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

[TK2142]

Wanchese West wrote:

However, my LR3 gets sluggish after multiple brush strokes on consecutive images that I have been exporting to CS5 and reimporting post tweak. The first sign is a sluggish mouse wheel that makes changing brush sizes a real adventure. When I check my CPU meter, I see RAM utilization has gone through the roof and  the CPU is beginning to sweat. Closing and reopening LR3 temporarily solves this problem.

Many see the same problem. You are not alone. LR has a multitude of performance related bugs so it is difficult to keep them apart in discussions.

Note that the graduated filter and spot removal cursors are stuttery right out of the box (compare with the smoothly moving adjustment brush cursor). They cannot move smoothly even if nothing has been done to the image yet. I'm perplexed as to why this is still the case as it had been a known problem in LR2 already. Incidentally, these two tools (graduated filter + spot removal) can become unbearably slow once you have applied a number of tweaks to an image. The adjustment brush just develops a terribly lag, making it pretty much unusable, but the other tools can practically freeze LR (I'm sure about that regarding the spot removal tool, the graduated filters may just become ultra-slow too but not practically freeze the system; I don't use them as often).

All LR cursors use 100% of one core just to move around (without doing anything). A comparable cursor in Paintshop Pro uses ~6%. Bibble 5 uses ~80%. The movement of cursors is slow with images that have received a lot of tweaks, even if they are not doing anything. There is *no* way this should be the case.

[Martin_Ingle]

Before committing to purchase the full version of Lightroom 3 I have tried the trial version. Currently I have a  dual core E6600 @ 2.4GHz and 4G Ram with Windows 7 32 bit.

I have a Canon 5D2 DSLR and generally shoot raw files. I find that switching between images takes around 16-20 seconds with raw files and about 4 seconds with jpg files. General operation can best be describes as sluggish. I created  a new catalogue with only about 100 images in it. Memory usage only goes up from 1.2Gb to 1.6Gb when Lightroom is started so from what I can see memory is not an Issue. Both CPU cores on the other hand run flat out.

Switching from the default 2010 process profile back to the old 2003 profile seems to make an enormous performance difference. Raw files seem to open about 4 times faster.

I got so frustrated with the slow performance that  I have tried installing Windows7 64 bit onto a spare drive and only loaded Lightroom 3 - about as clean and uncluttered OS as possible. I was disappointed to see that there was no noticeable difference in performance.

I also did a Windows performance bench mark on both OS's and was a bit surprised to see substantially lower processor and ram bench marks on the 64 bit version given the same hardware.

                       32 bit      64 bit
Processor       5.8          4.4

RAM               5.5          4.8

Graphics         5.9          5.9

Gaming           5.9          5.9

Disk                5.9          5.9

My son has a new(ish)  Mackbook Pro with 2.8GHz dual core processor.  We loaded the Mac version of Lightroom and the same images. The overall experience is much smoother with raw files  loading about twice as fast. Once rendered switching between images was almost instantaneous – a significant difference compared to the Windows version considering similar spec processors.

I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance. Does anyone have a real feel how much faster a new quad core 2.8Ghz i7 iMac compared to a dual core 2.8Ghz Mac Book Pro when using Lightroom 3?

Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

[FeatherLightStudios]

Thanks for taking your time trying to isolate this slow-down - I too am disappointed.

I know in the past the nVidia drivers required special settings for LR2...

When's someone from Adobe going to respond to all of our posts, or does this require a phone-call to tech support?

-David

[Mikkasa]

Reading between the posts, tech support looks like a good option for mac users with directory or system issues, some (at least) of which appear to be fixable in the main.

Looks like Windows users have a more hardware-related issue, in which case tech support will do you no good. Assuming, of course, you wouldn't feel better for verbally abusing a complete stranger over something completely beyond his control

What you need in this case is a dot update that fixes some wintel hardware-addressing bug(s) and posting here is as good a place as any to shout for one.

[Mikkasa]

Martin Ingle wrote:

Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance. Does anyone have a real feel how much faster a new quad core 2.8Ghz i7 iMac compared to a dual core 2.8Ghz Mac Book Pro when using Lightroom 3?

Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

I don't have a MacBook as new as that, nor an iMac as highly specced, but I will say LR2 on my 2008 MBP was a nodding donkey compared to my shiny new i5 quad-core iMac. Huge improvement in performance.

It's also worth stating for the record that LR3 is zippier than LR2 for me, in almost every respect, the more I use it. Makes sense, as lots of re-rendering and re-profiling is is chugging away – something to bear in mind in general: LR relies on a vast cache of meta-info to work swiftly and if you ain't already built that up, it might drag for a while at first.

I'd stick my neck out and say you'd find the same thing with an i7 iMac (I've seen LR2 running a similar sized catalog on an i7 iMac and it was no faster.. he said with misty green eyes..) as long as you fresh install LR3 on a virgin OS 10.6. Let your previews render for as long as it takes and you should have no complaints. 1-2 seconds is what it takes mine to load a 12MP RAW file; a 75meg comp I just loaded up took around 15secs to deliver a 1:1 preview. Size is everything, of course... and the wait is directly proportional.

Maybe it's worth hearing from people with either no problems or positive feedback here, along with system spec and history, so we can get a gauge on what's working, as well as what sucks

Mine's a month-old 27" quad-core i5 iMac, 4Gb (standard) RAM, main catalog 40k images. Although I ran the second beta for 2 weeks, following advice gleaned here I ditched my LR3b2 cats and upgraded direct from LR2.7 to LR3. Sweet as a nut, touch wood...

[mei_-EPZwbs]

There seem to be just as many reports here that LR3 has problems with Mac as there are for windows, so you could just be having good luck with the mac laptop and bad luck with the windows. If you want a new machine it may be better to stick to windoiws and get a faster processor/more memory and hence better performance for the same cost.

"Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega  pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and  displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010  process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we  just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?"

I think it is. On my 3 year old Dell desktop it takes 3-5 seconds on 5D2 RAW files depending on how many previews of other files it's generating simultaneously. I imagine on a brand new computer with more RAM, faster drives and CPUs but still under £1000 you'd get it to <2 secs per image.

[Mikkasa]

mei! wrote:

There seem to be just as many reports here that LR3 has problems with Mac as there are for windows

Am I misreading that or did you mis-type it? There are as many reports that LR3 has NO problems with Mac as there are for Windows, but a cursory headcount for those reporting big problems shows sthg like a 15-3 Win64 to MacOS scoreboard.

It may be there is a common bug for both, but it's hitting Windows users much harder AFAICS.

[mei_-EPZwbs]

I was replying to Martin Ingle when he said

"I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance."

but I must have hit the wrong button because my reply didn't include the quote.

Anyway, you're not misreading and I didn't mis-type.

There are lots of problems with the Mac version too. Here are 5 threads on the front page of this forum alone with Mac users complainging they have problems:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/662617

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663504

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/661551

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663167

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663452

And there are people on thsi thread using Macs complaining of problems.

There's no scoreboard because this isn't a competition. I haven't counted every thread to see which platform currently has more people complaining of problems, but that doesn't really matter. My point is there are plenty of problems on the mac side, and you could easily be one of the unlucky Mac users who has them if you switch platforms.

For the record I have a Windows desktop and Mac laptop and I like them both! I'm not arguing for one over the other.

[Martin_Ingle]

mei! wrote:

I was replying to Martin Ingle when he said

"I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance."

but I must have hit the wrong button because my reply didn't include the quote.

Anyway, you're not misreading and I didn't mis-type.

There are lots of problems with the Mac version too. Here are 5 threads on the front page of this forum alone with Mac users complainging they have problems:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/662617

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663504

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/661551

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663167

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/663452

And there are people on thsi thread using Macs complaining of problems.

There's no scoreboard because this isn't a competition. I haven't counted every thread to see which platform currently has more people complaining of problems, but that doesn't really matter. My point is there are plenty of problems on the mac side, and you could easily be one of the unlucky Mac users who has them if you switch platforms.

For the record I have a Windows desktop and Mac laptop and I like them both! I'm not arguing for one over the other.

Changing from PC to Mac or  investing in faster PC hardware does not look like a guaranteed solution to getting usable workflow. I have now come to the conclusion that one just has to be patient and wait until Adobe resolves the issues.

[molwizard2]

Martin Ingle wrote:

I have a Canon 5D2 DSLR and generally shoot raw files. I find that switching between images takes around 16-20 seconds with raw files and about 4 seconds with jpg files. General operation can best be describes as sluggish. I created  a new catalogue with only about 100 images in it. Memory usage only goes up from 1.2Gb to 1.6Gb when Lightroom is started so from what I can see memory is not an Issue. Both CPU cores on the other hand run flat out.

Switching from the default 2010 process profile back to the old 2003 profile seems to make an enormous performance difference. Raw files seem to open about 4 times faster.

...

Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

What helped me to bring down the time until an image  (RAW+JPEG from EOS 5D Mark II) is displayed sharply to about 2-3 seconds was setting the import preview options to "embedded + filial files" (option translated freely from german; I am not sure what "filal files" means but I guess it is the accompanying JPEG file). The "Data is loading..." message is displayed for 5-10 seconds. I didn't observe any difference between browsing in the library or the development module.

My system specification:

  2x 2.53 GHz Intel Xeon E5540 processor (8 real cores + 8 hyperthreading cores)

  12 GB RAM

  Windows 7 professional 64bit

You might think that this sounds like a '"no" to Martin's "Is it realistic..." question if it even takes 2-3 seconds on such a high-end machine. But I don't think that the number of CPU cores or a very high amount of RAM is of much importance here. Actually I think that it currently is just a waste of money concerning LR3 because it doesn't make much use of the extra power. Overall CPU usage while hurrying (haha, at 2-3 seconds per image...) through a large number of pictures is about 10-15% and observing every single CPU core rarely 50% is exceeded at 1 out of 16. RAM usage by LR3 usually is something between 1.5 to 2.5 GB.

The bottleneck rather seems to be file reading speed.To read a 10 MB JPEG file within a second you would obviously need to read 10 MB per second. And to read a 30 MB RAW file you would need a rate of 30 MB per second. Switching to an image that is in the cache (20 GB) is almost instantaneous on my system. When I compare the disk read rate in the Windows resource monitor it is about ten times higher for reading the cache than for reading from uncached files. And the rate for prereading images is even much slower. So you need a long break until the about 10-15 images are preread. (I couldn't determine the exact number of preread files. The number was at least increased compared to the first beta release.)

My impression is that this was deliberatly designed this way in order not to block the system on single or dual CPU core systems.

But unfortunately the strategy doesn't seem to get adapted on middle or high-end machines to use the extra power available.

So I think there is plenty of room for performance improvements on more powerful systems if a modified strategy would be applied.

Especially I would wish for the following changes there:

1)  better CPU usage and file read rate

2) faster image preareading

3) even higher number of prearead images, maybe configurable (if no adjustments must be made performance drops very fast otherwise, especially with the very low preread speed)

Finally I would like to say that "slowness" is quite relative, depending on the individual requirements and expectations. Rob Cole said that LR3 works ok on his system. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, he said (on another thread) that a middle-sized RAW images need 3-4 seconds to render. So for him this is ok. But for me this is much to slow because I usually have several hundreds or even thousands of pictures from an event which I have to screen, select  and adjust if necessary. And it is obviously possible to reach my speed requirements with 20 Megapixel RAW images. I tested Bibble5 on my system and I could rush through several hundred images and each was displayed almost instantaneously. Unfortunately for me (not Adobe) it has several other disadvantages so I wouldn't really use it.

[TK2142]

Martin Ingle wrote:

I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance.

Buying Mac may or may not help you. There are also a lot of Mac users with performance issues. The (high) specs. of a system are unfortunately no indicator as to well LR3 will run. There are small machines which run it just fine and high speced ones on which it comes to a crawl. I believe you'll find this on both Mac and PC worlds, so you need be cautious.

Martin Ingle wrote:

Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

I cannot answer the question for Lightroom but check out the speed of Bibble 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2uH_NPnbgM). I don't like its interface as much as LR's but if speed were my main concern, there'd be no question.

[Keith Reeder]

TK2142 wrote:

I cannot answer the question for Lightroom but check out the speed of Bibble 5

Bibble needs a "plug in" of a licenced version of Noise Ninja before it will deliver NR that's remotely comparable to what Lr 3 can do natively with the 2010 processing, and - believe me - with Noise Ninja activated, conversions in Bibble 5 are waaay slower than in Lr 3.

And don't run away with the idea that everything else is all sweeteness and light in Bibble world: http://support.bibblelabs.com/forums/search.php?search_id=active_topics&sid=da5adaeeaeb3b4d12baf8cc8...

Crashes, painful slowness, IQ issues - not much different to here, really...

[TK2142]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

And don't run away with the idea that everything else is all sweeteness and light in Bibble world: http://support.bibblelabs.com/forums/search.php?search_id=active_topic s&sid=da5adaeeaeb3b4d12baf8cc...

Crashes, painful slowness, IQ issues - not much different to here, really...

The "slowness" thread you provided a link to is about *one* user reporting a problem of which he isn't sure of whether his own machine causes it ("Ah yes, there is some kind of odd/freakish IO problem on my computer, that appears to be related to 64bit kernels.").

I'm not arguing that Bibble is a superiour product in each and every aspect. I love the IQ from LR (ACR) and love LR's UI. The ACR component of LR is world-class. Not all of the rest is (yet). For instance, I understand that even those who do not have performance problems experience stuttery graduated filter and spot removal cursors that move slightly jerkily even if you don't apply them. I'm perplexed as to why these cursors still do not move as smoothly as the adjustment brush cursor; why no one cared to fix that since LR2. x.

Some of the LR slowness is related to the new process version (and I for one would be more than happy to accept a performance penalty for the improved IQ) but most of it is not.

If I had no attachment to LR, I wouldn't spend some of my time on this forum. My main point was that with today's hardware it is possible to program very responsive user interfaces.

[borisZelsky]

I'd like to add my vote to the OP. LR3 is unbearably slow - and I am comparing to performance of LR 2.7.

The thing that annoys me is slow response of the interface in Real Time mode - for example browsing through photos in Develop Module takes about 15 seconds. The pop-up "Loading" comes up, the circle on the left is spinning and I am left waiting. It goes away after 15 seconds. I could live  with longer response time of tasks that happen in the background - such as import/export or thumbnail building. But having to wait 15 seconds every time I move to a new image is really unacceptable, especially if the previous version worked fine.

Such tasks as paintbrushing are also much slower than LR 2.7.

RAM does not seem to be an issue - LR is taking 700Mb (combined physical and vm) and I have about 800mb of physical ram available.

My system stats:

Panasonic Toughbook W7

Windows XP, SP3

Intel Core Duo U7500 @ 1.06Ghz

2 Gig ram

[bokeron2008]

This lightroom version is a strange beast.

I've reported my problem here :

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/659033?tstart=0

In short ... most things work fast enough for me, some of them I feel faster, others maybe slightly slower. I'd say lightroom is now ... not faster, not slower, just differently balanced.

Except the print module, that is noticeably slower when browsing SOME templates and applying them.

[camerahans]

Working with LR3.0 was slow, not working form me. Have been experimenting with it to speed it up. Loading sometimes "hangs" I noticed by accident that when I moved my cursor (wacom) down to the main screen with the windows taskbar (which I had on automatically hide) and went back up things seemed to speed up. I changed the taskbar behaviour from "automatically hide" to always on the foreground (I am using the classical windows theme) and that definitively speeded up things for me. Loading is still slow, but that might have to do with the older computer I am using, but slider response is definitively better!

Give it a try!

[calm_Light157F]

Hi

I did a quick test  now and if I change the Camera Calibration back to 2003 I got back almost the same response as with LR2.7 moving the exposure slider back and forth, that means it changes along with the slider. Setting it to 2010(current) I have to wait up to a second for each time I change it for the image to change.

So at the moment I will set it back to 2003 and work with that and use 2010 only if I need it.

- Terje

[camerahans]

well... I think 2010 is the way to go for IQ!

[Eric_G_7D]

I just upgraded to LR3 and decided to start a new catalog from scratch. After importing less than 1000 photos, the performance is almost unusable! I have rebooted, optimized the catalog, defragged the HDD, restarted LR3, rebooted, and checked all the settings suggested by others.

In case anyone's wondering, my PC is a new Intel Core i7 running at 4 GHz, 12 GB DDR3 memory, RAID (Striped) HDD setup, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480, and dual monitors (only using one for LR3). Nothing much else is running, and most apps are lightning fast (including Photoshop).

LR3 stalls every time I go to one of the new folders that I imported pictures into, and when I try to import new photos, it takes quite some time. I can't believe it's anything but the program that is responsible for the sluggish (and that's being kind) performance. Here is a screen shot that I had plenty of time to take while the program is generating previews (there are about 200 images in this folder), so you can see I'm not kidding.

Any ideas, folks?

Thanks.

[Larry Loos]

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it might help out those having speed issues.

Try checking your Catalog Settings and turn OFF the "Automatically write changes into XMP". I have turned if off since version Lr1, so I don't know what the default settings are.

[imajez]

Digit_eyes wrote:

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it might help out those having speed issues.

Try checking your Catalog Settings and turn OFF the "Automatically write changes into XMP". I have turned if off since version Lr1, so I don't know what the default settings are.

I'd have to seriously advise against this. Any catalogue corruption and you lose all your work. It also means Br cannot read any LR changes if you use both. Yes you can backup your catalogue, but recreating work done since last backup can be very difficult, if doing anything creative and I've also had issues with backups being flakey. Writing to XMP used to be a problem until LR1.4 IIRC, but has been much faster since then. Also if you are backing up your HDs, then updating a few text files like XMP is faster and safer than backing up big catalogues as your image data is with your images not elsewhere.

I do not use Virtual copies for the same reason as they are not saved in metadata. I use snapshots instead - which are actually much more useful for my workflow into Photoshop when using smart objects. But no indication of Snaphots being present in Library or in Br is a tad annoying as they are hidden.

In many ways it's easier and less complicated to not have to worry about catalogues when moving and re-arranging files.

[Butch_M]

I don't use the auto write to metadata setting either .... but I do write it out manually ... after a work session in a folder of images, I select all the images in that folder and save the metadata before leaving the folder .... if I forget to do this I will select all images and save metadata while working on something else ....

On slower systems, the performance hit from auto write can be significant. Just have to be responsible and remember to update your XMP ....

[imajez]

Butch_M wrote:

On slower systems, the performance hit from auto write can be significant. Just have to be responsible and remember to update your XMP ....

Which is very easy to forget! Plus if you have issues mid session, you're stuffed. I'd take a bit slower over time wasted having to redo work, if you can even remember what you did in first place.

[Butch_M]

It's a matter of training .... like much of what we do ... you teach yourself to work in a fashion that is appropriate for the task at hand and our individual needs and expectations ...

Catastrophe of any kind can hit without warning ... using a keyboard shortcut for "Select All" and "Write metadata to file" before leaving a folder is a small price to pay for the increase in performance ...

No different than your lack of appreciation for Virtual copies ... to some folks they are quite important ....

Taking your time is quite a luxury for some ... for me, performance is of greater importance because much of my work is deadline based for publication that is measured in minutes quite often to meet my obligations to my clients. A pair of keyboard shortcuts at the end of a session is a small price to pay and has been a part of my workflow since the introduction of LR ... without issue ....

No method is perfect or completely failsafe ... we all choose our own path and find a way that fits our own criteria ...

[imajez]

Butch_M wrote:

Catastrophe of any kind can hit without warning ... using a keyboard shortcut for "Select All" and "Write metadata to file" before leaving a folder is a small price to pay for the increase in performance ...

And if things go wrong mid session [happened to me on several occasions], then you cannot save your work. And it's way too easy to forget to do so, particularly under pressure, when tired or if interrupted.

No different than your lack of appreciation for Virtual copies ... to some folks they are quite important ....

I do not lack appreciation for VCs. I just won't use them again until I can save them in metadata, just I can with snapshots. I lost a lot of VCs when a catalogue went squiffy and back ups can only be done so often, without eating into your time.

Taking your time is quite a luxury for some ... for me, performance is of greater importance because much of my work is deadline based for publication that is measured in minutes quite often to meet my obligations to my clients. A pair of keyboard shortcuts at the end of a session is a small price to pay and has been a part of my workflow since the introduction of LR ... without issue ....

Who said I like to take my time? I often have to work under time constraints and I am not keen on sluggish software either.

No method is perfect or completely failsafe ... we all choose our own path and find a way that fits our own criteria ...

And yet I've found saving to XMP saves time overall. Compared to time lost through not doing so.