Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Anyone else notice that lightroom 4 is slow? Ligtroom 3 always ran fast on my system but Lightroom 4 seemlingly lags quite a bit.
My system is:
2.10 ghz Intel Core i3 Sandy Bridge
8 GB Ram
640 GB Hard Drive
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit
Message title was edited by: Brett N
It's now impossible to see the wood for the trees in this whopping 43-page long thread. Many of the original 4.0-4.2 performance issues have since been resolved, and it's impossible to figure out who is still having problems, and what they can try.
I've started a nice clean thread to continue this discussion for 4.3 and later. http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1117506 Thanks to Bob_Peters for the suggestion. I'm locking this one, otherwise it'll continue to get increasingly unweidly, but please f
...Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Just noticed that I was in the wrong place. Thanks for the heads-up. "Delete/Edit" option is not available for the post.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I have the problem with the second monitor and my video card is the Geforce GTX 560 Ti running the latest 296.10 drivers.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
try this; backup all the lightroom (v.3 and v.4) preferences file ("ligthroom 3 preferences.agprefs" or "ligthroom 4 preferences.agprefs"), then delete ALL the preferences files, let lightroom create new preferences file when it starts. O ya start lightroom 4 first, let lightroom 4 create fresh preferences file not imported from lightroom 3 preferences file.
Good luck
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Kiddid,
That preferences trick seems to work but don't you then lose all your catalogue info?
Tony
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
A C G wrote:
That preferences trick seems to work but don't you then lose all your catalogue info?
This post from Lightroom Forums may help:
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
nice one Jim, I have recreated my "Lightroom 4 Preferences.agprefs" and it is as good as gold now. Happy days!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
yes, but only took me minute to make my preferences as a like it, but adobe really needs to optimize the coding of lightroom 4.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Adobe has a good doc on optimizing LR here
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/400/kb400808.html
Things like upping the CR cache can make a big difference (up to 20gb or so if you can). LR4 can definitely run very fast.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Thanks, Brett, this was really helpful. I'm on a 4 year 24" iMac, and it was approaching unuseable for Lr4.
Read the article first, since your machine & mileage may vary.
Here's what I did:
- set preview size to 2048 for my 1920 screen.
- increased the ACR cache to 20 GB.
- turned off modules I'm not using, unchecked showing them in the contextual menu.
- switched everything to solo mode.
- closed Navigator & Histogram (when I'm not using them).
Faster, newer computers might only need the first 5. I also did:
- trying to minimize other apps open (including Safari, which can be a hog).
- eliminated started items I don't really need.
Finally, one I saw a couple of years ago. Do a G them minimize thumbnails so they all show, watch that the "..." in each image is done. Scroll through sections of thumbnails for a large folder.
This seems a lot better. Thanks again.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I would just like to add my voice to the growing audience of folks who find that Lightroom 4 is slow, I mean really slow. I haven't changed a thing on my hardware/OS configuration - Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q9300 with a 6MB L2 Cache running at 2.5 GHz, 8GB Memory, Nvidia GeForce GT220 (1GB) Graphics card, 1TB HD running under Win 7 Premium Home, 64 bit. How slow is it - well I would say things that were done almost instantaneously under LR3, now take a few seconds or more under LR4. It is slow to the point of being absolutely frustrating. I did not use the Beta version. I am using my "old" catalog that I imported. Not sure if that is an issue or not. As well, I am converting images to the "new" process as I go along, with new imports being done under the new, 2012, process.
If this is the best they can do, then I will go back to LR3 until they can make it move faster, but I guess I can't do that can I as I have imported my old catalog - lessons learned - I supposed I could always return to one of the backup versions as I do a backup every day - hmmmm. I am not really interested in work-arounds - shades of Microsoft???
WesternGuy
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
As well, I am converting images to the "new" process as I go along,
Don't convert groups of images to the new process in batch, especially if they already have edits done in previous process versions. The result is unpredictable and sometimes quite drastic. It has to be done one at a time.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
In following some of the instructions that I've seen people post, I have created 1 to 1 previews of the wedding I'm editing, upped the cache to 200gb, cleared out over 300gb of images on my main hard drive and now I'm back to working on these pictures and I honestly believe that LR4 is slower now than it was 2 hours ago. It's so unresponsive that when I select an image, it takes 3-5 seconds before it actually shows as the selected. If I try to move a slider, it hesitates and eventually moves after a few seconds, often times yielding various results because I want minor tweaks as I'm looking at the image but I can't get them. When trying to Sync the develop settings across a handful of images, you might as well forget it. You'd think I'm trying to render a Hollywood blockbuster on a laptop. I have a machine that is more than capable of running this software, which has all been detailed on a previous page.
When my clients demand the best from me and we get such a questionable upgrade from Adobe, it really makes things difficult.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
stationarymotionOKC wrote:
When my clients demand the best from me and we get such a questionable upgrade from Adobe, it really makes things difficult.
Right there with you -I've tried it all, and this update to Lightroom has been lackluster to say the least.
You're not alone.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I know Adobe is working on it, so I'm not trying to throw them totally under the bus. It just makes me wonder how much testing in different environments is done, it seems like the beta testing would have provided this same info that they're 99% there, but not quite .
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Really great words. It's hard to remember these thoughts when you're relying on Adobe to be consistent.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
OP said
Lightroom is slow... My system is:
2.10 ghz Intel Core i3 Sandy Bridge
8 GB Ram
640 GB Hard Drive
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit
Not to poke you with a stick, but that's honestly not a very robust system for something as demanding as Lightroom. Your performance would increase dramatically with a fast i7 processor, night and day
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Brett,
"Not to poke you with a stick, but that's honestly not a very robust system for something as demanding as Lightroom. Your performance would increase dramatically with a fast i7 processor, night and day"
My LR 3.6 works find on a 32bit Win 7 system with a mere 2gig of RAM. At times I have even had LR4 working perfectly on it from time to time. Snag is the software is not stable as we all are concluding.
It makes a mockery of a 60 UKP upgrade if one needs a new PC to run it on.
I well understand you folk with these PC's with enough chips to run Cape Kennedy but that's not what good software is about.
Tony
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I well understand you folk with these PC's with enough chips to run Cape Kennedy but that's not what good software is about.
Tony
MS Notepad is good software, so is Maya. One is free, tiny, and could run on a calculator processor, the other is huge, $3,500, and needs a powerhouse workstation for optimal perfromance. Not all software is the same.
Tony
My LR 3.6 works find on a 32bit Win 7 system with a mere 2gig of RAM.
There's no way in the world you can fairly expect LR to perform on a system with 2gb ram. I've seen LR 4 using 11gb of my ram all by itself, not to mention the operating system. This isn't 2005
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
There is something (or more likely somthingS) going on here ...
I have a quad-core 64-bit PC running windows-7 -- standard builtin intel graphics and 8Gb of memory.
That is NOT a powerhouse!!!
I have all modules loaded and have used all modules.
I have a 20,000+ catalog (and a 3 others around 5,000).
I converted all to LR4.
It runs just as fast as LR3.
So what is going on
So if I had a REALLY badly slow LR4, I would try a few things, wait patiently - remember this is a .0 release, and if my livelyhood depended on LR I would probably go back to LR3 for a short time.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Dennis...
You did not say what disk you are using... for LR
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
... You did not say what disk you are using... for LR
Sorry, thought my post was long enough
Actually I don't know the details. I buy from our office supplier and just say "configure me a Win7 PC".
So its physical drives, raided -- speed I don't know.
That is for my .lrcat and previews (on C:\).
My photos are on a USB-2 external 1TB drive -- this does NOT seem to slow things except on import
which I expect and don't care that much about -- I just go get a glass of scotch while I wait a bit
I have an LCD/LED-IPS monitor (24") which replaced my LCD-TN 22" -- that did not affect anything so far as I could tell
except cleaner colours and brightness.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
If it is a raid disk system... then you will get great response. It is
my belief, LR4 has increased the writing to disk ( or changed how and
when) and that has impacted the performance for even beefy systems with
average disk drives.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
This type of raid (2 drives mirrored) will not affect performance.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Simple raid (2 drives mirrored) will not improve performance at all -- no effect
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Dennis @ My photos are on a USB-2 external 1TB drive -- this does NOT seem to slow things except on import
This will slow you down if you have auto-save metdata to files enabled. Also on export, but I wouldn't imagine by much. Doesn't it also slow you down in the develop module since it references the original to create develop cr cache?
I would definitely move to usb3 or esata though, for something as critical as the primary storage of your photo files. Even esata is much, much faster than USB2 (about 3x faster on average in practical use, which is huge)