Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

[BCormier]

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

[areohbee]

rpavich1234 wrote:

...take responsibilty for MY problem?...

It was not my intent to place blame, nor to deflect it..., merely to suggest the possibility that you also can take action which may remedy the problem, until if/when Adobe remedies... Sorry for my wording...

[juw177]

LR3.6....greased freaking lightening?

Hah, yeah right. LR3.6 performance was pretty bad too.

No doubt Adobe's team is patching up memory leaks and looking for functions that are eating up resources. However, that is only a small part of it. The main issue is the underlying design which Adobe refuses to change.

The original idea of Lightroom is that it will be a cross between Bridge and Photoshop. I will speculate that this is the reason why the work flow is such a mess: Library module is a hacked up Bridge and Develop module is a hacked up PS. They are distinctly separate and the two cannot efficiently communicate, which causes lag.

For example let's take some common actions in every workflow of switching between Library to Develop module: This should be instantanous. The image has been loaded, you just want to access some static sliders. Why is there a 2 second lag? Will they fix it? Probably not.

[sparksdjs]

Tearing down your system to test an application s/w release is not a reasonable course of action.  And if Adobe did not see these issues in their labs or beta program then their testing approach is (to put it in polite terms) questionable.

[areohbee]

sparksdjs wrote:

Tearing down your system to test an application s/w release is not a reasonable course of action,

but may result in a solution to your problem, in the interim...

[sparksdjs]

Rob Cole wrote:

sparksdjs wrote:

Tearing down your system to test an application s/w release is not a reasonable course of action,

but may result in a solution to your problem, in the interim...

I should have stated it differently - instead of saying not a reasonable course of action I should have said not a viable course of action.  For many of us, our machine is multi-purpose and vital for activities other than just photo processing - in my case, I simply cannot afford either the personal time required to tear down and rebuild or the lost machine access time required to do it.  For now, my solution has to be to revert to 3.6 and wait for a fix from Adobe.

[areohbee]

sparksdjs wrote:

Rob Cole wrote: ...

...in my case, I simply cannot afford either the personal time required to tear down and rebuild or the lost machine access time required to do it.  For now, my solution has to be to revert to 3.6 and wait for a fix from Adobe.

That sounds like a very reasonable course of action to me. Hope this problem gets resolved soon... - cheers, R.

[sparksdjs]

Just a side - and useless - comparative note:  LR3.6 runs quite well on my Samsung 10" NF310 netbook with 2GB RAM and 1.5GHz dual-core Atom processor.  Never planned to use it there but I was surprised to see how well it worked - good enough for light travel use to process all of my RAW images on the road (no problem doing >900 on a recent trip).  Out of curiousity, I tried LR4-RC2 on it but it's impossible to use.

[Geoff the kiwi]

I may and I stress may have found something.

My MBP was running well with LR4 versions but today I was experiencing very frustrating slowdowns when keywording heavily and although I have Autowrite enabled I could see little HD activity when entering keywords. Twice I rebboted the Mac, Optimised the catalog. I then decided to save all files in a set of folders (11k files) - this ground the MBP to almost a halt and took around three hrs.

Anyway on rebooting for a second time I noticed (seen it before and ignored it) a warning that Start Up item ProTec6b couldn't be started as it had insufficient permissions. I decided to investigate this and came up with:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2561842?start=0&tstart=0

which states that this is a vendor anti-piracy app. "The Nalpeiron Protec6 software is installed in /Library/StartupItems/Protec6 folder. You can tell if the daemon software is running by typing ps ax | grep 'nalpeiron' in Terminal.app."

It seems that several app vendors use or have used this including onOne and Nik.

Looking in the StartupItems folder, there it was dated 2 years back!! I guess it came from onOne when I tried one of their apps back then and got migrated over to the new MBP this year.

Well I trashed it and now keywording has returned to normal with Auotwrite enabled.

Maybe someone else could see if removing this from their system helps, I suggest just moving the app folder to the desktop and rebooting to see incase you need to replace it in the StartupItems folder.

Fingers crossed..................

Who says we aren't looking and trying!!!!

[Guest]

Would this be under a different name/folder for Win users?

Geoff the kiwi wrote:

I may and I stress may have found something.

My MBP was running well with LR4 versions but today I was experiencing very frustrating slowdowns when keywording heavily and although I have Autowrite enabled I could see little HD activity when entering keywords. Twice I rebboted the Mac, Optimised the catalog. I then decided to save all files in a set of folders (11k files) - this ground the MBP to almost a halt and took around three hrs.

Anyway on rebooting for a second time I noticed (seen it before and ignored it) a warning that Start Up item ProTec6b couldn't be started as it had insufficient permissions. I decided to investigate this and came up with:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2561842?start=0&tstart=0

which states that this is a vendor anti-piracy app. "The Nalpeiron Protec6 software is installed in /Library/StartupItems/Protec6 folder. You can tell if the daemon software is running by typing ps ax | grep 'nalpeiron' in Terminal.app."

It seems that several app vendors use or have used this including onOne and Nik.

Looking in the StartupItems folder, there it was dated 2 years back!! I guess it came from onOne when I tried one of their apps back then and got migrated over to the new MBP this year.

Well I trashed it and now keywording has returned to normal with Auotwrite enabled.

Maybe someone else could see if removing this from their system helps, I suggest just moving the app folder to the desktop and rebooting to see incase you need to replace it in the StartupItems folder.

Fingers crossed..................

Who says we aren't looking and trying!!!!

[bob frost]

To those who are still having problems with LR4, I would only say again, that the solutions I found are still working - LR4 lon my computer does NOT have the problems that some of you are so irate about. So what did I do?

I upgraded my catalog from LR3 to LR4 and had all sorts of strange problems, so I deleted my previews folder (all the previews plus the previews.db and rootpixels.db - this is on Windows. Macs have a different folder/file for previews). I also cleared the acr cache to that was empty. Then I went in to Library/previews and with All Photographs selected at the top of the LH panel, I told it to Build All Standard previews. When that was done I told it to Build All 1:1 previews. Building all those previews also populates the acr cache with new xxx.dat files.

That solved most of the problems, and it has worked for others on this list. But there were still one or two strange things happening, so I repeated this again after Exporting my upgraded catalog to a new catalog (without previews). That clears out any rubbish left over from the LR3 catalog that might be upsetting LR4. After creating all the new previews again with the new exported catalog, and recreating the acr cache again, everything was fine, no problems at all.

So please try it. If it doesn't work for you, then let me know, but don't keep on complaining if you haven't tried it.

To complete the clearout of old stuff, you might also trash your prefs file. Make sure you trash any old LR3 prefes files as well, since LR4 may try and use your old prefs file if it can't find your current one. So make it produce a completely new one and reset your prefs in the new one.

Why is this necessary, some may ask? Well, as I said above, some LR3 stuff left over in the catalog can upset LR4. And if you have had any crashes with LR, the previews, previews database, andr cache can get corrupted and be out of sync with the catalog, thus slowing down the whole process of getting the right previews when scrolling through them.

So,

1   Trash your prefs

2   Clear your acr cache. Make sure it is big enough to hold 1:1 data files for all your raw files. 50K of raw images needs about 30GB of ACR cache.

3   Export your upgraded catalog to a new one.

4   Delete your previews folder and create all new standard and 1:1 previews.

5   Use the latest version of LR4 - 4.1RC2 or 4.1 when released (soon I expect).

Bob Frost

[A_C_G]

Thanks (Dr) Bob,

It would help me, and maybe others, if you had the time to list the locations of some of these files. For example I am not sure where the 'prefs' get stored on the hard drive - and whether there will be ones for LR3 and LR4 in different places.

I ask as I found that using the 'clear' instructions within LR did not always remove things in their totality.

I'm out this morning but keen to follow your suggestions asap.

Tony

[areohbee]

A C G wrote:

It would help me, and maybe others, if you had the time to list the locations of some of these files

Lightroom support file locations:

http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/preference-file-locations-lightroom-4.html

R

[rpavich1234]

Tried it...didn't help.

[SistersCountry]

rpavich said:

"Tried it...didn't help."

And what in the world would " it " be...????

[plettza]

I had problems as soon as I upgraded to Lightroom 4 on my older PC.

I upgraded my PC - new motherboard, CPU, RAM, SSD drive and did a completely fresh installation of Windows 7 (64-bit).  I then installed Lightroom 4 as one of the first applications (after pretty much all the drivers and Windows Updates).  I did not installed Lightroom 3.6.

I then created a brand-new catalog and imported photos (previously-created DNGs) from my HDD.  After editing for sometime, Lightroom slows to a crawl. The spot removal tool takes about 1 minute to work.  Adjustment sliders will move but the result takes about 40 seconds of so to build on the image.  Even switching modules will take 15 seconds or so... and this is a new machine with an I7-3820 on an X78 chipset with 16GB and a 256GB SSD (with something like 550MB/sec read and similar write speeds).

I'm seriously frustrated as it will be quite difficult to go back to Lightroom 3.6 and I have plenty of images I need to edit.

[DNJphoto]

Im getting tired of this conversation..

Lets just cut the crap and I got a true story to tell..

- Adobe don't give a flying hoot if you have a issue. They have your flippin money if you haven't already realised.
- Adobe further don't give a flying hoot otherwise why the flip would they still SELL and RECOMEND the product to unsuspecting people.
- Increasing your cache will help but only to a certain degree.
- Adobe have "no comment" in regards to their customer service and this program. Which comes directly from managment itself on a recorded phone call I had with them. ( Yes I got their permision to do so )
- Adobe ONLY care about your money.. Dead straight folks. They really couldn't care if you vanished into a puff of smoke tommorow. This is spoken from their "actions".
- Adobe have little to "no" intention in fixing the issues. Blah why would they; they have your money! Do you really think they are going to help you, you got to be kidding. This latest revamp of this forum is just a little insight into their brutal mentality.
- Adobe CANNOT following their Software license agreement when it is put to them. Yes I have this under a recorded phone call with permision as well.

<< profanity removed >>

Now after this reply I'm sure were going to have a bunch of people who will try and find a way to make the program work to their level of satisifaction. Thing is the likely hood of this is SLIM.

If your a pre Version balls up version 4 of Lightroom user I think you are better of with Version 3.6 if your having issues.
If your a new Lightroom user, just forget using version 4. Go elsewhere. There are other companys out there that have something Adobe DON'T... Know what that is?? CUSTOMER SERVICE AND RESPECT.

Adobe only exists because of it's customers as is 99% of bussiness. Loose your customers and your back on the street begging or social security hand outs etc etc. People need to stop dealing with second best, form a class action and shove it up Adobe. I bet if 50,000 pissed Lightroom 4 users belted down Adobes head office doors; there would be little any security or police service would be able to do. It would certainly put the stick up Adobe. Just the thing Adobe needs right now.

[Geoff the kiwi]

Glad you've got that out of your system - you only get what you give mate!!

[Guest]

Geoff the kiwi wrote:

Glad you've got that out of your system - you only get what you give mate!!

So, what you are saying is that i should have paid *more* so I could get a working software?

I think DNJPhoto is upset and frustrated. I am as well. I have a couple of observations to add, and unfortunately, they do point into the direction of the image DNJPhoto is painting here:

1. Giving Adobe the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that indeed they were totally unaware of these LR problems so they released a product they thought was perfectly functioning, assuming all that, then "why oh why" After many threads, after perfectly knowing LR4 is bugged and works, actually, doesn't work with a large enough pool of users, then, again, "Why oh why!?" Isn't on Adobe's LR4 page a note saying that it might not work on your system and that they do not know why that might be happening?
2. I do see that Adobe is putting out big bucks on marketing, so, they realized they would make more money "selling" the product than actually "making" the product
3. The release of Master Collection CS5.5 Where some products had a small update and others where exactly the same as CS5

I stand behind the observation that they simply released LR4 when it was not ready. A prove of this are not only the major bugs found initially or the performance problems we are experiencing here. Having LR4 telling you that you need a version of ACR (when exporting to PS) that didn't even existed back then... hmmm....

Here, couple of things that make me really doubt Adobe was not aware of these performance problems:

• Bugged dialogue requiring a version of ACR that didn't exist
• Poor compatibility with PS CS5 (images saved in PS after will have noticeable change in contrast and brightness)
• Many of the bugs present, including the one where the Curves adjustments where lost

Those things make me think Adobe released something in a hurry and without proper inspection. Now with them promising major updates to PS every year, well... I am skeptic on the QC there.

This is my view of the situation given the known facts and current state of matters.

I encourage other users to leave a review on LR main page and help in this way, *innocent victims*.

Oh, well... Back to work (which these days feel like slavery to be honest, thanks for that Adobe!)

p.s. About the latest's suggestions on things that might improve LR4, well, I don't have a Protec6 folder, and I have tried everything else with no improvement whatsoever...

[Lee_Jay]

uphotography wrote:

Having LR4 telling you that you need a version of ACR (when exporting to PS) that didn't even existed back then... hmmm....

That was a typo, and the engineer responsible came here and appologized.

[Guest]

Lee Jay wrote:

uphotography wrote:

Having LR4 telling you that you need a version of ACR (when exporting to PS) that didn't even existed back then... hmmm....

That was a typo, and the engineer responsible came here and appologized.

Exactly. My point is that it was released in a hurry, hence not carefully tested/examined. If they made a typo there (a simple dialogue with no other implication than leaving us wondering when ACR 7 was gonna be released), I wonder how many other "typos" strictly in code where made and not found. Like maybe a > instead of a <, I mean... it just makes me wonder, that's all.

[Lee_Jay]

uphotography wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

uphotography wrote:

Having LR4 telling you that you need a version of ACR (when exporting to PS) that didn't even existed back then... hmmm....

That was a typo, and the engineer responsible came here and appologized.

Exactly. My point is that it was released in a hurry, hence not carefully tested/examined. If they made a typo there (a simple dialogue with no other implication than leaving us wondering when ACR 7 was gonna be released), I wonder how many other "typos" strictly in code where made and not found. Like maybe a > instead of a <, I mean... it just makes me wonder, that's all.

There are hundreds of dialogs and menus and dozens of languages supported.  One text typo slipped through.

Everyone thinks they know what's going on, and they don't.

Was this software released in a hurry?  Of course it was - it's non-human-safety consumer software.  Software that's done carefully (such as that which controls airliners, spacecraft or medical devices) takes 100 to 1000 times as many labor hours and costs 100 to 1000 times as much.  If LR were completely bug free and also 100 to 1000 times as costly, would you purchase it?

[hamish niven]

Lee

Laws of returns -

how many 787 planes fly?

How many lightroom users?

Probably 100's to 10,000's more LR users, so properly coded and bug free software for the mass market should be viable.

So your justification is flawed

[Lee_Jay]

hamish niven wrote:

Lee

Laws of returns -

how many 787 planes fly?

How many lightroom users?

Probably 100's to 10,000's more LR users, so properly coded and bug free software for the mass market should be viable.

So your justification is flawed

You don't know what you are talking about.  The pace of software development for the mass market is dozens to hundreds of times faster as well, and it has to be to meet the demands of customers.

The Shuttle software was 420,000 lines and was maintained and slowly developed one feature at a time over 4 decades by a staff of more than 200 people.  LR is over a million lines and is developed many features at a time over a period of a few years by a staff of a few dozen (total - including QE, marketing and management).  The former has to be essentially bug-free and that's why it's developed the way it is (slowly by a huge staff).  The later cannot be bug-free given the orders of magnitude of reduced time and resources combined with the increased complexity.

All consumer software has a large bug list.  The processor in your computer has a huge team developing it and I assure you it has a long errata list as well.  This is the nature of complex rapidly-developed consumer equipment and software.

[sparksdjs]

As a 30+ year developer and architect of safety- and/or mission-critical s/w, I agree that there is a world of difference between the the development processes/strategies/tempo, etc.  However, I would differentiate between bug-free s/w (near impossible) and unusable s/w, which LR4 currently is for a number of users.

[Guest]

Lee Jay wrote:

hamish niven wrote:

Lee

Laws of returns -

how many 787 planes fly?

How many lightroom users?

Probably 100's to 10,000's more LR users, so properly coded and bug free software for the mass market should be viable.

So your justification is flawed

You don't know what you are talking about.  The pace of software development for the mass market is dozens to hundreds of times faster as well, and it has to be to meet the demands of customers.

The Shuttle software was 420,000 lines and was maintained and slowly developed one feature at a time over 4 decades by a staff of more than 200 people.  LR is over a million lines and is developed many features at a time over a period of a few years by a staff of a few dozen (total - including QE, marketing and management).  The former has to be essentially bug-free and that's why it's developed the way it is (slowly by a huge staff).  The later cannot be bug-free given the orders of magnitude of reduced time and resources combined with the increased complexity.

All consumer software has a large bug list.  The processor in your computer has a huge team developing it and I assure you it has a long errata list as well.  This is the nature of complex rapidly-developed consumer equipment and software.

This is a great moment for a LOL. For a start, mass software is not produced 100% from scratch. It is usually produced using libraries already programmed and available from others or from the same company. LR4 had from LR1 - LR3, don't tell me that suddenly they forgot how to program and produce this piece of ... The shuttle software has to be developed like that because there were no shuttles before and it needed to be developed practically from scratch. I mean... it is seriously laughable to even justify that this doesn't work the way it should. We are not talking about small bugs that usually happen, we are talking about major flaws on the software.

To claim that "ALL consumer software has a LARGE bug list" is a very bold statement that cannot hold its own anywhere. So, please, take a minute or two and think about it, compare LR4 with ALL the consumer software and we can talk again to see if what we are seeing in LR4 is common or not.

And about comparing planes and stuff... well, does that mean that it is ok for a car maker to go easy on the design/testing of the cars? in the end it is for the masses right? I mean, give me a break. I could find so many examples of how your statement is, well..., wrong. These kind of things really make me upset, when people try to justify what simply has no excuse. This is the time to say. "We dropped the ball, this is the solution, I hope you guys move forward with us and we'll make our best to not let this happen again".

Instead we have silence and a group of Adobe fans that no matter what, will think eveyrthing is ok and everything is the way it should be.

@andreas603, the last time I tried to get people on the bug forum and explained that talking here is not an official way to report a bug, well, they asked me to leave this forum and go back to the other one.

So.... My guess is that logic is not a common thing around here or maybe we are all very full of ourselvelves