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

[andreas603]

TK- here here!  I'm clapping if you can't already hear me......  Bottomline for me after sitting on sideline for past 2 weeks testing (dare I say working) on 4.1 and I must be honest..its better than the RC but still not fast enough for professional use as a tool.  I process about 1500-2500 shots in one session and I NEED SPEED... 3.6 gave it to me (except tethering) now 4.1 gives me a few more bells and no whistles (and still crappy tethering) but I can't go back to 3.6 because sadly I bought a new camera (5D MIII)- shame on me and of course Adobe won't update ACR for 3.6 so I'm stuck and still very very pissed off.   Not gonna say much else at this point that hasn't already been said..just add me to the list of *professionals* that this product isn't working for.

[steve@steveanchell.com]

The problem, as I see it after following this and two other forums today, is that after 6 months of LR 4 Adobe is ignoring the problem. There is not a single user of LR 4 who does not meet the minimum requirements to run PS or LR on their laptops. If there is, they are more than likely a dilatant who is not practicing photography seriously.

By this time Adobe knows there is a problem. I see nothing from Adobe on this or the other two Adobe sponsored forums addressing the issue. On the 3 forums, I have had one response from someone I am "assuming" was from Adobe, John Verne. His solution was for me to list my computer specs and then visit this forum for answers, as if everyone on this forum hasn't already listed specs for incredibly powerful computers that aren't working with LR 4.

Has anybody considered why Adobe has not listed the minimum specs to run LR 4? Then those who don't meet the minimum would at least know the source of their problem, and Adobe could stop using this as an excuse. Or have they listed them and I missed that post?

It is true that not everyone is experiencing this problem, and those who do not should be thankful and understanding to those of us who are. Listen, we're all in this together. If you find your LR 4 running satisfactorily that is a good thing. But someday should you run into a problem with LR 5, we'll try to be there for you - to do what we can to get Adobe to address the issue.

Please do not assume that because we have a problem with Adobe software that we are idiots who don't know how to plug in a computer.

Please do not assume that we are jr. high school students using a hand-me-down Texas Instrument computer with 512 MB of RAM. Most of us DO have a clue.

Really.

[Jdub55]

Steve, I just purchased the D800, and I also found that LR4 is not living up to my expectations and workflow. Also, do you or anyone else know if the ACR for the D800 is available. All I see in he calibration window, is Adobe Standard and some other basic items.

[Geoff the kiwi]

Yes, you canupdate to the latest ACR for CS5 or 6 for D800 compatibility. What shows in the Calibration panel is what there is for the D800 and recent Nikon cameras. What more were you expecting?

Jdub55 wrote:

Steve, I just purchased the D800, and I also found that LR4 is not living up to my expectations and workflow. Also, do you or anyone else know if the ACR for the D800 is available. All I see in he calibration window, is Adobe Standard and some other basic items.

[Geoff the kiwi]

Adobe (the Lightroom team) are aware of issues and are working to track and fix them. All information supplied here is monitored and is useful, thanks.

By the way, I work with Adobe not for Adobe.

[Jdub55]

What I expected it to read like the other ACR's in the past: ACR 4.what ever, Geoff! So there is not an ACR for the D800 or are the ones in there all raw converters? By the way sir, I really do not like sitting for literially for 20 minutes just for onr image to process between CS6/LR4, with minmal editing done...

[Geoff the kiwi]

I'm not sure what you ar saying here........ The ACR updater in the PS Help menu will get you the latest available for your version of PS. ACR versions compatible for the D800 are only for CS5 and 6.

Are you saying it takes 20 minutes for your computer to pass a D800 file between Lr and PS? Which OS are you using?

Jdub55 wrote:

What I expected it to read like the other ACR's in the past: ACR 4.what ever, Geoff! So there is not an ACR for the D800 or are the ones in there all raw converters? By the way sir, I really do not like sitting for literially for 20 minutes just for onr image to process between CS6/LR4, with minmal editing done...

[Jdub55]

Lion, there is an ACR that has been in Lr in the past. Yes 20 min, yes when I export it into CS6 and them saving it back into Lr4.

[Geoff the kiwi]

ACR is bulit in to Lightroom all versions, that is why Lightroom is updated regularly - to update ACR for new cameras as well as bug fixes, etc.

So the delay is when you "Edit In PS"?

Check that your CS6 is up to date too using the Updater in Help.

[Amdir]

I'm not sure if it will help the Adobe Lightroom team if I post my specs but I'll do it anyway.

I have the same issue on both my desktop and my laptop.

Desktop:
ASUS M4A78T-E motherboard

AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE 3.2 ghz
4 GB DDR3 1333 MHZ Kingston ValueRAM

Gigabyte Nvidia 560Ti (OC 900 mhz)

1TB SATA 7200RPM
120GB SSD Corsair Force 3

Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit

Laptop:
Sony Vaio VPCF22S1E

Intel® Core™ i7-2630QM 2.0 ghz (turbo 2.9)

8 GB DDR3 1333 MHZ

640GB Sata 7200 RPM

Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit

Both running at 1920x1080 resolution.

Best regards

[quenton8]

I would love to get my fingers on a PC (Windows) which has the VERY VERY slow problems.

I don't have the problems -- and I would like to get a feel for what is happening.

Unfortunately I live way up north (Toronto Ontario) in that area where it snows 13 months of the  year, and

no real people live except for me

There MUST be something different about the PC's that have the problem (MAC's too, but I don't know MAC's that well).

[gregkmeyer]

Based on my observations of this thread, the machines with the most trouble

have beefier specs. Mac pros with 8-16 cores, highend PCs with large

amounts of memory and multiple processors. There are some with troubles

that that have lower specs, but it seems the higher-end the machine, the

more likely you are to have a problem.

Personally, I have a quad core i5 iMac and a 3GHz Core 2 Quad running Win7

that both run like a champ.

It's got to be some processor scheduling issue on machines with large

numbers of processor cores.

This is a private communication sent from my mobile device. If you are not

the intended recipient, please delete this message from both your email and

your memory banks.

[jonathanb62284804]

I'm running Mac OS 10.6.8 on an Intel Zeon 2 x 2.8 Quad Core with 16Gb Ram.

I've followed every bit of advice I can find about optimising catalogues, fast HDDs, preview rendering etc etc etc.  My catalogue has around 8,000 CR2 RAW files.

LR4.1 runs like a snail on mogadon, with the develop module being the killer.

The lag between switching tools, showing results of a slider tweak etc is killing me - typically 4-7 seconds, irrespective of which tool I use.

Much as I love the new Raw engine, I'm going back to LR3 until Adobe get this turgid pile of doggy doos sorted out.

Who do I approach for a refund, as this software is patently not fit for purpose.

[Paul_Wright_Photography]

Accept it. Just about everyone who uses LR4 is justifiably cranky about the speed issues. We have all got our prime "bitch stories".

Rather than spending hours reading through almost 900 posts, is there a summary at any point on "work-around" strategies to help smooth the way until Adobe gets back from lunch and ships the fix-up.

FWIW I know I get incremental improvments running with DNG (with quickload) rather than Canon RAW files, I know that if I even try to use the brush I'll have to shut down and restart to undo the paralysis. Once it needed FIVE restarts to shake the cobwebs out. If I keep Import batches under 100 for some reason it runs faster. This is not ideal as most imports will be 300-500 files.

I've used LR since V1 and love it's functionality. Until the fix comes most jobs are running through 3.6.

LR4? What a waste of time and money.

PW

[Keith Reeder]

Paul Wright Photography wrote:

Accept it. Just about everyone who uses LR4 is justifiably cranky about the speed issues.

Unnsupportable hyperbole. The complaints are coming from a vocal minority.

Do you really think that what you're reading on here is the voice of all of the tens or hundreds of thousands - probably millions - of Lr owners?

[Paul_Wright_Photography]

Keith well that's nice that you have no issues with LR4. Lucky you. Do you actually use it for busy, high volume commercial work?

I don't think I've ever seen a 900 post thread on a single subject on any forum. Read a little more widely beyond this list and ask real photographers questions. LR4 has speed problems. Theorize all you like. It's real.

PW

[john beardsworth]

Remember, Paul, that most of this 900 post thread was before 4.1. There's still too large a minority who still have problems, but it is a small minority.

Does someone shooting 1600 images a day 4-5 days a week count as "busy, high volume commercial work"? One guy I work with hits those numbers and has experienced no problems at all. In other words, just don't extrapolate too much from your own experience or from the others who are (rightly) complaining.

[areohbee]

Paul Wright Photography wrote:

Accept it. Just about everyone who uses LR4 is justifiably cranky about the speed issues. We have all got our prime "***** stories".

...

LR4? What a waste of time and money.

Lr4.1/PV2012 ROCKS!!!

It pains me, that so many people are having problems, but I think readers should realize that although some people are having abnormal performance problems, other people *aren't*. I really have no idea what the ratio is, but I doubt anybody else on this forum knows either.

I'm sure Lr4.2 will solve some people's problems, and not others, just like 4.1 did (and 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, ...).

I have my complaints too, but they are for another thread. I mostly wish Adobe would have kept the price the same and put a little more into it, rather than dropping the price and having a leaner upgrade - oh well...

Develop sliders are nearly instantaneous for me - smooth like silk. And, since that's how I spend the bulk of my time in Lightroom, and since the quality of results is 2nd to none, I consider Lightroom 4 the best tool for raw photo development that the world has so far seen.

Long live Adobe (Photoshop) Lightroom.

Rob

[rpavich1234]

I realize that some people aren't...I wish I was one of them!

Of the cross section of people that I know that use LR 4,....unscientifically I'd say about 50% have problems so badly that they are in the "doesn't work for me" camp.

I don't know if my experience is typical...but there you go.

Also, I've been bouncing back and forth between 3.6 and 4.1...when i need to actually get something done I choose 3.6.

I exported a large file today using 3.6 and when I glanced up at the progress bar on the left side of the screen there was nothing there...I thought...wait! I just chose export...did something malfunction? (I'm used to seeing LR4's progress bar stay there for 20 to 30 seconds on a large raw file.

Nope...nothing was "wrong" it was just that LR3.6 had processed the file before I could even glance up at the progress bar. I've been so used to LR4 and sort of "mentally accepting" it's speed limitations that I plum forgot just how lightning fast LR3.6 was!

Staying with LR3.6 for now...though I must say...I LOVE LR4.1's lens CA correction control...it's a vast improvement over 3.6's.

[bob frost]

From: "rpavich1234

Staying with LR3.6 for now...though I must say...I LOVE LR4.1's lens CA

correction control...it's a vast improvement over 3.6's.

But it's all that new stuff that takes the extra processing time. No pain,

no gain!

Bob Frost

[areohbee]

bob frost wrote:

But it's all that new stuff that takes the extra processing time.

That, but also there are bugs causing abnormal performance...

[Geoff the kiwi]

If you don't have problems and have nothing constructive to offer those who do please just read on, the forest is geting rather dense here now.

[areohbee]

I think it's worthwhile to make sure readers understand that the majority of problem posters do not represent the majority of Lightroom users. There are readers who don't understand how forums are biased, and I wouldn't want them to get the wrong idea.

[rpavich1234]

You must mean MAY not represent the majority of Lightroom users...otherwise you must be psychic.

[areohbee]

Not psychic, but I am capable of deductive reasoning...