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

[MelissaJ.G.]

Not to mention every post on this thread comes into the email box of at

least 3 of us. We just (as I've said before) don't have any good "magic

bullet" solutions (code changes on our part, yes. Changes that users can

make to make it speedy - not so much).

-melissa

[areohbee]

Hi Melissa,

Thanks for the report / assurance.

I think one of the things that makes this so frustrating, for some of us anyway, is:

- Not knowing whether Adobe understands how widespread / pervasive some of the problems are, and whether they've got enough man/woman-power working on it.

- Not knowing if Adobe has been able to reproduce any or all of the problems that have been brought to light by users.

- Not knowing whether progress is being made.

- Not having any idea when 3.1 will be out, and whether it will fix their problem(s) once it is out.

- Not being able to provide detailed input in a structured fashion and see aggregated results.

PS - If I were y'all there at Adobe, I would not want to face this forum. Have you considered relinquishing the forum to the users, and set up a different form of communication for Adobe<-->Users that at least somewhat shields individual employees from individual forum members and individual post-responses..., but still allows a flow of information...?

.02,

Rob

[Guest]

Melissa:

Thanks for letting us know. I'm sure you're aware, buyt from a user standpoint there is a huge difference between every post going into a mailbox and knowing that something is being done with it.

I think what has a lot of us worried and a little more up in arms are comments from Dan that make it sound like there isn't a lot of priority or manpower on this. I know your sales department is still sending out emails promoting LR3 - I got another one today - so sales is still interested in making money from the product. From a user standpoint if there is time to be spent on this product it should be on getting at least a .1 update out to fix some of the known bugs.

It also would help if there was more of a presence on this forum (since it is so active) letting us know where Adobe is. The silence is killing us!

[getho]

I think theres also a perception problem - how slow is slow.  Its difficult for Adobe to know what is real slowness and what is unrealistic expectation.  I just read the DPRreview of LR3 and it talks about a performance GAIN from LR2.7.

For me the whole interface is awfully slow - and that is my main beef (because I can always go and do something else whilst picutres import and render).

Maybe we could standardise a bucnh of tests (so adobe engineers can have seomthing to work with)

Heres my suggestion and scores:

Screen size 2560x1440, LR maximised, FIT

7d (18MP) DNGs

Screen refresh: NO develop settings

moving exposure slider up and down: 3 per scond (30 in 10 seconds)

grad: rotating simple grad: 2 per second.

With lens correction on and ALL noise reduction sliders set to 50 there was no appreciable difference

Screen refresh: complex develop settings

With a profile that has tweaks in nearly every panel it drops to

moving exposure slider up and down: 2 per second

grad: rotating simple grad: 1.4 per second.

1:1 preview generation

NO develop settings: 2-3 seconds

Complex preset: 7-8 seconds

I'm happy to provide the preset

[DanTull]

I think what has a lot of us worried and a little more up in arms are comments from Dan...

Sigh. Ok. Let me try this again. The point I'm trying to make here is that the Lightroom team is a small one and that while these reports are important to us, they're not our only priority (there have been some important bugs other than performance ones and those take time, too) and our bandwidth is limited.

There are some internal fixes (and leads on a few more) that seem to match some of the symptoms described on this and other performance threads that I sincerely hope will resolve some of the issues raised, but I don't want to set expectations about when an update will be released and how many of the issues will be fully resolved.

DT

[Guest]

Dan, first let me start by saying thank you to your dedication to coming back and keeping us in the loop as much as you can.

I guess for me what's frustrating is to hear that you have a small team - a product roll out is not a small thing, and I'm curious how many Llightroom users there are out there. At some point it becomes an issue that people over you need to recognize is worthy of bringing in extra people if necessary to get it resolved.

It's pretty obvious (at least to those I've talked to) that this is not a small problem, but one that most LR users are affected by. I know that all of my friends who are using LR3 are not happy campers.

Thanks again for keeping us posted. I'm using Lightroom DAILY so it's a constant issue for me, and one I'm looking forward to getting resolved so I can move on with my production workflow and servicing my clients.

[teho59]

Dan,

If you have solved some problems or believe you have. Please give us a  3.01 or some beta-update we can test (for us that are willing to test it).

Maybe you have hit some weak spots in the code that could give us some better perfomance.

I have been in all sides of software business, development, support and as a customer. I know for sure when a situation like this occur there is a lot better to give out small incremental updates (for those willing to test) than letting customers sitting waiting and getting more frustrated for each day. A least feed us with some status on progress so we know something is happening.

I am willing to test, just give me a link and I will download and test my performance problems with it. Many users here have used hours of their time  trying to figure out something. I am sure many of them are willing to help too.

- Terje

[csaager]

I second Terje's suggestion, deliver early, deliver ofter - at least in beta

releases to see where you stand.

Some might be disappointed because as Melissa said, there are as well bugs

in Lr that will have been addressed with priority over performance

enhancements

-Carsten

[TK2142]

teho59 wrote:

Many users here have used hours of their time  trying to figure out something. I am sure many of them are willing to help too.

Involving the users with problems seems to be a good idea, unless the programmers have found a way to reproduce the performance issues. Have they?

Having watched the "Worldwide Photowalk" webcast in which Matt Kloskowski et al. (Matt is the real deal, isn't he ) demonstrated LR3 on their Macbooks, I noticed that it ran a lot faster than on my machine (which doesn't have performance issues with any other software). I'm pretty sure that L3 beta2 showed a more fluid application of the adjustment brush (Couldn't verify because the LR install had killed it without asking or informing me).

This will be of no news to anyone, but apparently LR3's performance varies a lot depending on the particular machine it's running on (and CPU power + RAM are not sufficient indicators). It would be great if the programmers had either obtained machines which make LR3 sluggish (but shouldn't, given their horsepower), or involved users who have such machines.

I simply refuse to believe that they would ever had shipped a product if they had seen the abysmal performance of the spot removal tool and/or adjustment brushes -- when you apply more than a trivial number of them -- on a machine that has sufficient horsepower to do this kind of stuff easily.

[Rmurrayphoto]

1,000's of photographers have paid 100's of dollars to have this "Professional" software in their workflow. Failure to perform is not acceptable! You are eating into the pocket books and reputations of 1,000's!!!

[chall3ng3r]

Hi,

I'd like to share some of my experience with LR3 poor performance and specific tools / parts which are slow compared with LR2.7.

• The overall grid view rendering. Even if I create all image previews, it still take a lot more time to fill the grid. It also do alot more HDD activity.
• Full image preview is also slow in redering, takes 5-10sec min (10MP canon raw) with 1:1 preview already built.
• Switching between Library and Develop module is very slow. Also, browsing through photos in Develop module take 2x-3x more time in redering the same image
• Import dialog is a total flop. It's exteremly slow, takes ages if I have 500+ images in my memory card, scrolling is slow as hell (LR2.7 is alot faster on same). Additionally, I can't easily select photos by date, like I was able to do in LR2.x. I must have to wait for LR3 to make thumbnails of all raw images, then select some of them to import.
• I use Adjustments Brush alot, mostly to fix bit of skin defects in people's photographs. During the beta of LR3, beta2 performed really well, almost compareable to LR2.6/2.7 for ajustments brush, but in final release, it's worse. The CPU goes 100%, mouse hangs when drawing mask, it's not acceptable when someone has already used LR2.7.
  

My system specs:

AMD x64 X2 2.3GHz

Nvidia GeForce 8600GT 256MB

4GB RAM 800MHz

500GB WD Caviar Black (72rpm + 32mb cache)

I am very disappointed in the final release, and I wish I never converted my LR2.7 catalogs. But now there's no way I can get my catalogs back to 2.7, as I removed them. All I can hope for is wait when Adobe's guy release an update which atleast fix the Adjustments Brush and Import performance.

Adobe, please release an update as soon as possible, and don't wait to fix everything in one update. You can fix them gradually, 3.1, 3.2 etc. but act fast. Thanks!

// chall3ng3r //

[Agnus1]

Thank you for posting the link Jay. I have filed a report. I am glad that I don't have the slow rendering on import etc. that many users are having. But using the adjustment brushes or spot healing tool kills Lightroom 3.0. I am so tired of having to use task manager to close the program. When I open again, most often the same routine will meet me. It is so frustrating!

I have been trying to wait patiently for an update. I must admit, coming back and visiting this forum doesn't give me much hope. No wonder so many people love to hate Adobe. I am so sorry I've been struggling months now trying to use 3.0 and that I paid the $100.00 to "upgrade". Bleh. I could go on, but I don't see the point.

Again, thank you for the link Jay. I didn't intend for this post to be a worthless rant post. I am sorry, I am very frustrated.

[DanTull]

Hmm. I'll have to try that combination. Thanks for the details.

DT

[goodlux7]

Is this a 27inch iMac? Not sure that it matters, but LR was very slow on my

imac 27in/i7.

[rlv52]

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

[JimHess-DIrcbP]

Wait for 3.1 and hope.  A lot of others are asking the same question.

[rlv52]

Well I for one am really pissed.  How on earth can Adobe do a major new release that performs so poorly???

[Guest]

rlv52 wrote:

Well I for one am really pissed.  How on earth can Adobe do a major new release that performs so poorly???

Simply, because in the majority of the cases - such as mine - it performs well and even better than Lightroom 2.x . (Lumix G system 12 mpx).

Kind regards

Thomas

[Keith Reeder]

tgutgu wrote:

Simply, because in the majority of the cases - such as mine - it performs well and even better than Lightroom 2.x . (Lumix G system 12 mpx).

Kind regards

Thomas

Same here, Thomas - and with Canon 7D files, too.

My computer isn't a particularly impressive box either, compared with some - Intel Q8300 2.5 GHz Quad Core, 6 gb RAM, Win 7 64 bit, ATI Radeon HD 5450 1 gb GPU - yet Lr 3 is fast, robust and a pleasure to use.

In fact to put it into context, it's significantly faster and more reliable (and produces far better conversions) than supposedly fastest converter Bibble 5...

[Guest]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

tgutgu wrote:

Simply, because in the majority of the cases - such as mine - it performs well and even better than Lightroom 2.x . (Lumix G system 12 mpx).

Kind regards

Thomas

Same here, Thomas - and with Canon 7D files, too.

My computer isn't a particularly impressive box either, compared with some - Intel Q8300 2.5 GHz Quad Core, 6 gb RAM, Win 7 64 bit, ATI Radeon HD 5450 1 gb GPU - yet Lr 3 is fast, robust and a pleasure to use.

In fact to put it into context, it's significantly faster and more reliable (and produces far better conversions) than supposedly fastest converter Bibble 5...

Yes, I abandoned Bibble 5 for the time being, because of some color issues and the overall better interface of Lightroom. However, if Bibble Labs would work on the interface and improves the raw conversion, it could still be a valuable alternative. I'll observe the development at Bibble 5 and will give it a try every now and then.

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Thomas,

I only mention Bibble because of its self-proclaimed "fastest converter out there" positioning, in order to emphasise and support your point that whatever's going on with Lr 3 for some with regard to speed, it is certainly not an across-the-board problem; and that for some of us Adobe has clearly done a very good job.

And I say this as someone who is as far-removed from being an Adobe Fanboy or apologist as it's possible to get - Lr 3 is the very first Adobe product ever that I've chosen to use over alternatives from other providers because - frankly - I've always hated the IQ of conversions from earlier versions of Lr and from ACR regardless of camera, and especially where my 7D is concerned.

[fwampler]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

Hi Thomas,

I only mention Bibble because of its self-proclaimed "fastest converter out there" positioning, in order to emphasise and support your point that whatever's going on with Lr 3 for some with regard to speed, it is certainly not an across-the-board problem; and that for some of us Adobe has clearly done a very good job.

And I say this as someone who is as far-removed from being an Adobe Fanboy or apologist as it's possible to get - Lr 3 is the very first Adobe product ever that I've chosen to use over alternatives from other providers because - frankly - I've always hated the IQ of conversions from earlier versions of Lr and from ACR regardless of camera, and especially where my 7D is concerned.

I agree with your last paragraph which expresses my views exactly. I have a medium speced machine. LR3 runs about as fast on it as the previous versions did. I've pretty much replaced my beloved (for IQ) DPP with LR3.

[JayS_In_CT]

tgutgu wrote:

rlv52 wrote:

Well I for one am really pissed.  How on earth can Adobe do a major new release that performs so poorly???

Simply, because in the majority of the cases - such as mine - it performs well and even better than Lightroom 2.x . (Lumix G system 12 mpx).

Kind regards

Thomas

Thomas,

I think your assessment of the impact may be understated, not just from this thread, but the others being posted about 3.0.  I honestly believe that the minority of users this time are running as fine as you seem to be, and that the majority may be experiencing one of more of these symptoms.  You may be the beneficiary in that when Adobe releases an update that your system gets faster.

This is very similar to 2.0 in many ways, but different as well.  I don't remember the level of frustration in just trying to use the product reaching as high a pitch as quickly and with so many folks talking about refunds (and getting them), etc.  I agree we're at the .0 phase of this one, but 3.0 had a much more active beta it felt like.  It also had a beta which did not contain some of these same major issues.  Granted the 2010 Process wasn't fully implemented, but a lot of folks here would trade the production version of 3.0 back for the beta version if they could.  In fact there were a few posts to that affect.

That said, you're working fine.  Perhaps it is your hardware, perhaps it is how you've got storage set up or how you have your catalog working (did you convert 2.7, start a new one, etc.).  There can be information found from someone who is working fine just as much as someone who is flailing. So (an you may have posted this) what's your setup, how is the catalog structure set, we know the camera from the above, do you have external storage, how much memory?

And from your other post, I don't know that we can presume to even guess how Adobe is prioritizing LR's issues, they did, after all, release two major products in a short period of time, LR 3 and CS 5 (and all its family).  Some of the LR 3 and CS 5 ACR issues may be in the mix, which forces the two teams to work together.  The truth is we just don't know.

Looking forward to knowing what you have there so that maybe I can go buy one!  🙂

Jay S.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

I have run LR3 on 4 different computers in 5 different configurations.  Only 1 of those configurations showed the type of

critically slow performance that some people are reporting in this thread (oddly, the highest-end machine).  Now, there are areas of LR3 that are, in my opinion, slower than they should be given the work being done behind the scenes but none of those are in the "unusable" category as is being reported here.  Incidentally, none of these configurations are high end, and 3 of the 5 are pretty darned low end by today's standards (state of the art 7 years ago).

[JayS_In_CT]

Lee Jay wrote:

I have run LR3 on 4 different computers in 5 different configurations.  Only 1 of those configurations showed the type of

critically slow performance that some people are reporting in this thread (oddly, the highest-end machine).  Now, there are areas of LR3 that are, in my opinion, slower than they should be given the work being done behind the scenes but none of those are in the "unusable" category as is being reported here.  Incidentally, none of these configurations are high end, and 3 of the 5 are pretty darned low end by today's standards (state of the art 7 years ago).

Lee Jay,

Don't disagree, and I'm in a similar camp.  I'm on an older Macbook Pro and LR3 is useable not as good as 2.7, but useable. Some is to be expected with some of the new technology (to a degree) and I've made a few changes here and there to workflow to accomodate. You're also right in that it seems a lot of this is hitting higher end newer machines.  My recent post though in the LR3 Slow Rendering thread shows some of the real quirks though.  Where folks who have the high resolution issue are making the LR3 window size smaller than 1920x1080, I found a workaround where the working image can actually be larger and you can still have full 1920x1080 resolution.  Some of that is what also indicates that there are either some real easy "that was stupid" kind of coding errors, or that some of these will take a while to ferret out.  The point of my post was to say that I believe the impacts are more extensive than not...  not to all users and not to all degrees, but as a base I think the levels of problems are higher and more widespread.

Jay S.