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

[john Nall]

I'm getting Jay and Ian confused.  I apologize.  At 62, I'm clear-headed...some of the time!

[john Nall]

Another anomaly I just noticed:  I'm using the brush to select an area of my picture where I want color saturation to be reduced by 15%.  Again I'm using the "show mask overlay" option so I can see what I'm doing.  Twice so far, areas where the mask shows I've selected an area suddenly erases itself, and I have to trace the area again.

Now don't get me wrong:  I wasn't planning to upgrade to LR3 but believed the noise reduction, lens correction and import functions were significant improvements.  I no longer have to go to PTlens or Define 2 for lens and noise adjustments.  I'm willing to be patient and let Adobe work on their fixes. I just hope that the software becomes more predictable and responsive in the near future. 

[JayS_In_CT]

john Nall wrote:

Another anomaly I just noticed:  I'm using the brush to select an area of my picture where I want color saturation to be reduced by 15%.  Again I'm using the "show mask overlay" option so I can see what I'm doing.  Twice so far, areas where the mask shows I've selected an area suddenly erases itself, and I have to trace the area again.

Now don't get me wrong:  I wasn't planning to upgrade to LR3 but believed the noise reduction, lens correction and import functions were significant improvements.  I no longer have to go to PTlens or Define 2 for lens and noise adjustments.  I'm willing to be patient and let Adobe work on their fixes. I just hope that the software becomes more predictable and responsive in the near future. 

John,

Given some of what you're saying I'm not sure this will help.. but since it looks like you migrated from 2.x, you may want to have the prefs file recreated by LR3 with the catalog you have now.  Deleting the old one causes no issues and some have indicated it has helped (and even little bit of help we can get well, helps!) ..  I'm thinking you are hitting more of the deeper performance issues Adobe is work on.  If you want to try deleting the prefs file, you'll find it in  "WhatEverYourUserNameIsOnMac"/library/preferences.  Look for a file named  COM.ADOBE.LIGHTROOM3.PLIST ...  If you're squeemish, you can make a copy first. 

You also may want to put in a problem report online.  It may be a part of what they're working on, but can't hurt to have your machine specs there as well.  The link is:  http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Jay S.

[DaveH1065]

I  upgraded 3 months ago to core I7, Win7 x64, LR3, Intel 150GB SSD, 12GB Memory,  to be able to process photos as quick as possible. It sounds like I just hit the sweet spot because speed is no longer an issue.

All load times, edit  and transition times  in LR3 are less than 1 second or instanteous doing anything.

Stats as follows:

Photos stored on slow 2 TB hard disks

Catalog stored on SSD

Previews set to regenerate as used and discard after 1 day

(Why use up storage for 1:1 previews since it generates them almost instantaneously)

Preview Size max 2048 pixels

Preview quality high

Catalog size 80,000 Pictures - all raw

Camera 1DS Mark III

Picture size approx 25 MB

Some with HasselBlad

Picture size Tiff @ 40+ MB (still <1 sec load times)

Catalog size 1.2 GB

Working memory approx 1.2 - 1.5 GB

LR2 or LR3 were both almost instantaneous - saw no diffrence.

I defrag once a week and back up catalog almost after each use.

Optimize catalog about once a month.

[ChBr02]

There is a lot of esoteric discussion on here.

Hey, I just want LR3 to work at least as fast and reliably as LR2.7.

There are a lot of things mentioned on here that I really don't care for either, but if I had to, I could live with.  (even though I would be looking for another product)  The thing that I can't live with is virtually no response to sliders.  If I have to wait two seconds or more for each slight variation to react, it is totally unusable for me.

I checked doing the same operations on the same photos on LR2.7.  No noticeable delay.

Dan, listen carefully.....  Do you hear those people screaming at me, and demanding to know what is taking me so long to get their project done????

Can I get a refund on the "UPGRADE" until it is fixed (at least as good as 2.7)??????

Dan, What do we do until Adobe gets its fix out to us?  Trust me, I don't want additional problems caused by a rush job.  I just wished that you had waited to release LR3 until it was ready for prime time.

What is the best way to make an official complaint to Adobe?

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

ChBr02 wrote:

Dan, What do we do until Adobe gets its fix out to us?  Trust me, I don't want additional problems caused by a rush job.  I just wished that you had waited to release LR3 until it was ready for prime time.

What is the best way to make an official complaint to Adobe?

This is why there's a trial period.  Use it, if you like it buy it, if you don't, don't.

You seem to have 2.7, so just use that if you aren't happy with 3.

[Guest]

Lee Jay wrote:

     "This is why there's a trial period.  Use it, if you like it buy it, if you don't, don't.

     You seem to have 2.7, so just use that if you aren't happy with 3."

Well for some of who ran the beta for months without any issues and have several thousand new images already in a LR3 catalog, going back to 2.7 is not viable, because the catalogs are not backward compatable.  Its not just a matter of importing the last 2.7 catalog and going forward until a fix is released.  I would have several hours of reimporting and correcting all the images that went into the beta and trial of 3.0.  Not an option for me.

I will be forced to run 3.0 until the current prject in there are done.  All new projects will be in 2.7.

[Keith Reeder]

rrossi1959 wrote:

Well for some of who ran the beta for months without any issues and have several thousand new images already in a LR3 catalog, going back to 2.7 is not viable, because the catalogs are not backward compatible.

Not too smart to use a Beta of any software in a production context, is it?

You've painted yourself into that corner, and it's nobody else's fault.

[Guest]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

rrossi1959 wrote:

Well for some of who ran the beta for months without any issues and have several thousand new images already in a LR3 catalog, going back to 2.7 is not viable, because the catalogs are not backward compatible.

Not too smart to use a Beta of any software in a production context, is it?

You've painted yourself into that corner, and it's nobody else's fault.

Keith - that really isn't any comfort to those of us who purchased the product without running the beta thinking it was ready for production. As noted, since the catalogs aren't backwards compatible it then creates another monster to downgrade the catalog when you have imported thousands of images that clients are expecting to be finished!!

All in all, I really like where 3 is headed, but am just frustrated along with everyone else that it has taken this long to get someone at Adobe  to let someone say something - I'm not taking potshots at  Dan or Melissa - they are working as hard as they can, and their hands are tied on what they can or can't say - but there are people there with offices and titles who have the power and ability to come on to this forum and let us all know they are working on it, and give us some sort of update.

And given how widespread the beta testing was, I don't think anyone really anticipated that the final version would run so drastically different. I don't remember ANY drama like this when 2 came out....seemed like it was pretty well tested and a stable version was released. I had nowhere near this level of issues when I upgraded from 1 to 2.

If the catalogs didn't need to be upgraded it wouldn't be so painfil to temporarily go back to 2.7 until this is sorted out, but until then Adobe has us in a corner - they have our money and we have to just wait for them to get an update out.

[Jasonized-nfnCsn]

LydellPhoto wrote:

I don't remember ANY drama like this when 2 came out....seemed like it was pretty well tested and a stable version was released. I had nowhere near this level of issues when I upgraded from 1 to 2.

Sadly, I remember when 2.0 came out, and yes, everyone learned really quickly to say "wait for 2.1".  I fortunately was behind the curve on upgrading right then, so managed to skip installing 2.0 and waited for 2.1. Yes, I had purchased the 2.0 upgrade, but found out before I installed it that there were enough problems to make me wait.  Hopefully our pain in 3.0 was loud enough that at least *some* of the people upgrading got out of it a bit.

Cheers!

[Keith Reeder]

I freely admit that my comment wasn't about "comfort" - it's about "manning up". I just get so tired of people always looking to blame anyone and everyone else for their mistakes, instead of taking responsibility for their own decisions and for the consequences of them.

[Guest]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

I freely admit that my comment wasn't about "comfort" - it's about "manning up". I just get so tired of people always looking to blame anyone and everyone else for their mistakes, instead of taking responsibility for their own decisions and for the consequences of them.

The view must be pretty nice where you sit Keith.  I don't know where you read in my message that I blamed anybody for my situation.  It's my fault. I know it and I'm not happy about it.  That doesn't alleviate the fact that I want a fix as soon as possible. Your arrogance really as no place on this site.

[Guest]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

I freely admit that my comment wasn't about "comfort" - it's about "manning up". I just get so tired of people always looking to blame anyone and everyone else for their mistakes, instead of taking responsibility for their own decisions and for the consequences of them.

Sadly, at least for me it now isn't about manning up, or looking for blame, but the fact that I no longer have the confidence in Adobe to even look at purchasing ANYTHING they put out before a first update comes out. I don't think that's the reputation they really want but it's kind of where it leaves us. Based on comments by others about 2.0, and what we've seen with 3.0 why would we ever want to purchase something out of the shoot? Otherwise we really are all just people PAYING to be advances beta testers, and I for one resent the fact that they seem to think we don't mind. Or worse, that they know and just don't care.

If Adobe made changes after pulling the beta of LR3 back in house, why wouldn't they release it back out for a final round of beta testing, even if it was a smaller more select group? The rush to get something to market seems to have overcome what should be a desire to have a product that will perform as promised in the marketing materials.

Is all this moot? Probably for now, but we all know that once this is done at some point Adobe will turn it's eyes towards the next full release, so I hope that when it comes time for LR4 to be tested and released some good will come of this thread. There is no shortage of people who are willing to be involved in testing a product, and I hope that future full releases will be tested thoroughly before released to the general public.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

LydellPhoto wrote:

Keith_Reeder wrote:

I freely admit that my comment wasn't about "comfort" - it's about "manning up". I just get so tired of people always looking to blame anyone and everyone else for their mistakes, instead of taking responsibility for their own decisions and for the consequences of them.

Sadly, at least for me it now isn't about manning up, or looking for blame, but the fact that I no longer have the confidence in Adobe to even look at purchasing ANYTHING they put out before a first update comes out. I don't think that's the reputation they really want but it's kind of where it leaves us. Based on comments by others about 2.0, and what we've seen with 3.0 why would we ever want to purchase something out of the shoot?

I try not to purchase anything "out of the shoot" that is available as a trial.  I use the trial first.  You should try that approach instead of avoiding .0 products.

[ChBr02]

Keith,

Notice that there are over 800 posts on this problem.  There are also other threads dealing with the slowness of LR3.  It should be evident, and Dan admits that Adobe knows; there are problems with LR3.  What you and tgutgu seem to want to do is to attack the victims.  Perhaps Stockholm Syndrome? I won't bore you with a link to the definition.

Are you saying that when someone offers a product for sale, that we are stupid for paying money for it to do what is advertised?  I did not buy it to have to debug it for them.  This product had a long Beta  I was stupid enough to believe that it should have been a lot better than it is.  I know many people that were quite happy with the Beta.  Now they say they are having problems with the released product also.  I wrote my first program for a vacuum tube computer in 1961 & have been in the biz ever since.  I used to get access to top level support people by modifying the hex code in the printer drivers that Microsoft built for them.  I am done debugging vendor software.  It's too complex for my old brain.

I bought PS5 along with LR3.  So, if I don't need one, I won't need the other.  To late for a trial return.

Everyone seems to be submitting their System Info.  If that helps anyone, here's mine:

Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (Build 2600)
Version: 5.1 [2600]
Application architecture: x86
System architecture: x86
Physical processor count: 2
Processor speed: 2.3 GHz
Built-in memory: 3069.2 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 450.6 MB (62.8%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 510.7 MB
Memory cache size: 6.1 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Displays: 1) 1680x1050, 2) 1680x1050
Serial Number: xxxxxxxxxxxx

Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3
Library Path: C:\Documents and Settings\Charlie\My Documents\My Pictures\Lightroom\Lightroom 2 Catalog-2-2.lrcat
Settings Folder: C:\Documents and Settings\Charlie\Application Data\Adobe\Lightroom

BTW, my C: Drive is a pair of WD Raptors (10K) in a Raid 1 configuration.  I have 3 more 1TB HDs internally.  I have over 35,000 images on the drive that I store the photos that I manipulate with LR.

One point, Except for the new Import interface which I hate, I had no particular problem with LR3 when I 1st started using it.  Right after I got it, I left on a 3 week photo shoot.  As I look back on it, it seems that rendering took longer than I desired, but I initially didn't have the delay that I now have with sliders.  It is not possible to use sliders in any meaningful way with the 2+ second delay for any movement.

Someone suggested putting all photos in a single folder.  I can't imagine that being a good thing.  I don't know what the Windows limit is for a folder or if there even is one.  However, I have had so many files that it caused a real problems using the folder, or adding anything to it.

Do I just wait for 3.1?  Guess I could spend a ton of money to build a high-end PC to just run LR3, but several have said that hasn't worked either.

Dan, I do appreciate your being on here, but I am really very disappointed in Adobe.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

LydellPhoto wrote:

All in all, I really like where 3 is headed, but am just frustrated along with everyone else that it has taken this long to get someone at Adobe  to let someone say something - I'm not taking potshots at  Dan or Melissa - they are working as hard as they can, and their hands are tied on what they can or can't say - but there are people there with offices and titles who have the power and ability to come on to this forum and let us all know they are working on it, and give us some sort of update.

Melissa did, on June 17th, in this very thread, where she said, "Here I am - we're working on it."

http://forums.adobe.com/message/2904464#2904464

That's a problem with threads this long - people either never read them or forget what they read (understandable in a thread approaching a thousand posts).

[goodlux7]

To those ppl who are bashing rossi for using the Beta, THEN upgrading

to the release version, THEN wishing he could easily go back to 2.7...

You've got it all wrong. Its NOT his fault for LR sucking. The blame

is sqaurely with adobe.

He did everything right. He tried to software, liked it, patiently

waited for the even better release. Who on this list didn't?

He then bought the software, spent hours upgrading...then...realized

he had been tricked out of his time, effort, and money.

Unfortanately he is trapped now...either direction will cost a lot of

time and frustration.

Who's fault? Adobe. Poor planning. Poor testing. Disregard for customer base.

The only fault I see of rossi is not simply returning the software.

He would still have a fully functional copy of LR 3 that he could buy

back in the near future if adobe gets a fix out.

[JayS_In_CT]

goodlux7 wrote:

To those ppl who are bashing rossi for using the Beta, THEN  upgrading

to the release version, THEN wishing he could easily go back to 2.7...

You've got it all wrong. Its NOT his fault for LR sucking. The blame

is sqaurely with adobe.

He did everything right. He tried to software, liked it, patiently

waited for the even better release. Who on this list didn't?

He then bought the software, spent hours upgrading...then...realized

he had been tricked  out of his time, effort, and money.

Unfortanately he is trapped now...either direction will cost a lot of

time and frustration.

Who's fault? Adobe. Poor planning. Poor testing. Disregard for customer base.

The only fault I see of rossi  is not simply returning the software.

He would still have a fully functional copy of LR 3 that he could buy

back in the near future  if adobe gets a fix out.

Goodlux,

The part where the logic breaks down is using the Beta for what sounds to be production level and customer work.  It was clear from the Beta that anything developed there was not going to be able to be reverted back to 2.7.  Everyone has 20/20 hindsight, but this is exactly why Adobe says to not use the beta as a production vehicle.  Forget the performance issues for a moment.  Let's say there was a feature that he relied on for customer images that, for whatever reason, Adobe pulled from the production version.  He would still be in the same situation.

Jay S.

[Rmurrayphoto]

Then again,

There are those of us whom did try the trial didn't experience the problems initially and therefore purchased the upgrade. After converting all our Catalogs to the new version, we discovered that our, now critical, software was really slowing us down. In fact after culling just 20 images it was taking up to 20 seconds to load one image to the next adding 11.11 hours to just the culling process of a 2,000 image wedding. That's not taking into account the freeze ups and restarts consistently required. Let's then factor in the time and money spent researching possible solutions, installing additional internal drives to separate the catalogs from the images, ect. I bought/built/configured my machine around LR. Yet I can't use my "professional" software. I've not even bothered to attempt actual adjustments as It's unusable for simply flagging picks and rejects.

I'm sorry but it's hard to figure out a way to explain to my clients that the professional photographer they hired can't deliver their images because his new software doesn't work. I place full responsibility on Adobe. I have gone way beyond my responsibility as an end user of a professional, triple digit priced software. It's silly to be upset with folks for being upset about this.

Just for the folks that'll cry if I don't include this...

1.8 gig quad-core CPU

7 gigs of ram

Vista 64 running LR3 in 64

1 gig on board nvidia 9400

Twin 23" monitors

Ronn Murray Photography

http://ronnmurrayphoto.com

Sent via AT&T Mobile

[areohbee]

At the risk of seeming even sillier...

Aperture users were all up in arms too when Apple released the buggy 3.0.0. Now that 3.0.2 is out and is far more stable things are quieter on the Aperture forum.

[DanTull]

Of course, from what I understand (I don't have first hand experience) Apple tends to delete threads that turn negative, mention competitive products, or just in general include stuff they don't want people talking about.

Which is to say, don't be surprised if they don't have threads like this one on their site.

DT

[goodlux7]

And don't be surprised if they come kick your door in if you say anything

bad about them.

[areohbee]

DanTull wrote:

Of course, from what I understand (I don't have first hand experience) Apple tends to delete threads that turn negative, mention competitive products, or just in general include stuff they don't want people talking about.

Which is to say, don't be surprised if they don't have threads like this one on their site.

DT

One of the things I like about Adobe - we can "bad mouth" y'all as much as we want and it stays right here for the whole world to see .

Anyway, my point was that there were a lot of problems with Aperture's first v3 release. I assumed that most of the worst bugs had been fixed, but maybe Apple just yanked all the complaints and left the bugs in. Hmmm...

_R_

[Ian Lyons]

areohbee wrote:

One of the things I like about Adobe - we can "bad mouth" y'all as much as we want and it stays right here for the whole world to see .

You might get away with the company and the software, but abusing the staff other forum members is a ticket outa here

[areohbee]

Ian Lyons wrote:

You might get away with the company and the software, but abusing the staff other forum members is a ticket outa here

Personally, I'm not real crazy about people abusing the company or the software either, since I hold both in high regard. Still, I appreciate the reminder to be respectful...