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

[areohbee]

Dan - I hope you didn't take my crack about "bad mouthing" Adobe the wrong way - I truly meant it in jest - my sense of humor is a little warped perhaps... - you guys & gals are doin' a great job - seriously (despite the bugs & slow-downs).

Others - I recently have been "forced" to use Aperture 3.0.3 and thought you might be interested to know that Lightroom 3.0, "warts and all", is still way faster than Aperture 3. Granted this is only one data point...

Details reserved for another thread, or not at all, or available upon request...

Rob

[DanTull]

I hope you didn't take my crack about "bad mouthing" Adobe the wrong way - I truly meant it in jest...

Yeah, no worries. I wouldn't be out here in the forums if I were thin skinned. I'm a strong believer in letting folks speak freely. I obviously hate to see folks having a hard time with Lightroom, but I try not to take it personally and just get on with the business of tracking the issues down.

Cheers -- DT

[john Nall]

Dan, another to add to your list:  for some reason tonight LR3 decided to quit closing a Develop window (e.g. Basic) when another's opened (e.g. Lens Correction).  It worked as advertised until yesterday.

[TK2142]

john Nall wrote:

for some reason tonight LR3 decided to quit closing a Develop window (e.g. Basic) when another's opened (e.g. Lens Correction).

John, perhaps you have inadvertedly deactivated "Solo mode"?

Right-click on one of the panel titles and see whether "Solo mode" is still checked.

[john Nall]

Well that's one problem Dan won't have to look into.  I wonder how that got changed?  Thanks, TK---appreciate your response and patience.

John

[DanTull]

...perhaps you have inadvertedly deactivated "Solo mode"?

I wonder how that got changed?  

Best guess:  Option clicking on a header will toggle solo mode.

If the panel was expanded when you did it, it wouldn't be immediately obvious that you'd toggled solo mode off since the panel would just collapse as usual. It wouldn't be until 2 panel clicks later that it'd be obvious.

DT

[getho]

Dan

Please can we have some perfomance statistics from adobe:  I need to know whether what I'm seeing is usual or whether I have an issue.  Are there screengrab videos anywhere I can compare to?  Have adobe developers used their product on 1920 and bigger displays?

I've just loaded the 3.2 RC, and its not quicker than 3.0:  Fullscreen (2560x1440) changing the exposure slider I get one screen update per second.

Is this acceptable?  Is this usual?  Do I waste a whole bunch of time trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

Thats in a profile that has lens correction switched on, noise reduction and grain.  With all that off performance is about the same as LR2.7.  This is still barely usable at fullscreen (and this is on a system built for LR and photoshop).

[csaager]

Lens correction (manual and profile) is slow in combination with other

manipulations. I work around this by doing lens correction first, disable it

and switch it on when I am done with all other corrections

[DdeGannes]

If this is a significant issue, then I think Adobe should include it the help file.

[areohbee]

Sounds like a installation-dependent bug to me - I can't reproduce the symptoms on my installation. - How 'bout you Dde?

[DdeGannes]

I use Olympus camera equipment and there are no lens profiles available for my lenses so I have not tested.

[areohbee]

Care to try using a Nef?

http://www.robcole.com/_temp/NIK3_29418.zip

_R

[ChBr02]

@csaager

"I work around this by doing lens correction first, disable it

and switch it on when I am done with all other corrections"

I orginally thought I was applying a Nikon 70-300 profile, but after I had already edited a bunch of photos, I saw that I had picked the 70-200 profile (I wish I had the 70-200).  When I saw I had made a mistake, I disabled lens correction on all those photos.  Based on what you have just said, disabling lens correction at that point had no effect?

On Adobe Labs, they list the 70-300 lens as supported, but it isn't in the list.  Anyone know how to get that?

[areohbee]

70-300 is on my list (AF-S VR 4.5-5.6 G IF-ED). Is yours a different model?

[ChBr02]

@Rob Cole

"70-300 is on my list (AF-S VR 4.5-5.6 G IF-ED). Is yours a different model?"

Nope, same one.  It shows up as same in the Exif info.  The Nikkor 50mm 1.8 (which I think was the lastest) is on there and helpful to me since I also have that lens.

Is it possible it is on there for raw files and not jpegs?

There is a forum for this somewhere on Adobe Labs, but I can't find it again.

[areohbee]

I think profile based lens correction only makes sense for the raws (since in-camera jpegs already have lens correction applied, and if you're smart, so will your jpegs that are derived from the raws).

In any case, I just converted a 70-300 raw to jpeg and interestingly - the 70-300 drops off the list but a bunch of others remain. - go figure...

Rob

[lkemper]

Dan I have a unique problem.  I am helping a friend set up Lightroom on his computer.  When we add keywords we only see 3 keywords in the Keyword list panel.  It only shows the first 3 alphabetically so if I add a keyword with the letter A the bottom of the three gets dropped but still only 3 show.  The other keywords do show in "Set Keywords" and they show up in the Keywording Panel but not in the Keyword List.  Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Lewis Kemper

[DdeGannes]

Lewis I think it would be best if you post this problem as a new thread with an appropriate heading.

[areohbee]

At the risk of speaking out of turn - getting performance stats from Adobe, has (so far), been like pulling teeth...

It may be more fruitful to get them from users.

That said, for what its worth: at 1920x1200 on my moderate machine, there is a noticeable delay (between changing the value and seeing the effect) when adjusting basic sliders, but its way under a second (estimate: 1/4-1/3 second).

I'd say if its taking a full second on a "souped up" machine, then you are having far below average performance for some reason.

But then, I'm running a smaller display...

Anybody else running 2560x1440 got some numbers?

PS - Lens corrections have no noticeable effect on basic adjustment slider response for me (at least not on the ones I checked) - I didn't check all of them though. Another user said that lens corrections slow down painting, yet I don't see that either.

Rob

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

getho wrote:

I've just loaded the 3.2 RC, and its not quicker than 3.0:  Fullscreen (2560x1440) changing the exposure slider I get one screen update per second.

Is this acceptable?  Is this usual?  Do I waste a whole bunch of time trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

Thats in a profile that has lens correction switched on, noise reduction and grain.  With all that off performance is about the same as LR2.7.  This is still barely usable at fullscreen (and this is on a system built for LR and photoshop).

On a 7 year old Pentium 4 2.8GHz with 2GB of RAM, I get 2 updates per second without NR or profiles.

With NR and profiles, it's 1 update per 8 seconds.

With NR and no profiles, it's 1 update per 8 seconds.

With L-NR only and no profiles, it's 1 update per 1.5 seconds.

Now, here's the kicker.  With color-NR only, it's 2 updates per second.

So, this looks like a bug to me.

[areohbee]

8 seconds? - I get 1/3 second running a 2GHz CPU with a 333MHz bus.

[JayS_In_CT]

Rmurrayphoto wrote:

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

Ronn,

Can appreciate that situation.  A couple of things..  and none of this is meant to fix, perhaps help a little.  Assuming you're up to date on NVidia drivers.  Also, there is a known issue on higher resolution monitors (Dan confirmed this A.M.).  Try scaling down the size of the LR window and see if that helps at all.  Back to the NVidia card, there are some tweaks that are supposed to help Lightroom performance.  Perhaps they weren't an issue for you in 2.7, but maybe they'll help in 3.0.

Here's one link..  If you google Lightroom and NVidia, you'll find more..

http://www.thejohnsonblog.com/2008/09/06/lightroom-2-and-nvidia-performance/

For me (Macbook Pro), deleteing the Prefs file on converted catalogs seemed to make things smoother.  I've got no scientific anything to back that up, but things seemed better after I let LR rebuild the prefs file.

Jay S.

[john Nall]

Jay, I noted your comment about deleting Prefs files on "converted catalogs."  Can you direct me somewhere that would describe how to do that?

Thanks, John

[JayS_In_CT]

john Nall wrote:

Jay, I noted your comment about deleting Prefs files on "converted catalogs."  Can you direct me somewhere that would describe how to do that?

Thanks, John

John,

All the way back on page 16, I put a reply out there for you..      Here's the link..

http://forums.adobe.com/message/3027254#3027254

Far too many notes, huh?

Jay S.

[john Nall]

Yes many many notes.  I deleted the file---no difference on performance.  Darn!