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

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Rob Cole wrote:

3. Wait for Lr4.2.

Rob

I am lazy and I am not on a deadline so wait I will.  I am also waiting for Capture NX3 and the second coming of Elvis, and I think I know which of these three will happen first (but hey, surprises do happen).

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

johnbeardy wrote:

All this modularity discussion is pretty irrelevant to this thread.

Just fixing a typo.  Did you notice that some users experience wait times of 25 seconds to change Modes?  And the best you could hope for is 4 seconds on a first attempt?

[areohbee]

Another Photographer wrote:

johnbeardy wrote:

All this modularity discussion is pretty irrelevant to this thread.

Just fixing a typo.  Did you notice that some users experience wait times of 25 seconds to change Modes?  And the best you could hope for is 4 seconds on a first attempt?

Right. That's how this somewhat tangential discussion about modules got started - what is normal time for switching modules.

Lightroom design is:

1. Do not load module until first use (after Lr restart).

2. Initialize some things only upon demand.

So, book module took longer to load the very first time, for me, than it does again after restarting Lightroom. I assume that's because a bunch of stuff got initialized upon the first use, that does not need to be reinintialized for reuse. But the module itself always needs to be reloaded after restart.

At the risk of stating the obvious, if Lightroom is not performing normally (e.g. not using all cores when it should...), it will take longer to load the book module.

To me, a few seconds to load new modules after Lr restart, is just fine, since subsequent access is instantaneous, but if it's taking inordinately long, I'd take it as a warning sign...

Rob

[bob frost]

Have those of you with problems seen this new post from an Adobe employee on

the other LR forum:

<http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/do_not_upgrade_to_lr4_until_speed_issues_are_resolved?do=reply&utm_content=reply_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=reply_notification&what=reply_9490684#reply_9490684>

Bob Frost

[Sacha_]

Already been there and done that. For a short moment it made a difference (a bit faster) but after some hours working in LR speed is like it was before. So no solution.

Usually LR4.1 gets slower and slower during usage. Even closing and reopening LR doesn't help. One of the painful operations is the spot removal tool which on my machine usually takes one to two seconds after clicking the mouse to get placed. Interestingly sometimes it really FLIES, means it reacts instantly without any delay. Strange.

I'll have to try the affinity-trick for e longer period and see how much this solves my problems.

[BeerStalker]

It's good to know they've acknowledge the problem but to say after all this time they have no idea what causes it just beggars belief.

I also want to call out this "corrupt preferences" nonsense. It's just a plain text file so a) corruption should be clearly visible and the support staff should ask for a copy to verify this and b) LR should catch and report any syntax errors caused by corruption.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Sacha, have you tried this yet? http://forums.adobe.com/message/4366597#4366597

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

I think I found a solution that would work for me:

(1) Provide support for Nikon D800, Nikon D4 and latest Canon cameras in LR3.

(2) Refund LR4 upgrade price for people who have problems with LR4.

(3) In the meantime, Adobe, take your time do all of the required testing to iron out the issues with LR4.

Sounds fair, doesn't it?

[areohbee]

If Lightroom 4.1 was performing like molasses in winter, on my machine, I'd try Bridge/Photoshop/ACR instead, after trying all the usual stuff including BIOS update, stripped system..., I mean, and if still no go:

See what happens when running Lr4 via a different OS, or in a virtual machine...

Mac users: try booting Windows and running the Windows version of Lightroom, or boot Linux and run Lr on a Windows virtual machine.

Windows users: try running in a Windows virtual machine, with Linux host, or Windows host.

Recommend vmware, although Mac users may be able to use Parallels.

I know you don't want to do this, or think you should have to, but desparate circumstances sometimes call for desparate measures...

Rob

[Sacha_]

Victoria Bampton wrote:

Sacha, have you tried this yet? http://forums.adobe.com/message/4366597#4366597

Thanks. Yes but only briefly until now. I didn't have time to edit photos in the last two days. It looked like editing was faster with the negative caching enabled though. I'll write as soon as I spent some time in LR4 again.

[bob frost]

From: "Another Photographer

I think I found a solution that would work for me:

(1) Provide support for Nikon D800, Nikon D4 and latest Canon cameras in

LR3.

(2) Refund LR4 upgrade price for people who have problems with LR4.

(3) In the meantime, Adobe, take your time do all of the required testing

to iron out the issues with LR4.

Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Why can't you use LR4 with 2010 develop processing (as in LR3)?

Bob Frost

[rpavich1234]

Bob,
You asked:

Why can't you use LR4 with 2010 develop processing (as in LR3)?

I'm being serious when I say...why do that?

Why not just use LR3?

[bob frost]

From: "rpavich1234

I'm being serious when I say...why do that?

Why not just use LR3?

Because LR4 lets you use the latest cameras, lens profiles, etc without

converting to dng. It also lets you use the new modules - books and maps. It

also has improvements to Publish, softproofing for Prints, Email, and loads

of other improvements as listed at

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/page/3

I think that is what I would do if Develop process 2012 was causing serious

problems for me.

Bob Frost

[rpavich1234]

bob frost wrote:

From: "rpavich1234

I'm being serious when I say...why do that?

Why not just use LR3?

Because LR4 lets you use the latest cameras, lens profiles, etc without

converting to dng. It also lets you use the new modules - books and maps. It

also has improvements to Publish, softproofing for Prints, Email, and loads

of other improvements as listed at

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/page/3

I think that is what I would do if Develop process 2012 was causing serious

problems for me.

Bob Frost

Ahh..I should have thought of that....thanks for pointing it out.

[andreas603]

this is my biggest beef of all....not being able to use LR3.6 with Canon 5D MIII Raw.... I don't like/do DNG.  While I certainly understand the notion that by ending upgrades to LR3/ACR it forces people to buy a new product its unreasonable to expect that cycle to not have problems at some point....like with LR4-  Adobe is chosing to hold firm despite 'some' unhappy users....I'm not that technical but don't understand why they couldn't allow the ACR 7  plugin to function with 3.6 for a few months until they fixed this.  Isn't thats why its called a 'plug in'?

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Stopping support of old software is one thing, but to stop support immediately upon releasing an upgrade is not the norm.  Microsoft still supports Windows XP, which was released in 2001.  And until recently, Adobe software still ran on Windows XP--so basically Adobe wants to have their cake and eat it too.  They're happy that Adobe is supported on old OS, but they refuse to support new cameras that were released days after LR 3.6 was retired.

And given that PV 2010 in LR4 supports the new cameras, I doubt there is a technical issue.  I believe they could have supported the new cameras in LR 3.6 if they wanted to.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but the way LR 4 was rushed out the door unfinished just days before three ground-breaking cameras were released by Nikon (and maybe Canon, I don't follow them as much)...makes you wonder about their motives.

On top it, there is a lot of chatter that D800 files look better on CaptureOne than they do in LR 4.  But I was already too dependent on LR 3.6.  Working on changing that in the near future.

[RikkFlohr]

Another Photographer wrote:

Stopping support of old software is one thing, but to stop support immediately upon releasing an upgrade is not the norm.  Microsoft still supports Windows XP, which was released in 2001.  And until recently, Adobe software still ran on Windows XP--so basically Adobe wants to have their cake and eat it too.  They're happy that Adobe is supported on old OS, but they refuse to support new cameras that were released days after LR 3.6 was retired.

MS announced Office 2013 will not support Vista or XP.  Doesn't look lke their applications support it any more.

You cannot compare Operating Systems to Applications.

[Charles Putnam]

MicroSmurf is ending all support for WinXP in June 2013 ('bout friggin' time, I might add).  I know it's their most popular OS, but it's time to move on.

One more thing.....Apple separates Camera Raw support from their applications.  Namely, even if you're running iPhoto '09 or Aperture 2, it'll support editing RAW files for the latest cameras since Apple's Camera RAW is separate from the program.

[DavePinMinn]

Much as I hate to try to drag the urination festival back to the subject of "Lightroom is Slow"........  I tried the suggestion from Peter Green over in the other forum, and it seems to have improved things in develop at least slightly.  I'm suspicious 'cause I figure I'm a prime candidate for the placebo effect at this point...  Kinda like putting the loud exhaust on the car and deciding it MUST be faster 'cause it sounds faster!

But, I'm also still using the bat file to start LR, and wondering if I should just go back to letting it use all the cores or not?  I don't see any difference with or without the bat file, but at this point I"m sufficiently flummoxed I'm doing what Rob recommended and just back to using Bridge for all the important initial stuff, just using LR for a catalog/database...

[areohbee]

davepinminn wrote:

I"m sufficiently flummoxed I'm doing what Rob recommended and just back to using Bridge for all the important initial stuff, just using LR for a catalog/database...

So ACR is OK? Lightroom is the problem?

[DavePinMinn]

Yeah, as I said in my very first "hey, this is slow" entry about 10 pages ago (which even I can't remember any more), I don't have the same performance issues in Bridge, but as Victoria and some others pointed out, although they're the same engine, there are differences in what the tools do that may account for the difference in performance...  I mostly used Bridge/ACR even in V3 because it's faster and easier for me to do a lot of what I do there than in LR...

But, with V4, I decided to try everything in LR, did the import directly, the initial exam, the rating, the deletion of garbage (I have a LOT of garbage), renaming, keywording, metadata location update, and so on....  Needless to say, I discovered how painful it was, thus adding my voice to the other 70+ pages of people with performance issues.

[areohbee]

Thanks. I would think it's a big clue if develop module is slow in Lightroom but not ACR.

Are there differences in what the develop tools do? Or are we talking about edit-history and such stuff.

Sorry if this already discussed, my memory isn't as good as it used to be... - mostly just a curiosity, for me, at this point.

Rob

[Another_Photographer-qoO2PF]

Rikk Flohr wrote:

MS announced Office 2013 will not support Vista or XP.  Doesn't look lke their applications support it any more.

The crucial differences:

I don't have to upgrade to Office 2013 if I don't want to.  I still use Office 2007 on one of my machines and it supports the same files.  Not so with LR3 since it doesn't support the latest cameras from Nikon and Canon that were released.

I can use Windows 7 OR Windows 8 with Office 2013.  If Microsoft wanted to be jerks, they would have forced Office 2013 users to upgrade to Windows 8, which will be released BEFORE Office 2013. 

Adobe have ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON to pull support of the new cameras.  NOT EVEN APPLE does that.  MS has very good reasons for pulling the plug on XP and Vista.

LR4 is full of bugs.  LR4.1RC is full of bugs.  LR4.1 still has its fair share of bugs.

Are the class action lawyers working on this yet?

I will now sign off of this thread.  Good luck to everyone figuring out why LR4.1 isn't working as you expected.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Another Photographer wrote:

Adobe have ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON to pull support of the new cameras.  NOT EVEN APPLE does that.  MS has very good reasons for pulling the plug on XP and Vista.

Adobe haven't pulled support.  LR3 still supports exactly the same cameras it always did. They aren't going back and recoding old software to add new cameras, but they do make it possible to use that old software with new cameras via the DNG Converter.  Apple offer new camera support via their operating system, Adobe do it via DNG.

I'm sorry you're being hit by performance issues though.  We'll carry on fighting to track down the causes.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Rob Cole wrote:

Are there differences in what the develop tools do? Or are we talking about edit-history and such stuff.

History for one.  But there are also lots of extraneous bits that LR's doing that ACR's not - building previews, updating thumbnails and Navigator, secondary screens.