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

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

The only thing I disagree with there is the "real easy" part.  Some of these issues are quite complex due to the many configurations on which LR has to run and because LR is so complex and threaded.

Just to be clear, I think there are significant performance problems with LR3 in certain situations and/or on certain hardware/software configurations that are entirely caused by bugs and/or coding problems.  I sincerely hope the team can sort those out.  I think people tend to underestimate the level to which code optimization can yield performance improvements.  I have personally made code optimizations on my own code that have lend to two to as many as four *orders of magnititude* improvements in performance on the same hardware.  LR experienced one of those when sync was re-written.  That resulted in approximately a 100 fold improvement.  Now, not all areas of LR are that subobtimal (far from it) but some areas could, in my opinion, be enhanced very dramatically with code changes to say nothing of solving the intermittent performance problems that are being discussed in this thread.

[DJ-G]

Thanks for the excellent post, Lee Jay. As a fellow software develper / architect I have to echo your thoughts. The level of complexity in today's systems is astonishing, and getting worse with time. It needs cooking time to get sorted out.

A word to my irate / angered fellow LR 3 users. I understand the need for venting, and share the very same concerns, but yelling angry threats and insults at developers is not a very good motivator, quite the contrary. A worried and fretful mind does not lead to effective constructive thinking. Now you may think that you're yelling not at them but at upper management in Adobe, but I can guarantee you they're the ones reading and getting the effect.

I would suggest sending them good coffee and snacks. Twinkies used to be regarded as the snack of choice for programmers, but I read somewhere that they contain something labeled as "food-grade Plaster of Paris" [shudder] ...

DJ

[JayS_In_CT]

DJ-G wrote:

Thanks for the excellent post, Lee Jay. As a fellow software develper / architect I have to echo your thoughts. The level of complexity in today's systems is astonishing, and getting worse with time. It needs cooking time to get sorted out.

A word to my irate / angered fellow LR 3 users. I understand the need for venting, and share the very same concerns, but yelling angry threats and insults at developers is not a very good motivator, quite the contrary. A worried and fretful mind does not lead to effective constructive thinking. Now you may think that you're yelling not at them but at upper management in Adobe, but I can guarantee you they're the ones reading and getting the effect.

I would suggest sending them good coffee and snacks. Twinkies used to be regarded as the snack of choice for programmers, but I read somewhere that they contain something labeled as "food-grade Plaster of Paris" [shudder] ...

DJ

and let me add one more thing I've posted before as well.  File reports with YOUR information to Adobe.  The forum is not an official support mechanism.  The Adobe folks (few that they are) that monitor the forum are getting hit with lots of threads, updates to old and new ones.  The best way to get your issues into the systems is to report them officially, with as much diagnostic data and machine information as you can.  Sometimes you can't pin down an exact sequence, but even partial hints at what you were doing are helpful.

Jay S.

[DJ-G]

Very good reminder, Jay.

If I may request from the developers, could you post a list of system / software / running environment attributes that would be helpful for you to have from the users with problems? And thank you so much for all your work.

DJ

[Guest]

Jay

My computer specs are .

Intel i5-750, 2,67 Ghz; Windows Performance Index: 5,9

4 GB RAM

Graphics Card:  nVidia GTS 250 (1GB), Driver: Microsoft WDDM V 1.1

HDD: SAMSUNG 1GB for operating system (with Lightroom installation)

         HITACHI 1GB eSATA external drive for image storage

Monitor: 1600 x 1200

OS: Windows Home Premium 64-bit

Lightroom catalog: 22,900 images:  19,000 RAW images (Canon CR2 up to 10 mpx, Lumix G RW2, 12 mpx) , 3,900 RGB images (JPG, TIFF)

The catalog was build from the scratch by reimporting images from the existing locations, which had also corresponding .xmp files so that the Lightroom 2.x content was preserved. I optimize and backup the catalog quite often.

For import, I use ImageIngester Pro, because it has better renaming and ingestion capabilities. I use folder synchronization to get vthe images into my catalog. However, on another machine (a netbook) I did not find any problems with the speed of the Lightroom import itself, even though the netbook is actually quite slow.

The machine was bought from a local dealer, nothing special and was setup in March. It has Lightroom 3 beta 2 installed first. Lightroom 2.x was never used on this machine.

Other installed software: Photoshop CS4, DxO Optics Pro, Bibble 5, Qimage.

No significant performance problems so far, brushes work quite fluent.

Kind regards

Thomas

[JayS_In_CT]

tgutgu wrote:

Jay

My computer specs are .

Intel i5-750, 2,67 Ghz; Windows Performance Index: 5,9

4 GB RAM

Graphics Card:  nVidia GTS 250 (1GB), Driver: Microsoft WDDM V 1.1

HDD: SAMSUNG 1GB for operating system (with Lightroom installation)

         HITACHI 1GB eSATA external drive for image storage

Monitor: 1600 x 1200

OS: Windows Home Premium 64-bit

Lightroom catalog: 22,900 images:  19,000 RAW images (Canon CR2 up to 10 mpx, Lumix G RW2, 12 mpx) , 3,900 RGB images (JPG, TIFF)

The catalog was build from the scratch by reimporting images from the existing locations, which had also corresponding .xmp files so that the Lightroom 2.x content was preserved. I optimize and backup the catalog quite often.

For import, I use ImageIngester Pro, because it has better renaming and ingestion capabilities. I use folder synchronization to get vthe images into my catalog. However, on another machine (a netbook) I did not find any problems with the speed of the Lightroom import itself, even though the netbook is actually quite slow.

The machine was bought from a local dealer, nothing special and was setup in March. It has Lightroom 3 beta 2 installed first. Lightroom 2.x was never used on this machine.

Other installed software: Photoshop CS4, DxO Optics Pro, Bibble 5, Qimage.

No significant performance problems so far, brushes work quite fluent.

Kind regards

Thomas

Thomas,

So a couple of things jump out to me (and I'm not a developer, just recalling some of the threads, and my own experience.  I can't be sure, but I saw better results starting from scratch as well with a 3.0 catalog, even foresaking the beta V3 catalog.  I'm not sure if there is something there or not as far as the translation from one format of catalog to the other.  Are you running LR 3 (and 2.7) in 64 bit or 32?  It sounds like you had LR 2 on a different machine? Some folks have reported issues with memory being released after the application is terminated with 64 bit.

You mention running at 1600 x 1200, which is below the threshold of pain for those with hi res external monitor issues around rendering.  If your monitor can support something like 1920x1200 it would be interesting to see if you see some of those issues.  By the way, for your HDDs, I'm impressed by how much you can do with 1GB..   🙂   I assume 1 TB is what you meant?

Haven't seen ImageIngestor, but certainly worth a look.  Likewise I'm not seeing a significant difference on import from 2.7 to 3.0 and posted some timings earlier in this thread for both 32 and 64 bit.  If you're inclined, be interesting to see if you fare better or worse.  I have larger files (7D).

Thanks for the info.

Jay S.

[Guest]

JayS In CT wrote:

Are you running LR 3 (and 2.7) in 64 bit or 32? 

I run LR 3 in 64-bit.

You mention running at 1600 x 1200, which is below the threshold of pain for those with hi res external monitor issues around rendering.  If your monitor can support something like 1920x1200 it would be interesting to see if you see some of those issues.

Unfortunately, I still have a 4:3 ratio monitor, so it does not support 1900x1200.

By the way, for your HDDs, I'm impressed by how much you can do with 1GB..   🙂   I assume 1 TB is what you meant?

Of course 1TB

Haven't seen ImageIngestor, but certainly worth a look.

The advantage of ImageIngester is that the directory structure of your primary image storage and your secondary (backup) storage is the same. Additionally it keeps a session independant counter so that you have a file naming scheme with a unique identifier.

Kind regards

Thomas

[goodlux7]

"This is a 27 inch iMac.  How did you solve the problem?"

I solved my problem by returning my copy of LR3. I'm just going to wait it out.

.7 is the new .0

[Guest]

I'm a Mac user who was running LR 2.x and is now running LR 3. I too have noticed a considerable difference in performance. Particularly in the area of generating the previews when selecting an image and also in certain tools. Considering Adobe stated one of the benefits of upgrading to 3 was improved performance I'm disappointed that the opposite appears to be the case.

[getho]

I've just created a new catalogue for a shoot. It was apinful waiting for the 1:1 previews to render whilst working on images so I decided to render ALL of the DNGS 1:1 previews.  It is taking about 8 seconds to generate a preview at the moment.  Catlogue is about 1000 images

System specs below.  Is this slow for a comparable system? its going to take over an hour to render 565 images.

Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
Version: 6.1 [7600]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 8
Processor speed: 2.6 GHz
Built-in memory: 12279.0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 12279.0 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 1373.9 MB (11.1%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1406.9 MB
Memory cache size: 1493.3 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1600x1200

[Guest]

I think it's still slow, but you're getting better render time that I am - my is incredibly slow - to the point where I need to set it up and let it render overnight and hope/pray it's done in the morning.

But I notice that yours is letting you use more memory. I wonder if that's an XP vs. Win7 issue.(Or it may be that you're running the 64 bit version. I not enough of an expert to know more....but you're not alone in your pain!!

[JayS_In_CT]

getho wrote:

I've just created a new catalogue for a shoot. It was apinful waiting for the 1:1 previews to render whilst working on images so I decided to render ALL of the DNGS 1:1 previews.  It is taking about 8 seconds to generate a preview at the moment.  Catlogue is about 1000 images

System specs below.  Is this slow for a comparable system? its going to take over an hour to render 565 images.

Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
Version: 6.1 [7600]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 8
Processor speed: 2.6 GHz
Built-in memory: 12279.0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 12279.0 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 1373.9 MB (11.1%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1406.9 MB
Memory cache size: 1493.3 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1600x1200

Getho,

I noticed you have one display running at 2560x1440.  Are you experiencing any of the symptoms with rendering in the develop panel when making edits in "fit" mode?  See the following thread especially the post by JAO which has a three image montage.  Thanks.

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2891799#2891799

Thanks again.

Jay S.

[Gavin Farrington]

1)  Hey JayS.  I'm on a 30" panel too, and I haven't noticed that issue.

2)  If I understood DT's comments correctly, when we do a 1:1 render it's not just that one image it's building, but a whole  slew of other previews at various lower resolutions also.  Did I misunderstand?  Would help to explain why "just one preview" takes longer than expected to build.

[DanTull]

...when we do a 1:1 render it's not just that one image it's building...a whole slew of other previews at various lower resolutions also

Both Standard and 1:1 preview renders build out what's called a "pyramid" of previews along with a tiny bit of database/filesystem accounting for finding the preview later. However, the smaller previews are creating by downsampling the largest. Since the pyramids are halved in each dimension for each successively smaller level, the largest preview should still dominate the amount of data, but there is also a little bit of extra disk I/O to write the smaller levels.

I suppose you could compare the cost of exporting full resolution JPEGs to preview building and see how much they differ, but there are other differences between those two pipelines that might cloud the results.

DT

[Jonathan Westcott]

getho wrote:

I've just created a new catalogue for a shoot. It was apinful waiting for the 1:1 previews to render whilst working on images so I decided to render ALL of the DNGS 1:1 previews.  It is taking about 8 seconds to generate a preview at the moment.  Catlogue is about 1000 images

System specs below.  Is this slow for a comparable system? its going to take over an hour to render 565 images.

Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
Version: 6.1 [7600]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 8
Processor speed: 2.6 GHz
Built-in memory: 12279.0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 12279.0 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 1373.9 MB (11.1%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1406.9 MB
Memory cache size: 1493.3 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1600x1200

Hi Getho,

I'm running same specs on dual monitor resolutions. Win 7 Ultimate, 12gb mem,  but intel i7 quad processor. My system was built to optimise speed for lightroom and uses triple channel 1600ghz memory and striped RAID disks(seperate for cataloque and cache). I get around 3 seconds per 1:1 preview for my Canon 5D mkII 21mb files.

You have plenty of processing power so look at the speed of your memory & hard disk performance - these are key to LR3 performance.

v. best regards, Jon

[JayS_In_CT]

isyseurope wrote:

getho wrote:

I've just created a new catalogue for a shoot. It was apinful waiting for the 1:1 previews to render whilst working on images so I decided to render ALL of the DNGS 1:1 previews.  It is taking about 8 seconds to generate a preview at the moment.  Catlogue is about 1000 images

System specs below.  Is this slow for a comparable system? its going to take over an hour to render 565 images.

Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
Operating system: Windows 7 Business Edition
Version: 6.1 [7600]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 8
Processor speed: 2.6 GHz
Built-in memory: 12279.0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 12279.0 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 1373.9 MB (11.1%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 1406.9 MB
Memory cache size: 1493.3 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 2560x1440, 2) 1600x1200

Hi Getho,

I'm running same specs on dual monitor resolutions. Win 7 Ultimate, 12gb mem,  but intel i7 quad processor. My system was built to optimise speed for lightroom and uses triple channel 1600ghz memory and striped RAID disks(seperate for cataloque and cache). I get around 3 seconds per 1:1 preview for my Canon 5D mkII 21mb files.

You have plenty of processing power so look at the speed of your memory & hard disk performance - these are key to LR3 performance.

v. best regards, Jon

Getho,

I agree you should be doing far better.  On my Macbook Pro, 7D files are taking about 6 - 7 seconds for each 1:1 preview, but I've got a "lowly" 2.1 version with a Core 2 Duo, and 4GB memory.  That said, that number is double what it is 7D files in LR 2.7.  I'm sure Adobe has already heard this, but you may want to file a report at: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform  and give them your details.  Can't hurt to add to the information they are looking at.

Jay S.

[Ian Lyons]

JayS In CT wrote:

I agree you should be doing far better.  On my Macbook Pro, 7D files are taking about 6 - 7 seconds for each 1:1 preview, but I've got a "lowly" 2.1 version with a Core 2 Duo, and 4GB memory.  That said, that number is double what it is 7D files in LR 2.7.

Expecting similar time to Lr2 .x is unrealistic because the demosaicing, sharpening and noise algorithms all impact on the time it takes to render a 1:1 preview. 6-7 seconds on a Core 2 Duo for a 7D file is pretty much what would be expected in Lr3.

[JayS_In_CT]

Ian Lyons wrote:

JayS In CT wrote:

I agree you should be doing far better.  On my Macbook Pro, 7D files are taking about 6 - 7 seconds for each 1:1 preview, but I've got a "lowly" 2.1 version with a Core 2 Duo, and 4GB memory.  That said, that number is double what it is 7D files in LR 2.7.

Expecting similar time to Lr2 .x is unrealistic because the demosaicing, sharpening and noise algorithms all impact on the time it takes to render a 1:1 preview. 6-7 seconds on a Core 2 Duo for a 7D file is pretty much what would be expected in Lr3.

Ian,

How does that apply to the Preview image in Library when not a single adjustment had been done?  I'm talking about fresh imports and rendering of 1:1 previews for Library.  Even Dan indicated that things like double CPU time, etc. in Library import should not be occuring, so I'm trying to understand (truly) how you are getting to your statement.  I'm not expecting the same time, but I don't know that double is a fair expectation either.

Jay S.

[Ian Lyons]

JayS In CT wrote:

How does that apply to the Preview image in Library when not a single adjustment had been done?  I'm talking about fresh imports and rendering of 1:1 previews for Library.  Even Dan indicated that things like double CPU time, etc. in Library import should not be occuring, so I'm trying to understand (truly) how you are getting to your statement.  I'm not expecting the same time, but I don't know that double is a fair expectation either.

Jay S.

Jay,

I have a mid 2009 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro with 8GB of ram sitting here. It's running OS X 10.6.4 in 64-bit mode. If I import about 50 fresh Canon 7D images the average time to render each at 1:1 is as follows:

Lr2.7 = 4.9 seconds

Lr3.0 = 5.6 seconds

We already know the new demosaic, sharpening and noise reduction algorithms used in Lr3 means that it will take longer to render 1:1 previews than Lr2.x does. The results I provide above show the margin of difference I get, and as you can see it is not huge. My MacBook Pro is slightly faster than yours. So, I expect that is why my Lr3 rendering times is slightly quicker. Of more concern is your expectation that Lr3 should not be double that of Lr2.7 This suggests that your rendering time for Lr2.7 is between 3 to 4 seconds. I can't get my MacBook Pro to get even close to 4 seconds let alone 3. In fact, my 8-core 3 GHz Mac Pro with 16GB of ram is just about able to render 1:1 previews for fresh 7D images in 3 seconds.

To rule out another possibility I switched Lr2 and Lr3 to 32-bit mode, the rendering times increased to 6 seconds and 7 seconds respectively. So, the operating mode is not the cause of the discrepancy you see. That is, unless you're running Lr2.7 in 64-bit and Lr3 in 32-bit mode.

I don't doubt that you and others are suffering from performance issues, but am truly surprised that you believe the preview rendering time is one of the problematic areas. The timings you quote for Lr3 are pretty much what I expect to see for your processor. What I can't explain is your timings for Lr2.7

Are you sure that Lr2.7 is rendering 1:1 previews in half the time Lr3 is taking?

[areohbee]

I'd be thrilled if I got those results consistently. I have no problem waiting an extra second or two or three for better quality. - Its the gurgle, sputter, blink, memory leak, CPU cycles doing god knows what, spinning wheel, app-not-responding, then 30 seconds later I get my image, if Lightroom doesn't crash, that's the problem for me - especially when it shouldn't even need to be re-rendered! - My performance varies all over the map - sometimes its relatively fast, and sometimes it takes a really long time, sometimes in between, and sometimes it crashes...

I hope DT or whoever else can at Adobe is separating out "normal" slowness versus bug-induced slowness.

[JayS_In_CT]

Ian,

Actually, I have LR 2.7 in 32, and LR 3.0 in 64 bit..  With a stopwatch the story worsens (as opposed to the one thousand one mechanism - sorry for in accuracy).  In LR 2.7, I see (for 7D files) as low as 4 seconds, but usually 5.5 - 6.2 seconds.  In LR 3, it run from 8.2 to as much as 11.6 and even a couple of 12+ second ones per 1:1.  So I still have to hold that there are some issues in the rendering.  Sounds like Rob's situation is far worse.

In develop mode, I have a different story.  With a purged cache going into both 2.7 and 3.0, in 2.7, it take 3.8 to 4.2 to load an image, in 3.0, to load 7D images (5.8 to 6.2 seconds).

I'll go back and see what other scenarios may be like, time to render standard previews, etc. and repost.

Thanks.

Jay S.

Ian Lyons wrote:

JayS In CT wrote:

How does that apply to the Preview image in Library when not a single adjustment had been done?  I'm talking about fresh imports and rendering of 1:1 previews for Library.  Even Dan indicated that things like double CPU time, etc. in Library import should not be occuring, so I'm trying to understand (truly) how you are getting to your statement.  I'm not expecting the same time, but I don't know that double is a fair expectation either.

Jay S.

Jay,

I have a mid 2009 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro with 8GB of ram sitting here. It's running OS X 10.6.4 in 64-bit mode. If I import about 50 fresh Canon 7D images the average time to render each at 1:1 is as follows:

Lr2.7 = 4.9 seconds

Lr3.0 = 5.6 seconds

We already know the new demosaic, sharpening and noise reduction algorithms used in Lr3 means that it will take longer to render 1:1 previews than Lr2.x does. The results I provide above show the margin of difference I get, and as you can see it is not huge. My MacBook Pro is slightly faster than yours. So, I expect that is why my Lr3 rendering times is slightly quicker. Of more concern is your expectation that Lr3 should not be double that of Lr2.7 This suggests that your rendering time for Lr2.7 is between 3 to 4 seconds. I can't get my MacBook Pro to get even close to 4 seconds let alone 3. In fact, my 8-core 3 GHz Mac Pro with 16GB of ram is just about able to render 1:1 previews for fresh 7D images in 3 seconds.

To rule out another possibility I switched Lr2 and Lr3 to 32-bit mode, the rendering times increased to 6 seconds and 7 seconds respectively. So, the operating mode is not the cause of the discrepancy you see. That is, unless you're running Lr2.7 in 64-bit and Lr3 in 32-bit mode.

I don't doubt that you and others are suffering from performance issues, but am truly surprised that you believe the preview rendering time is one of the problematic areas. The timings you quote for Lr3 are pretty much what I expect to see for your processor. What I can't explain is your timings for Lr2.7

Are you sure that Lr2.7 is rendering 1:1 previews in half the time Lr3 is taking?

[JayS_In_CT]

JayS In CT wrote:

Ian,

Actually, I have LR 2.7 in 32, and LR 3.0 in 64 bit..  With a stopwatch the story worsens (as opposed to the one thousand one mechanism - sorry for in accuracy).  In LR 2.7, I see (for 7D files) as low as 4 seconds, but usually 5.5 - 6.2 seconds.  In LR 3, it run from 8.2 to as much as 11.6 and even a couple of 12+ second ones per 1:1.  So I still have to hold that there are some issues in the rendering.  Sounds like Rob's situation is far worse.

In develop mode, I have a different story.  With a purged cache going into both 2.7 and 3.0, in 2.7, it take 3.8 to 4.2 to load an image, in 3.0, to load 7D images (5.8 to 6.2 seconds).

I'll go back and see what other scenarios may be like, time to render standard previews, etc. and repost.

Thanks.

Jay S.

Ian Lyons wrote:

JayS In CT wrote:

How does that apply to the Preview image in Library when not a single adjustment had been done?  I'm talking about fresh imports and rendering of 1:1 previews for Library.  Even Dan indicated that things like double CPU time, etc. in Library import should not be occuring, so I'm trying to understand (truly) how you are getting to your statement.  I'm not expecting the same time, but I don't know that double is a fair expectation either.

Jay S.

Jay,

I have a mid 2009 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro with 8GB of ram sitting here. It's running OS X 10.6.4 in 64-bit mode. If I import about 50 fresh Canon 7D images the average time to render each at 1:1 is as follows:

Lr2.7 = 4.9 seconds

Lr3.0 = 5.6 seconds

We already know the new demosaic, sharpening and noise reduction algorithms used in Lr3 means that it will take longer ...

...

...

Are you sure that Lr2.7 is rendering 1:1 previews in half the time Lr3 is taking?

Ian (and all),

So I tried to really run some more detailed analysis.  Again, my configuration is a Macbook Pro, 2.1 (2.33 Core 2 Duo), 4 GB Ram, 200GB 7200 Internal Hitachi (will probably be upgrading for bit more space), second monitor is 24 Dell Ultrasharp, external drives equal 4TB (2 - 1TB eSATA via Expresscard - 1.5 not 3.0 given limits of Expresscard on MBP).

In first tests, I ran LR 2.7 and 3.0 in both 32 and 64 bit mode.  I created and imported into a new catalog each time the same 122 Canon 7D RAW images, JPegs were sidecars, not side by side.  NO presets were done on import and only Mimimal Preview selected. Cache was purged before each run, and any previous 1:1 previews were eliminated.

Here are results on some tests.

LR 2.7 - 32 Bit

Import of 122 pictures took 4 Minutes 19 Seconds or average of 2.12 seconds per import.

Render first 12 images import to 1:1 via Library - Rendering took 2 minutes 24 seconds or 12 seconds per image.  Subsquent single image 1:1 load via      1:1 on above navigator window took 9.24 seconds

Load a 1:1 image into Develop took anywhere from 5.5 to as much as 13 depending on cached or not

LR 3.0 - 32 Bit

Import of 122 pictures took 4 minutes 22 seconds or average of 2.12 seconds per import.

Render  first 12 images import to 1:1 via Library - Rendering took 1 minute 43  seconds or 8.58 seconds per image.  Subsquent single image 1:1      load via 1:1 on above navigator window took 11.2 seconds

Load a 1:1 image into Develop took anywhere from 6.37 to as much as 8.2 depending on cached or not

LR 2.7 - 64 Bit

Import of 122 pictures took 4 minutes 20 seconds or average of 2.12 seconds per import.

Render  first 12 images import to 1:1 via Library - Rendering took 1 minute 20  seconds or 6.66 seconds per image.  Subsquent single image 1:1 load      via 1:1 on above navigator window took 8.24 seconds

Load a 1:1 image into Develop took anywhere from 5.5 to as much as 8.2 depending on cached or not

LR 3.0 - 64 Bit

Import of 122 pictures took 4 minutes 19 seconds or average of 2.12 seconds per import.

Render  first 12 images import to 1:1 via Library - Rendering took 1 minute 22  seconds or 6.66 seconds per image.  Subsquent single image 1:1 load      via 1:1 on above navigator window took 8.92 seconds

Load a 1:1 image into Develop took under 6.5 seconds across all 122 images (Very puzzling)

Next I imported the same 122 images into working LR 2.7 and 3.0 Catalogs, each with more than 5000 images.  I only ran the 64 Bit tests.

LR 2.7 - 64 Bit

Import of 122 pictures took 4 minutes 28 seconds or average of 2.19 seconds per import.

Render  first 12 images import to 1:1 via Library - Rendering took 1 minute 56  seconds or 9.66 seconds per image.  Subsquent single image 1:1 load      via 1:1 on above navigator window took 9.23 seconds

Load a 1:1 image into Develop took anywhere from 6 seconds to as much as 12.5 seconds depending on cached or not

LR 3.0 - 64 Bit

Import of 122 pictures took 4 minutes 31 seconds or average of 2.20 seconds per import.

Render  first 12 images import to 1:1 via Library - Rendering took 1 minute 22  seconds or 6.8 seconds per image.  Subsquent single image 1:1 load via      1:1 on above navigator window took 8.5 seconds

Load a 1:1 image into Develop was again under 6.5 seconds.

Note..  I added NR/Sharpening/Lens Correction to all the images in the last run and tested load times in Develop again and times increased about 1 second in all cases.

I repeated this scenario three times and came within seconds of each test.  Maybe it was perception before about 2.7's speed, but LR 3.0 did as well (and in some cases better) than 2.7.  Some observations:

1. I am confused as to why building a 1:1 Preview as a single selection takes longer than it does when doing a batch of 1:1 renderings, but that was pretty consistent.

2. Getting stuff into the cache makes a huge difference in Develop mode, and perhaps it was the purge process first in LR 3 that made a difference, but the load time were much better.  Again, I don't know what happens in this sequence that caused that cache to load more quickly but it was a difference I was please with.

3. Clearly, the more the edits, the longer the loads will take, but I applied the 2010 Process one first, as they are supposed to be heavy hitters, turning Detail off restored quicker load times as one would expect.

4. Unclear as to why 1:1 Rendering of a group of 12 images in LR 2.7 32 bit took so long, but I repeated that and got the same results each time.

5. Amazing consistency of the import of the 122 images on each test environment.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Jay S.

[areohbee]

Jay,

Thank you for the detailed and useful information - I hope someone at Adobe is or will aggregate all of this, even if not sharing their results with the public.

At the risk of repeating myself, it seems, regarding Lightroom performance "problems":

1. Some people just expect it to be faster due to false advertising.

2. Some people see significantly slower times than others.

3. The bugs that affect performance bite some people harder than others.

4. Some people don't appreciate the difference between rendering raw vs jpeg.

5. Some people are talking about slowness of different things - UI-responsiveness, versus database related, versus loading already rendered images, versus re-rendering raws, as examples.

So, in my opinion, the solution to this is:

1. Fix the bugs.

2. Remove or radically reword the misleading marketing claim.

3. Optimize performance as much as possible.

Simple but not easy.

I confess it makes me very uneasy when I hear Adobe/Lightroom employees talking about being too busy to attend to this with max gusto - it seems from my limited outside view, that it should be top priority. Having lots of people preferring an older version, and/or desparately seeking an alternative, shouldn't be OK with Adobe. Lightroom has gained popularity due to the aesthetically pleasing UI, the results you can get with it, the fast performance at some things, Adobe's good name in image processing, and peoples trust in the company. Its a relatively sluggish piece of software in general - I doubt that will change significantly, at least not in the next few years. Still, getting the bugs out that keep people from being able to use it in a production environment should not be too much to ask...

Rob

[JayS_In_CT]

areohbee wrote:

Jay,

Thank you for the detailed and useful information - I hope someone at Adobe is or will aggregate all of this, even if not sharing their results with the public.

At the risk of repeating myself, it seems, regarding Lightroom performance "problems":

1. Some people just expect it to be faster due to false advertising.

2. Some people see significantly slower times than others.

3. The bugs that affect performance bite some people harder than others.

4. Some people don't appreciate the difference between rendering raw vs jpeg.

5. Some people are talking about slowness of different things - UI-responsiveness, versus database related, versus loading already rendered images, versus re-rendering raws, as examples.

So, in my opinion, the solution to this is:

1. Fix the bugs.

2. Remove or radically reword the misleading marketing claim.

3. Optimize performance as much as possible.

Simple but not easy.

I confess it makes me very uneasy when I hear Adobe/Lightroom employees talking about being too busy to attend to this with max gusto - it seems from my limited outside view, that it should be top priority. Having lots of people preferring an older version, and/or desparately seeking an alternative, shouldn't be OK with Adobe. Lightroom has gained popularity due to the aesthetically pleasing UI, the results you can get with it, the fast performance at some things, Adobe's good name in image processing, and peoples trust in the company. Its a relatively sluggish piece of software in general - I doubt that will change significantly, at least not in the next few years. Still, getting the bugs out that keep people from being able to use it in a production environment should not be too much to ask...

Rob

Thanks...

I know Uservoice has been a suggestion of yours, but since Dan has indicated that it isn't an option we can exercise at this point, I guess we have two choices in making Adobe aware.  Posting it here and hoping that folks like Dan and Melissa are picking it (I believe they are trying to ), and to report it on the bug link, which I've also done.  The other way, of course, is with dollars.  I believe, given the history of 1.0 and 2.0, that they will try to fix what they can as soon as they can.  I do expect any new version to have kinks, and I think some of these clearly were not expected by Adobe and were introduced post the beta.  Dan has indicated that they have a handle on some of the performance related issues, so hopefully that means a better overall experience.  It may be a few steps at a time, but that was pretty much the way it was in the past.

I've got too much invested in LR right now to switch..  hopefully I won't have to..

Jay S.

[Guest]

+1 to what Rob said!!

Lightroom has gained way too much attention in the photo community for it to be a low priority. Dan, does that mean Adobe will start passing out refunds since there isn't enough attention being paid to get a criticial update out quickly to those of use who need this in a production environment? I'm not just a hobbyist - this product helps me earn my living, and if it's going to be several months before we get anything I'd just as soon roll back to 2.7, get my money refunded, and wait for Adobe to come out with a stabler version we can actually use.

It is impossible to explain in words how badly this new version has taken down my workflow. My processing is taking at least twice as long with files created on the same exact camera as I was using last year, so there is no difference in what I'm using it for.

I agree with the marketing language. If someone inside Adobe decided to tinker with the program after the beta was done and added more bells and whistles, then why wasn't that tested again to see how it performed in the real world before rolled out and charging money for us to upgrade, fully expecting from the language used by Adobe that this would be a similarly performing product?

OK. I'm done ranting now. It just got me to read that this doesn't have a high priority, yet it was high enough to roll out and sell. How many copies of LR3 have been sold? I'm sure more than enough to warrant some targeting tech support...