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

[thewhitedog]

@Jay S.: Apparently, then you are not using Photoshop automation. What application are you using for automation and what kinds of actions or processes are you automating? That's the part that's not clear (to me). I've used Photoshop Actions with the Batch function in Photoshop. But to use Photoshop, you have to open the files *in* Photoshop.

[JayS_In_CT]

thewhitedog wrote:

@Jay S.: Apparently, then you are not using Photoshop automation. What application are you using for automation and what kinds of actions or processes are you automating? That's the part that's not clear (to me). I've used Photoshop Actions with the Batch function in Photoshop. But to use Photoshop, you have to open the files *in* Photoshop.

WhiteDog,

Either I'm not explaining it clearly or we're on a different page.  I am absolutely using Photoshop automation.  File -> Automate -> Batch.  I use it specify a particular action I want to run against an entire source folder of images and then have those images placed into a Target folder when complete.  It's a very useful mechanism when I have a large number of images that I've exported from LR where I want to do some final touchups such as adding some base level of USM (after converting to LAB and applying to Lightness layer), or final Noise Reduction, and perhaps resizing all of the images.  Granted, some of this, such as resizing, can be done in LR on the export, but I prefer to resize (at times) based on a percentage if I'm providing a large number of images or putting them online for viewing.

The issue I am having with LR 3.2RC is the extended time it takes to export to JPEG or TIFF, while DNGs (which still allows me to do anything I would do to a JPEG image in the above description) are much faster and I can still save them to the destination folder as a JPEG.  I just needed to use the "Suppress File Open Options Dialogs" checkbox to allow me to bypass the ACR panel that comes up when working on a DNG file.

Jay S.

[thewhitedog]

@Jay S.: I still think you are making it harder than it needs to be by exporting to DNG. Opening DNGs in Photoshop still flattens the image, as it does with RAW files, and renders the adjustments you made in Lightroom. If you opened the batch of images directly from Lightroom into Photoshop via the Edit in Photoshop contextual menu item, you would get the same result you have using Bridge to open the DNG versions you saved, but with a lot less effort and residual clutter. I get that your original question was how to bypass ACR, but your whole workflow is antiquated and more cumbersome than necessary. That's why I went to the trouble to explain the Edit issue in so much detail. Give it a try with a few images and see if it isn't easier than what you're doing now. Or not. I know how comfortable people's work habits can be and that they often resist changing them, even if it's for the better.

The way you're working now may have been necessary with Lightroom 1 and Photoshop CS3. They were not well integrated. But since Lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS4 they have been able to work hand in glove. However, you're not taking advantage of that improved workflow. That's OK. Nothing says you have to. But now at least you know it's possible, even if you'r not interested in trying it. I don't need you to "do it my way." I may be asking too much expecting you to even understand it. But it's out there; take it or leave is as you see fit.

[JayS_In_CT]

thewhitedog wrote:

@Jay S.: I still think you are making it harder than it needs to be by exporting to DNG. Opening DNGs in Photoshop still flattens the image, as it does with RAW files, and renders the adjustments you made in Lightroom. If you opened the batch of images directly from Lightroom into Photoshop via the Edit in Photoshop contextual menu item, you would get the same result you have using Bridge to open the DNG versions you saved, but with a lot less effort and residual clutter. I get that your original question was how to bypass ACR, but your whole workflow is antiquated and more cumbersome than necessary. That's why I went to the trouble to explain the Edit issue in so much detail. Give it a try with a few images and see if it isn't easier than what you're doing now. Or not. I know how comfortable people's work habits can be and that they often resist changing them, even if it's for the better.

The way you're working now may have been necessary with Lightroom 1 and Photoshop CS3. They were not well integrated. But since Lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS4 they have been able to work hand in glove. However, you're not taking advantage of that improved workflow. That's OK. Nothing says you have to. But now at least you know it's possible, even if you'r not interested in trying it. I don't need you to "do it my way." I may be asking too much expecting you to even understand it. But it's out there; take it or leave is as you see fit.

Whitedog..

I'm not sure where you picked up in anything that I wrote to imply I didn't care for your answer.  If anything I faulted myself for perhaps not explaining it clearly.  I understand your method.  Personally I don't think that opening several hundred raw 20mb images, in tab mode, and automating based on "open images" vs. a folder I create via export is necessarily more efficient.  Again, unless I'm missing something in your method..  Doing an "Edit in" after selecting the group of images opens each and every one I select (as you described your preference being Tab mode).  At that point, yes I can run my action against all those images, save them as JPEGs as a part of the action, and even do a close all.

I think the workflow you are describing would work well for a more limited number of images, but there is going to be a vary large load on the system to bring up several hundred edited RAW images in a CS Edit window(s).  I do realize I leave some things on the table by converting to DNG and I was  trying to solve a speed issue.  Perhaps opening several hundred images isn't as massive a load as I am thinking it may be, but I'd have to give it a try.  I just to clear the table about "not caring for your answer" or "not understanding" the workflow. Neither it true..  I just may differ in the view/opinion of both.

Jay S.

[thewhitedog]

@Jay S.: I must plead ignorance, then. I was unaware that you can run Photoshop actions on images without opening them. Now that I look more closely at the Automate>Batch dialog, I see that it appears to be so. That being the case, I would be interested in the settings you use in the Batch window. Not the Actions you use, but the Source and Destination folder settings.

And I beg your pardon for failing to grasp that aspect of your procedure. Is it the case, though, that for some reason you cannot run your batch process on the original adjusted RAW files rather than using DNG versions? You are saving the batch processed images to a separate location, with name and file format changes so there should be no danger of overwriting the RAW files. Working from the original files would save you both the space and time you entail in creating DNG versions. Unless it is also your purpose to archive the DNGs against the day when Photoshop or Lightroom can no longer handle the particular versions of RAW your camera(s) create(s). But that is another subject for another time.

[thewhitedog]

@Jay S.: P.S.: I don't think the workflow I recommended would be suitable for the numbers of images you are processing. If the actions you use work on a folder of unopened images, I don't see any advantage to opening them, especially all at once. I expect Photoshop would choke if you tried it. I've had no problem opening 20 or 30 images at a time, but hundreds would, I think, be asking too much, both of Photoshop and your computer. When I recommended it, I was unaware that you can work on unopened files - and that you were processing so many. The only reason to open them would be if you wanted to apply edits for which you have no action available, or for which actions are not suitable or possible. In that case, it would be feasible to run through groups of, say, two dozen at a time.

On another note, more germane to this forum topic, I've noticed that a lot of folks posting here with performance problems in Lightroom 3 are using laptop computers. Here, even more than with the average desktop, the quality and nature of the video card could be an issue. Many laptops use integrated graphics cards, which use system RAM rather than discreet memory on the card itself. Integrated graphics, on both Macs and Windows PCs, are notoriously less capable than a good video card with discreet memory. Inexpensive desktop computers may also rely on integrated graphics and may, as a result, also be expected to have performance issues with graphics intensive applications - like Photoshop and Lightroom. This occurred to me when I noticed people suggesting reducing the screen size of the Lightroom window, effectively reducing the size of the preview image. If this tactic improves Lightroom performance, it is likely, in my (now very humble) opinion, that the capability of your video card is at least in part responsible for the problems you are having with Lightroom. Someone even mentioned using Lightroom on a netbook. That, I would submit, is ludicrous. No netbook ever made meets even the minimum requirements for Lightroom. That I can say with confidence. Inexpensive computers have their place, but that place is not running Lightroom or Photoshop, let alone Lightroom *and* Photoshop at the same time - and probably not running a 64 bit version of Windows, either. I can't imagine why anyone would pay for Photoshop and/or Lightroom and then run them using a cheap monitor or laptop screen that cost less then the programs themselves. Both of these applications are, first and foremost, about color. And you cannot get good color on a low-end monitor or screen. But there I go getting arrogant again. Oh well. Quibble me that, if you like. 😉

[TK2142]

thewhitedog wrote:

I've noticed that a lot of folks posting here with performance problems in Lightroom 3 are using laptop computers. Here, even more than with the average desktop, the quality and nature of the video card could be an issue.

There are several reasons as to why this is not a hot trail:

• There are many performance problem reports from users with high-end systems.
• LR video card requirements are low. Its not a realtime 3D game.
• The systems you are referring to are running most parts of LR fine, it makes no sense the video card should make a difference for a few areas of the application, some of them having little or no relationship to video card usage.
• If the analysis of the problem were this easy, Adobe would not have struggled so long with it.

[thewhitedog]

@TK2142: I said the video card might be a *part* of the problem, not the whole enchilada. This was indicated by reports that reducing the screen size of the Lightroom window improved performance in some cases. If this is true, it is not unreasonable to assume there is a graphics rendering component to the problem. This could be due to other system resource issues as well, but it could also reflect on how Lightroom utilizes those resources, including graphics rendering functions provided by the video card.

You are correct that if the solution were simple Adobe would have worked it out by now. Given the obvious complexity of these issues, though, dismissing any one possible component is cavalier at best. I hope Adobe isn't as blind to the possibilities as your are.

[TK2142]

thewhitedog wrote:

If this is true, it is not unreasonable to assume there is a graphics rendering component to the problem.

How reasonable this is, is certainly debatable. I'd bet my bottom dollar that the abrupt change in performance caused by rather small differences in displayed image size (sometimes using the filmstrip or not can make all the difference) is not caused by a problem with shared memory video cards.

thewhitedog wrote:

I hope Adobe isn't as blind to the possibilities as your are.

Maybe another example of lack of judgement?

[JayS_In_CT]

thewhitedog wrote:

@Jay S.: P.S.: I don't think the workflow I recommended would be suitable for the numbers of images you are processing. If the actions you use work on a folder of unopened images, I don't see any advantage to opening them, especially all at once. I expect Photoshop would choke if you tried it. I've had no problem opening 20 or 30 images at a time, but hundreds would, I think, be asking too much, both of Photoshop and your computer. When I recommended it, I was unaware that you can work on unopened files - and that you were processing so many. The only reason to open them would be if you wanted to apply edits for which you have no action available, or for which actions are not suitable or possible. In that case, it would be feasible to run through groups of, say, two dozen at a time.

On another note, more germane to this forum topic, I've noticed that a lot of folks posting here with performance problems in Lightroom 3 are using laptop computers. Here, even more than with the average desktop, the quality and nature of the video card could be an issue. Many laptops use integrated graphics cards, which use system RAM rather than discreet memory on the card itself. Integrated graphics, on both Macs and Windows PCs, are notoriously less capable than a good video card with discreet memory. Inexpensive desktop computers may also rely on integrated graphics and may, as a result, also be expected to have performance issues with graphics intensive applications - like Photoshop and Lightroom. This occurred to me when I noticed people suggesting reducing the screen size of the Lightroom window, effectively reducing the size of the preview image. If this tactic improves Lightroom performance, it is likely, in my (now very humble) opinion, that the capability of your video card is at least in part responsible for the problems you are having with Lightroom. Someone even mentioned using Lightroom on a netbook. That, I would submit, is ludicrous. No netbook ever made meets even the minimum requirements for Lightroom. That I can say with confidence. Inexpensive computers have their place, but that place is not running Lightroom or Photoshop, let alone Lightroom *and* Photoshop at the same time - and probably not running a 64 bit version of Windows, either. I can't imagine why anyone would pay for Photoshop and/or Lightroom and then run them using a cheap monitor or laptop screen that cost less then the programs themselves. Both of these applications are, first and foremost, about color. And you cannot get good color on a low-end monitor or screen. But there I go getting arrogant again. Oh well. Quibble me that, if you like. 😉

Hello Whitedog,

Thanks for the replies.  To your first question about settings on Automate dialogs..  not a whole lot of magic to it.  For Source, I just choose the output folder coming from the LR export.. to bypass ACR on DNG files, I check the "Suppress File Open Options Dialog".  Under Destination, I check the "Override Action "Save As" Commands.  That allows me to save images to the folder I specify in Destination, regardless of what destination is in the "Save As" in the action.

To your second note... well, I'm saving my pennies for a Mac Pro, but in the interim, try to make the best of the Mac Book Pro.  There hasn't been an issue with the video processor in the past and current issue around screen size (where people are having to reduce the LR screen footprint) is more a bug than not.  Your point though isn't totally lost on the fact that there is no upgrade path for video on notebooks.  Again though, most all notebooks folks are throwing LR at should be able to handle.  I think you may be also doing a disservice to the qualtiy of some laptop displays.  The 17" Macbook Pro is an excellent display, and at home I run a dual monitor set up with a 24' Dell Ultra Sharp (1920x1200) alongside the 17 (1680x1050).  I can use both monitors as one big space, which is nice to have with lots of windows open (obvisously Macbook Pros are not alone in that capability as I think some advanced Windows notebooks can run dual displays).  With the Macbook Pro, I can also run (and change on the fly) separate color profiles, so in essence each display, the 17 and 24, are running their own calibrated profiles.

The one big downside, as you point out, is there is no ability to upgrade the onboard video.  Again though I think the greater performance issues affecting LR right now are not in that area, but in CPU utilization, file handling, memory, etc.

Jay S.

[thewhitedog]

@Jay S.: 15" and 17" MacBook Pros didn't use integrated graphics cards until recently, when Apple began including such a card for power conservation reasons. But they also include a discrete graphics card for more demanding situations, essentially offering the best of both worlds. So a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro should have no problem handling Lightroom 3. The 13" MacBook Pros, on the other hand, still rely on integrated graphics and thus offer somewhat less capable performance. How seriously this might affect Lightroom - if at all - I don't know. TK2142 seems determined to put me down for even suggesting the video card might play a part, but besides a pugnacious attitude he has nothing substantive to offer in rebuttal. Since the actual sources of Lightroom's performance problems have yet to be explained publicly, I find it hard to understand why he is so dismissive of my suggestion.

[areohbee]

I think, when different video cards or different Lightroom app-window sizes make big differences, its due to the driver (or Lightroom's interaction with the driver), not the card proper - unless its a really poorly designed card.

Lightroom is a 2D app that does not use hardware accelerated graphics. I think this is why high-end cards don't help much: they're all about 3D/gaming. I mean, yes - its possible to have an underpowered card, but probably not anything purchased in the last few years, whether on-board or off - unless it was really a rock-bottom system.

Either that or I'm wrong...

Rob

[JayS_In_CT]

thewhitedog wrote:

@Jay S.: 15" and 17" MacBook Pros didn't use integrated graphics cards until recently, when Apple began including such a card for power conservation reasons. But they also include a discrete graphics card for more demanding situations, essentially offering the best of both worlds. So a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro should have no problem handling Lightroom 3. The 13" MacBook Pros, on the other hand, still rely on integrated graphics and thus offer somewhat less capable performance. How seriously this might affect Lightroom - if at all - I don't know. TK2142 seems determined to put me down for even suggesting the video card might play a part, but besides a pugnacious attitude he has nothing substantive to offer in rebuttal. Since the actual sources of Lightroom's performance problems have yet to be explained publicly, I find it hard to understand why he is so dismissive of my suggestion.

I have a Macbook Pro 2.1 not one of the newer models. ATI X1600 video.  It has been very capbable of doing Hi Def 1080 video, Final Cut Studio, etc.  but again, I know there are limits.  I didn't see any of those reached in 2.7 or the beta.  In fact most apparent screen rendering functions on my machine are excellent with the exception of the really "funky" problem where when edting in "fit" mode, the image gets stuck in a partially rendered state, as I described above.  As for the rest of the post, I'm certainly not in a position to comment.

Jay S.

[Mikkasa]

It's a well-documented fact that Lightroom is not video hardware accelerated, ie won't *in itself* stress out even the most modest (reasonably modern) graphics card. Two factors do tend, however, to conspire against less-capable GPUs and *apparently* affect LR performance.

First, they're usually in less-capable computers. Secondly, they're often in laptops, sometimes integrated into the mortherboard. Add to that the fact that photographers with laptops running LR tend to use second monitors, which immediately divides their GPU grunt between the main and aux displays, and you can see why the card stresses out much quicker, apparently due to LR demands.

I made the first point not to be facetious, but to point out that a 15" Macbook will outperform a 13" one not because it has an inferior graphics card – it's true, but it's not the issue. The 15" will be a better LR tool but that will be entirely down to its superior i5 processor. It's a whimsical point, sure, but one often overlooked, especially among those with laptops running 2nd monitors...

LR's card-addressing bugs are a nuisance and may have inflated the importance of GPU in this whole 'slow' debacle. I still fully expect gutsy performance of a future (relatively) bug-free LR to depend on what it always did: unfettered CPU- and RAM-driven access to optimised data on a fast internal drive running a clean OS.

[areohbee]

Mikkasa wrote:

... a 15" Macbook will outperform a 13" one not because it has an inferior graphics card – it's true, but it's not the issue. The 15" will be a better LR tool but that will be entirely down to its superior i5 processor...

Assuming correlation is causation is a common thinking error.

EDIT: TK understood correctly - this is an acknowlegement...

_R

[TK2142]

Mikkasa wrote:

First, they're usually in less-capable computers. Secondly, they're often in laptops, sometimes integrated into the mortherboard.

Mikkasa, I agree with you regarding video cards not being critical. And in general you are correct with your reasoning about performance of hardware. (EDIT: I think I first misunderstood Rob's comment as criticising you. I now understand it to support your statement.)

But let's remind ourselves that it wasn't a case of "Oh, we all need faster computers. Too bad, but let's get them and our problems are fixed". LR 3.0 ran slowly on some monster hardware and ran fine on some laptops.

I'm all for hypothesising as to what may cause LR performance problems, but let's consider the facts. What is the point of bringing up suggestions that obviously are in conflict with the evidence available?

[Mikkasa]

That kind of depends what the facts are, which suggestions you're referring to and what the evidence is.

[areohbee]

Where's the reset button?

[hamish niven]

There is so much speculation, commentary and words from the same voices here. Not much us going to change until Adobe either talk to us and say what they have found as the problem(s) or they just provide us with a working solution and Lightroom begins to work  properly for everyone.

Those with monster setups, those with meagre laptops, those with mac, vista, Windows 7, XP,  and those who don't have time to comment, rather just have to get on and use the software.

I can't understand how you guys have so much time to talk about LR. I appreciate some of the comments,but much is rhetoric and repeated or redundant info that is off topic or rather, slanting the topic and some are really not helping those who want to try understand the whole thread.

Unfortunately, we all need to hope Adobe has the rabbit in the hat and out will pop an amazing piece of magic and solve all our needs

[Guest]

hamish niven wrote:

There is so much speculation, commentary and words from the same voices here. Not much us going to change until Adobe either talk to us and say what they have found as the problem(s) or they just provide us with a working solution and Lightroom begins to work  properly for everyone.

Those with monster setups, those with meagre laptops, those with mac, vista, Windows 7, XP,  and those who don't have time to comment, rather just have to get on and use the software.

I can't understand how you guys have so much time to talk about LR. I appreciate some of the comments,but much is rhetoric and repeated or redundant info that is off topic or rather, slanting the topic and some are really not helping those who want to try understand the whole thread.

Unfortunately, we all need to hope Adobe has the rabbit in the hat and out will pop an amazing piece of magic and solve all our needs

Amen to this...

I just hope Adobe doesn't keep us waiting too long. Unfortunately I think this thread has become way to long to be really helpful to them - there is so much infighting and sniping they are probably ignoring anything else that's said on here.

For those who want to discuss/argue over what workflow works best, perhaps a new thread on that would prove helpful. Likewise for those who want to debate the effect (or non-effect) of video cards. Unless there is something useful (and new) on how to speed LR up it really isn't on point with the whole topic of this thread.

I read each response as it comes into my inbox, but there has ceased to be any new info useful on a user level. Adobe - when will you come update us here on what is happening?

[areohbee]

I think Adobe's next response to all this will be Lr3.2-Final.

But, I could be wrong.

_R

[hamish niven]

areohbee wrote:

I think Adobe's next response to all this will be Lr3.2-Final.

But, I could be wrong.

_R

Who knows

more like LR 3.3 if, as some people have suggested, LR 3.2 RC came out quickly.... (eeish I did not think it was quick) and there are issues with this RC, so 3.2-final is time away

[W.W. Webster]

areohbee wrote:

I think Adobe's next response to all this will be Lr3.2-Final.

But, I could be wrong.

How can that be the next response, given the significant and widespread performance issues in LR3.0 are clearly unresolved in LR3.2RC?

It's not apparent Adobe yet knows the cause(s) of these problems, or has identified the need for substantial reengineering which is being feverishly worked on with the limited resources we hear so much about.

IMHO, with the benefit of hindsight LR3.2RC cannot be considered to have been anywhere near true 'release candidate' status, any more than LR3.0b1 was a true beta.

As a committed user since LR1.0b1, I hope I'm wrong, but my intuition born of more than 40 years in the IT sector tells me we're a long, long way from LR3.2 'final' and that the next step can only be LR3.2RC2.

[areohbee]

Points well taken.

I was just trying to say that I think they are working on the software instead of mixing it up in the forum right now.

I can imagine a second release candidate too...

_R

[W.W. Webster]

areohbee wrote:

I was just trying to say that I think they are working on the software instead of mixing it up in the forum right now.

I think it's significant one of the most belligerent Adobe insider-fanboys was absent from these boards (from my observation) for quite a while post-LR3.0, and is somewhat more restrained in his limited appearances in recent days!

In the absence of any but the most tangential acknowledgement of problems from within Adobe, this behaviour speaks volumes for the fact that Adobe is in donkey-deep, and that a solution cannot be expected soon.  But all strength to their arms - we wish them well in their endeavours!