only features I really use are the import/export, library and develop. I

send my work out for printing, and I would never use some kind of export

from lightroom to present to a client on the web.

On some level I think even the develop module is excessive, because those

features overlap photoshop and the ACR plugin, which I think is easier to

use and more straightforward for doing multiple image selections. I would

just use photoshop ACR plugin if it were easy to select a group of images in

LR and open them directly in camera raw, as you can do in bridge.

That said, I do actually use the develop module, and if it worked well I

wouldn't have a huge issue with those features being in lightroom, as long

as they didn't come at the expense of the primary goal of being an image

management system.

I don't think there has been enough of a priority on raw speed (and

sensibility...like a pause button on processes) for image management

functions.

If you are a portrait photographer, maybe this isn't a big issue...maybe you

only deal with 100 carefully made images from a two hour shoot. If you shoot

events, or performances, you might take 2000 or 3000 images in a shoot. If

you work with multiple photographers, the images quickly add up.

Before you can even think about editing photos, you need to be able to view,

DELETE, tag. There can't be any lag at all between images or this is

agonizing.

So in sum: everything except Library is excessive (or icing on the cake,

depending on how you look at it)

>

Goodlux7, what would you consider unnecessary features in LR3? Any of the

adjustement tools?

Currently the "Web" and "Diashow" module are unnecessary for me. But they

might be essential for others. I don't mind that they are there. I rather

prefer to have some extra features I currently don't need than the other way

round

>

[imajez]

goodlux7 wrote:

On some level I think even the develop module is excessive, because those

features overlap photoshop and the ACR plugin, which I think is easier to

use and more straightforward for doing multiple image selections. I would

just use photoshop ACR plugin if it were easy to select a group of images in

LR and open them directly in camera raw, as you can do in bridge.

The develop module in LR is ACR, albeit laid out a tad better.

But if you like ACR, why not simply use Bridge, which is an excellent programme in its own right.

[goodlux7]

Why not just use bridge? That's a good question, one that I've gone back and

forth on.

The main advantage to LR over Bridge are the database features...hoping that

they will work well always keeps me coming back.

1. Lightroom allows you to view images across folders, while Bridge

doesn't. Theoretically you could work with your whole collection of images

instead of just one folder.

2. Lightroom gives better control over filtering than Bridge, although you

can do a lot by just sorting in Bridge.

3. The importing/exporting in LR is improving and become more useful. Like

the export to FTP plugin (which isn't included with the software!). This

definitely saves a step, once you go through the trouble of setting it up.

If there were some way to do #1 in Bridge, I wouldn't really have any

particular reason to use Lightroom at all. #2 and #3 would be a big bonus,

but I could live without it, just to get the job done. Bridge also has

"Browse Mode" which kicks LR to the curb in terms of review speed.

I disagree that LR's ACR controls are better laid out...I like the tabs of

ACR better than the spinning triangles and panels, because the tools are

always in the same place. Once you click a tab you don't have to scroll up

and down to hunt for them.

I also like ACR's cropping tool better; after years of using LR, LR's

cropping still doesn't feel right because it works differently than every

other cropping tool out there, and you can't spin a photo "all the way

around" if that makes sense. I don't like that I have to click and unclick

the lock icon to set the aspect ratio...it just never seems to be set

"right" when I go to use it...always an extra step there.

Finally, I like that you can multi-select in ACR and edit a group of images

at once. So if you took a succession of images that were a stop to dark, you

can just select all of them, then boost the exposure easily with one click,

DONE. With LR, you have to first select your group of images in the

filmstrip, make your changes, do CTL-shift-S (i think! for synchronize) then

fill out a dialog box, then click yes, then wait. It's quicker and easier in

the ACR plugin.

[Gavin Farrington]

@Goodlux7

Getting off topic from this thread, but really quickly - you can get the behavior that you describe in LR by turning on Autosync in the develop module.  All changes to one image (with the exception of brushes and other local adjustments) will be instantly replicated to all other selected images without having to do a ctrl-shift-s.

[Edit]

Just look for the little toggle switch on the sync button at the bottom of the right-hand control panel. (LR3 - LR2 puts it on a menu somewhere.)

Message was edited by: Digihotaru

[goodlux7]

thank you, I didn't know about that one...I'll give that a try

[JayS_In_CT]

goodlux7 wrote:

thank you, I didn't know about that one...I'll give that a try

Goodlux7,

Autosync is great...  except...   Remember to turn it off when you're done with broadbase image adjustments.  If you don't, every tweak you make on the first image still will be replicated across the group...  usually foul language follows! 

Jay S.

[imajez]

JayS In CT wrote:

goodlux7 wrote:

thank you, I didn't know about that one...I'll give that a try

Goodlux7,

Autosync is great...  except...   Remember to turn it off when you're done with broadbase image adjustments.  If you don't, every tweak you make on the first image still will be replicated across the group...  usually foul language follows! 

Jay S.

Been there, done that!

[imajez]

goodlux7 wrote:

Why not just use bridge? That's a good question, one that I've gone back and

forth on.

The main advantage to LR over Bridge are the database features...hoping that

they will work well always keeps me coming back.

1. Lightroom allows you to view images across folders, while Bridge

doesn't. Theoretically you could work with your whole collection of images

instead of just one folder.

Br does collections and smart collections, just like LR. Though LR is a bit faster in this area.

2. Lightroom gives better control over filtering than Bridge, although you

can do a lot by just sorting in Bridge.

The filter panel in Br is much easier to use and far more powerful than LR's weak copy of it.

3. The importing/exporting in LR is improving and become more useful. Like

the export to FTP plugin (which isn't included with the software!). This

definitely saves a step, once you go through the trouble of setting it up.

Exporting in LR is far better than in Br which is a weak copy of LR's abilities.

If there were some way to do #1 in Bridge, I wouldn't really have any

particular reason to use Lightroom at all. #2 and #3 would be a big bonus,

but I could live without it, just to get the job done. Bridge also has

"Browse Mode" which kicks LR to the curb in terms of review speed.

Br is faster in some ways than LR and LR is faster in others. And you can do #1, Br is better than #2 and LR is better for #3

I disagree that LR's ACR controls are better laid out...I like the tabs of

ACR better than the spinning triangles and panels, because the tools are

always in the same place. Once you click a tab you don't have to scroll up

and down to hunt for them.

Use solo mode in LR, then it's like having vertical tabs. But if you want to repeatedly go back and fore between 2 panels, then LR is better as you can have them both open and everything else closed. Plus LR remembers where you last were rather than you having  open the tab you need first, in my case it's presets that are used before basics. LR also has presets and snapshots separate which allow for less tedious clicking back and for through tabs.

I also like ACR's cropping tool better; after years of using LR, LR's

cropping still doesn't feel right because it works differently than every

other cropping tool out there, and you can't spin a photo "all the way

around" if that makes sense. I don't like that I have to click and unclick

the lock icon to set the aspect ratio...it just never seems to be set

"right" when I go to use it...always an extra step there.

I much prefer LR's combined cropping/straightening tool, in fact I leave Br/ACR to do cropping as it's so much more powerful and faster to use. Yes it's different from the traditional digital way but much better for it as ironically it's more like how you do it in real life.

Finally, I like that you can multi-select in ACR and edit a group of images

at once. So if you took a succession of images that were a stop to dark, you

can just select all of them, then boost the exposure easily with one click,

DONE. With LR, you have to first select your group of images in the

filmstrip, make your changes, do CTL-shift-S (i think! for synchronize) then

fill out a dialog box, then click yes, then wait. It's quicker and easier in

the ACR plugin.

Enable AutoSync in LR at bottom of develop tabs. Only appears when more than one image is selected. Though I do prefer ACR's way, as at least it is consistent,  I keep forgetting to turn Auto sync off in LR, whereas I know in ACR if I have multiple images selected, then they always adjust en masse.  Br is also more consistent when lableling/rating multiple images too.

[muzza1006]

I'm running LR3 on 15" laptop at 1920x1200 and it is pretty much unusable using the whole monitor. I've now reduced the window size by around 2cm on each side (as suggested in this thread) and it has made an incredible difference in the speed, especially in the delvelop module. Thanks for the tip, I can now get back to work. Hopefully an update comes out soon so I can use my whole monitor again.

[MikeX_ZA]

I can get the full speed back by lowering my screen resolution from 1920x1200 to 1280x800 but I guess that is already known stuff.

This reply prompted to play around with different settings and scenarios. Eventually what did speed up LR3 considerably for me is I changed the application to NOT be full screen (maximised) and it now instead only fills about 50% of the screen and now it's much faster with browsing the library and switching between modules. For me this is enough proof that the speed problems are related to video cards and resolutions. Silly now that I have a wonderful 32 inch monitor and must have the app running at 50% of what is available to it, but for now it'll have to do until this is resolved and my eyes will have to strain a bit in the trade off for some speed and functionality.

[Jonathan Westcott]

MikeX_ZA wrote:

I can get the full speed back by lowering my screen resolution from 1920x1200 to 1280x800 but I guess that is already known stuff.

This reply prompted to play around with different settings and scenarios. Eventually what did speed up LR3 considerably for me is I changed the application to NOT be full screen (maximised) and it now instead only fills about 50% of the screen and now it's much faster with browsing the library and switching between modules. For me this is enough proof that the speed problems are related to video cards and resolutions. Silly now that I have a wonderful 32 inch monitor and must have the app running at 50% of what is available to it, but for now it'll have to do until this is resolved and my eyes will have to strain a bit in the trade off for some speed and functionality.

This change is due to the system rendering smaller screen previews so reducing load on CPU, RAM & HD's(previews & cache). In lightroom the graphics card is not actually doing that much of the heavy lifting..

[molwizard2]

Digit_eyes wrote:

Has anyone considered CODEC? I have installed a codec pack from FastPictureViewer (http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/) on my WIN7 64-bit PC and aren't having many of the issues discussed here and I am wondering if that is the reason why. What do you think? Someone should try it out and see if it changes things.

I installed the trial version of FastPictureViewer on my system (16 CPU cores, 12 GB RAM) and as expected it didn't make any difference within LR3. (I wouldn't really expect Adope to use a third-party codec for rendering.)

But thank you for the link anyway. It really shows what is possible: running through 20 megapixel raw files at a rate of about 3 per second for hundreds of pictures! And 100% zoom is nearly instantaneous. If I am running really fast through a lot of pictures overall CPU usage is at 30% (GPU enhancement not activated). This is appearantly achieved by preloading about 30 pictures into RAM. So it uses about 5 GB RAM. But that is why I installed 12 GB RAM in the first place: to speed up graphics programs (namely LR3, but  unfortunately it is of no use there).