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]

Jao vdL wrote:

Weird! ... very curious as all I did was download and run automatic update to 4.3 release.

Reminder: Installers are software too, and as such are subject to all the same potential for bugs and bug fixes as the Lr software itself.

And also: sometimes re-installing even the same software can result in causing or fixing problems (that they are having, or that other software is having).

e.g. I have to re-install TiVo Desktop after updating iTunes - why? After updating iTunes, the Bonjour that gets loaded is not compatible with TiVo. - go figure... - it's been like that for years, despite my reports to TiVo and Apple about it... - one would think if most others were having the same problem it would have been fixed by now - dunno what to say...

Also, my copy of MS Outlook after years of faithful service is suddenly performing poorly (no significant system changes that I am aware of) - it's driving me insane. Lr4 runs fine, but Outlook: not so much anymore...

I have some more examples of bizarre software behavior and computer phenomena if you're interested...

Rob

[Bob_Peters]

Jao vdL wrote:

Weird! The delay is almost completely gone on my machine to where it is now

actually usable and enables stepping through images in 1:1 to check focus.

Before that was a disaster and I simply did it in Develop as it was

actually faster there even when 1:1 previews were all pregenerated. Very

curious as all I did was download and run automatic update to 4.3 release.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

OS X (10.8.2)

15 inch MacBook Pro (retina)

2.6 GHz quad-core i7

8 GB memory

512 GB SSD

Today, for the second time, I erased the SSD and installed a minimal system (OS X 10.8.2) consisting of the default applications and Lightroom 4.3.  I then created a catalog with 7, 12-bit D800 NEF images.

Well, this time the Lightroom response when zooming to 1:1 in the Library module was 1 second or less.  So, I started adding applications but the Lightroom response was still excellent until I installed the Color-Eyes Display Pro software (version 1.6) and the profiles I had created months ago.  As soon as I installed the old profiles, each one being a 16-bit LUT, the Lightroom zooming response went back into the tank.  When I changed to a generic matrix profile all was well again.

I then restored the full system, created a new matrix profile and all was well:  I could create 1:1 profiles and then zoom to 1:1 in Grid view or Loupe view in one second or less.

I don't know if the problem is with the Color-Eyes LUT, Lightroom or OS X but I strongly suspect OS X is the problem.  Can anyone shed some light on this?

[Jao vdL]

I think Lightroom has had issues with ICC v4 LUT profiles since the very

first version. But this has always just resulted in bad color, especially

bad shadow rendering with banding and completely plugged up shadows and

differences between Lightroom and Photoshop which is why I have always been

recommending people generate simple icc v2 matrix profiles. A long time ago

we chased this down on the forum and one user wrote it up here:

http://photo.bragit.com/Lightroom/articles/ColorManagement.shtml and some

quick googling shows many threads with people getting bad color with LUT

profiles: http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YAgu

http://unifiedphoto.com/2010/09/lightroom-images-do-not-look-same-as-photoshop/.

I have not heard of it leading to bad performance. My display is

calibrated using a spyder which creates simple matrix profiles so the

slowness in LR 4.3 RC for 1:1 zooming that I experienced cannot have been

because of the same reason. Lightroom uses the Adobe color management

system and not Apple's Colorsync (or the windows equivalent), so I would be

hesitant to ascribe this to the OS but clearly to a code issue in

Lightroom. Your observation is consistent with someone somewhere else in

this Frankenthread describing how Lightroom seems to constantly be reading

in the monitor profile. I am sure it is quite a large icc file if you have

16-bit LUTs in there.

[Bob_Peters]

I was generating icc v2 16-bit LUTs.  At least that is what the preferences indicated.

Re:  this Frankenthread

I wish someone would move the last few entries into a new thread.  This one is just too large.

[Todd Shaner]

Jao vdL wrote:

Your observation is consistent with someone somewhere else in

this Frankenthread describing how Lightroom seems to constantly be reading

in the monitor profile. I am sure it is quite a large icc file if you have

16-bit LUTs in there.

That was this post:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4670717#4670717#4670717

What's interesting is that I have the same X-Rite Display 2 calibrator & software and I couldn't duplicate the problem on my Windows 7.

[Bob_Peters]

Bob_Peters wrote:

Jao vdL wrote:

Weird! The delay is almost completely gone on my machine to where it is now

actually usable and enables stepping through images in 1:1 to check focus.

Before that was a disaster and I simply did it in Develop as it was

actually faster there even when 1:1 previews were all pregenerated. Very

curious as all I did was download and run automatic update to 4.3 release.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

OS X (10.8.2)

15 inch MacBook Pro (retina)

2.6 GHz quad-core i7

8 GB memory

512 GB SSD

Today, for the second time, I erased the SSD and installed a minimal system (OS X 10.8.2) consisting of the default applications and Lightroom 4.3.  I then created a catalog with 7, 12-bit D800 NEF images.

Well, this time the Lightroom response when zooming to 1:1 in the Library module was 1 second or less.  So, I started adding applications but the Lightroom response was still excellent until I installed the Color-Eyes Display Pro software (version 1.6) and the profiles I had created months ago.  As soon as I installed the old profiles, each one being a 16-bit LUT, the Lightroom zooming response went back into the tank.  When I changed to a generic matrix profile all was well again.

I then restored the full system, created a new matrix profile and all was well:  I could create 1:1 profiles and then zoom to 1:1 in Grid view or Loupe view in one second or less.

I don't know if the problem is with the Color-Eyes LUT, Lightroom or OS X but I strongly suspect OS X is the problem.  Can anyone shed some light on this?

These same conclusions hold true for Lightroom 4.3 running on my MacPro 1,1 (2007 vintage running OS X 10.7.5) once one allows for the relative slowness of the MacPro.  It's getting tired

LUT profiles and Lightroom do not get along with one another.

Message was edited by: Bob_Peters Added OS information for MacPro comment.

[rpavich1234]

And yet I don't experience a single one of these supposedly many bugs...

Which brings us back to the question: where are the problems really? In Lr? Or on the user's machine?

No...it's not a question...its' in LR.

Specifically LR 4...

LR 3 didn't have this severity of bugs nor did it generate 4000 page forum comments about it''s short comings.

Lol...not a question...it's LR4.

[areohbee]

rpavich1234 wrote:

And yet I don't experience a single one of these supposedly many bugs...

Which brings us back to the question: where are the problems really? In Lr? Or on the user's machine?

No...it's not a question...its' in LR.

Specifically LR 4...

LR 3 didn't have this severity of bugs nor did it generate 4000 page forum comments about it''s short comings.

Lol...not a question...it's LR4.

If Adobe said to themselves "it must be the user's machine", then we wouldn't have seen Lr4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 fix so many people's problems (yes: many; no - not all...).

If you say to yourself "it must be Lr", then you may never get it running well on your machine.

All we really know is: the same software (Lr4) works well for some people/machines, but not others, and, the same machines run other software (including Lr3) fine, but not Lr4. - I'm afraid that's just not enough info to place blame when it comes to software.

Rob

[bob frost]

rpavich1234 wrote:

Lol...not a question...it's LR4.

What's the old saying? "There is none so blind as those who will not see".

Bob frost

[rpavich1234]

Of course it was buggy; you just didn't notice any!

bob frost wrote:

What's the old saying? "There is none so blind as those who will not see".

Bob frost

Bingo.

[bob frost]

rpavich1234 wrote:

Of course it was buggy; you just didn't notice any!

bob frost wrote:

What's the old saying? "There is none so blind as those who will not see".

Bingo.

I'd love to come round and sort your computer out! Perhaps I could do it by Remote Assistance!!

Bob Frost

[rpavich1234]

I'd love to come round and sort your computer out! Perhaps I could do it by Remote Assistance!!

Bob Frost

All you have to do is install LR 3.5

[bob frost]

From: "rpavich1234

All you have to do is install LR 3.5

All YOU have to do is install 3.5!

I have 4.3 running satisfactorily on 2 desktops and two laptops (not at the

same time) without any significant problems. Different motherboards,

processors, drives, drivers, monitors, etc., etc. All system problems have

been sorted.

Currently sorting out one or two system problems with Win8 upgrades on three

of them. LR4.3 running fine on Win8.

Bob Frost

PS This thread has been going on for so long, I've completely forgotten what

your problems are. (Apart from the 'blindness'

[rpavich1234]

All YOU have to do is install 3.5!

I was making a joke...you said you'd sort my system...it was sorted...and even pretty good at 4.3 RC...I guess I have to roll back until Adobe fixes "my" system with their next incremental release

[bob frost]

From: "Keith_Reeder

Which brings us back to the question: where are the problems really? In

Lr? Or on the user's machine?

Mostly the latter! Shizam1 has just cured his problems - see his posts. I

cured mine, as I reported about 1000 posts ago!

Bob frost

[rpavich1234]

Mostly the latter! Shizam1 has just cured his problems - see his posts. I

cured mine, as I reported about 1000 posts ago!

Bob frost

Wow! Congrats...two...

Only 50,000 more to go and we'll have a trend

Shazam!

[Guest]

I am seeing a lot of arrogance from many people here. And while that is, sometimes, an inner quality of artists, the levels of arrogance in some of these posts is "too damn high".

It is also showing almost a primitive approach to things:

- I don't see it, hence it doesn't exist (or it is your fault)

- I fixed "it", then it is your fault.

It is obvious from many of these comments (at least to me) that many of the people giving them do not have a a clue of what the scientific method is and how things are approached in science. In the end this problem (whether it is my system, in LR, or a combination of both) belongs to the computer science world. All we can do is base our suggestions in observations, and of that this thread is also full of, with many useful comments that have helped "fix" the problem of LR. I said "fix" because maybe that user didn't really observe the acute problems that other people are having. Furthermore, we all say "problem" when we could be talking about a tuning issue or a real LR bug, or even a software conflict with LR. In the end, they all might have similar symptoms, hence we all have the "same" problem but in reality you might be able to fix it (by removing the conflicting software, or doing a couple of tricks to improve the performance). Still, there are going to be people that no matter what they do they WON'T be able to "fix" it, until Adobe correct the bug(s). Why is it showing in some systems and not in others if it is a bug in LR? I don't know. There could be a gazillion answers to that. I can only relate to what I can observe.

I have personally tried most of the solutions given here and in other forums and NOTHING worked. Now, if you are too full of yourself to think that you are way better than I am and your arrogance is so big that you think that by you deleting a couple of files here and there and changing the size of my cache remotely you are going to fix my problem then I'll save you some time. It won't work and you are in for a disappointment, I would love to let you try just so your bubble breaks but I am afraid you are going to mess up my system. If I would be in the area, I would be more than willing to let people like trshaner, Rob or even somebody from Adobe take a look at it and experience first hand my problem. I'd do that more so they see by themselves LR (not) working than for the hopes of getting it fixed since I am convinced it is a LR problem.

I'll tell you what worked: LR 4.3 RC did. It worked. There is no side reading to this. The same way LR 4.1 RC solved some people's problems, that LR 4.2 RC solved some other people's problems, well, LR 4.3 RC solved MY problems. The sad news is that the final release, LR 4.3 introduced the problems again. I have to say that LR 4.3 is an improvement over LR 4.2 or 4.1. Still very annoying to work with and to me it is still not in an acceptable working condition. With previous LR 4.x releases I would observe freeze-outs of up to 30 seconds (non-responding application). Now those black rectangles and freeze-outs "only" take about 10 seconds. Loading times are not up to 1 minute anymore, but still, 15-30 seconds to load an image is not acceptable, especially when working with a large amount of images. Is this the limit of my system? I don't think so. LR 4.3 RC would load previews almost instantly, 1-2 seconds max), I had no slowdowns at absolutely any moment, so, for a brief period, MY system and lightroom worked absolutely perfect together.

While I lost all hope of Adobe fixing the problem before a new paid update (5.0) and my interest on pursuing it, I find your arrogance intolerable. You don't have problems: Good for you! You solved your problems? Awesome! Congrats! Now, don't come here and pretend that because you did, everybody should have solved their problem and if they didn't is because they are stupid. (If I were Adobe, and had seen my video with my problems and then that 4.2 doesn't work, 4.3 RC works and 4.3 final release doesn't work but works a bit better than 4.2, then, c'mon, they should know what they changed in between, they should know, by now, what is causing the problems shown in my video. )

It happens in different OS, it happens in different machines, and it happens in different degrees. The only common point (so far) is LR. But again, while they are being referenced as the same problem, they all might be different problems. All I know is that with my (excellent/faulty/average/what-not) system, LR 4.3 RC worked like a charm and LR 4.3 or other versions (LR 4.x) didn't.

Have a great holidays everybody.

[Guest]

uphotography wrote:

Why is it showing in some systems and not in others if it is a bug in LR?

That's typical for bugs in software. Some are found during the QA cycle but often they only appear when running on a customer's system. This is either due to timing differences or unexpected (but valid) behaviour of interfaces on the customer system.

The QA systems will be largely sandboxes that run through automated test patterns. If that test pattern is not representative of your workflow then you may experience issues that Adobe have not seen before and also someone using a different workflow to you may not see the issue either. That doesn't change the fact that you have stumbled on a bug in the code.

[A_C_G]

"I have personally tried most of the solutions given here"

But not all, Uphotography.

Around early October I suggested that people still frustrated by LR might save themselves time and frustration by trying another RAW converter. After all there is nothing to stop anyone coming back to LR within the period that they have paid for upgrades.

I took my own medicine and moved to Qimage Ultimate. I already used Qimage for my printing so trying it on my RAWs cost me nothing to do and only a few pounds to upgrade once I saw it worked. I found it:-

handled noise better

dealt with blown out highlights better

was more foregiving with deep shadows

On the other hand I found my work flow slower. However, it/I am gettting faster with every session.

One or two people around here commented about my change of software (I cannot remember whether it was a Bob or a Rob) but, sadly I think, not one person took the time to try. I am not wanting to devalue Uphotography's erudite message but it probably took as long to write as it would have taken him/her to try QU.

If QU is no good for those still struggling with LR then all the experiment has cost is a bit of time. If it does work then you/they have a tool to use until they feel inclined to return to LR. I for one am keeping my options open and that is why this thread is flagged to my email system. It is not a crime to use another coffee shop whilst your favourite is being re-developed - nobody is going to take offence if you end up preferring the new one or move back to the old one.

For the record I do need to repeat that I have nothing to do with Qimage other than that of a customer/user. But I am jolly glad I gave it a try six, or so, weeks ago on my RAWs.

Tony

[Guest]

A C G wrote:

"I have personally tried most of the solutions given here"

But not all, Uphotography.

Around early October I suggested that people still frustrated by LR might save themselves time and frustration by trying another RAW converter. After all there is nothing to stop anyone coming back to LR within the period that they have paid for upgrades.

Tony,

If I remember correctly, I saw your post back then but you didn't mention which one it was (what software). (Maybe I am confusing you with somebody else.) I think you even proposed people to contact you via email if they were interested in knowing what software you were talking about but, unfortunately, your email is set to private so I never knew. In any case

I haven't tried Qimage but I did try many other alternatives. As a matter of fact, because of trying them a long time ago, I decided to stop my DNG conversion since they did not handle very well DNGs or sometimes would not open them at all.

Thanks for the advice.

[A_C_G]

Uphotography,

Sorry but I did not realise my email was not showing. I did not mention the name of the software out of respect for Adobe but nobody thinks offence will be caused as C1, Bibble, etc all get named.

Qimage Ultimate has moved on a lot since the old days of Qimage as a printing suite. There is a new sharpening technique called Deep Focus Sharpening. That can be applied with Tone Targeting. The Auto Exposure is right an astonishing amount of the time. As you convert from RAW you have lots of control over burnt highlights.

Yes, it needs a fast machine. But then so does LR if one is to read the messages above. Yes, it is best if you can call up your folder of RAWs, apply a small selection of filters and then take time to brew a cup of coffee. I've just set it working on a folder of around 150 shots I did yesterday whilst I send this message. My guess is that when I go back to QU around 90% of the shots will be ready to post to the web. The other ten percent will require a bit of extra 'tinkering' but probably no more than a quarter of an hour's work. However, the real plus is that IMHO the shots will look better than they did with LR.

Enough said. I sound like a salesman - not just a happy snapper!

Tony

[rpavich1234]

Update:

Got a new laptop: Alienware M17X...SSD drive, 8GB ram 1GB video.

LR 4.3 runs pretty darn well on it.

And no, I didn't get this machine just for LR....I was getting it anyway and it's a bonus that LR runs well.

[bob frost]

From: "rpavich1234

LR 4.3 runs pretty darn well on it.

Join the club!!

Bob Frost

[bob frost]

From: "uphotography

It is obvious from many of these comments (at least to me) that many of

the people giving them do not have a a clue of what the scientific method

is and how things are approached in science

Well that leaves me out of your criticism, since I was a moderately

successful research scientist for about 30 yrs.

>Now, if you are too full of yourself to think that you are way better than

>I am and your arrogance is so big that you think >that by you deleting a

>couple of files here and there and changing the size of my cache remotely

>you are going to fix my > problem then I'll save you some time. It won't

>work and you are in for a disappointment,

Well, Shazam1 and Bob Peters have just posted how they cured their problems

by changing some things, so it can be done!

And don't get too worked up over the exchange of posts between rpavich and

myself; we were both winding each other up, in a friendly way I hope.

I'll tell you what worked: LR 4.3 RC did. It worked. There is no side

reading to this. The same way LR 4.1 RC solved some people's problems,

that LR 4.2 RC solved some other people's problems, well, LR 4.3 RC solved

MY problems. The sad news is that the final release, LR 4.3 introduced the

problems again. I have to say that LR 4.3 is an improvement over LR 4.2 or

4.1. Still very annoying to work with and to me it is still not in an

acceptable working condition. With previous LR 4.x releases I would

observe freeze-outs of up to 30 seconds (non-responding application). Now

those black rectangles and freeze-outs "only" take about 10 seconds.

Loading times are not up to 1 minute anymore, but still, 15-30 seconds to

load an image is not acceptable, especially when working with a large

amount of images. Is this the limit of my system? I don't think so. LR 4.3

RC would load previews almost instantly, 1-2 seconds max), I had no

slowdowns at absolutely any moment, so, for a brief period, MY system and

lightroom worked absolutely perfect together.

That is interesting, so have you looked to see what is happening 'behind the

scenes' in your computer while the freezeouts are occurring? That may give

you and Adobe a clue to what is going on in your computer. Can't you

continue to use 4.3RC for the time being? Not sure when it expires.

It happens in different OS, it happens in different machines, and it

happens in different degrees. The only common point (so far) is LR. But

again, while they are being referenced as the same problem, they all might

be different problems.

Agreed, there are millions and millions of different combinations of

hardware and software out there. No-one can test a program in all those

combinations. Beta testing on a range of computers can nail the bugs that

show up on those, and public beta testing can identify more. But public beta

testing doesn't allow Adobe to easily identify the problems, which is where

this type of forum comes in.

One useful thing I have done for years (adopted from my scientific

background) is to keep a written log of all the changes I make to my

computer. Every install or uninstall of programs, updates of drivers,

changing drives, bios settings, etc are all recorded in the notebook by my

computer. That makes trouble-shooting much easier, and when I get a

trouble-free setup, I back it up immediately (and record it), so that if any

future change causes problems, I can go back to the stable setup. None of

this comes from 'artistic arrogance', but from basic scientific method. It

is all too easy to blame one change for a problem, when looking at the log

shows I installed several Windows updates, and made other minor changes at

about the same time.

Hope your problem get solved, one way or the other.

Bob Frost

[KKuja]

Well, Shazam1 and Bob Peters have just posted how they cured their problems

by changing some things, so it can be done!

Are you saying every problem with LR can be fixed by user? I'm asking this because what you wrote implies so, and I'd like to be sure what you mean before I agree or disagree.

Personally I believe many problems can be cured by user, but price of doing so may be too large, either in time or money (get a new leading edge machine, get several machines and test which components work best with this software, or just by use days to debug what is the bottleneck of this machine.) But I also believe that at least some problems can only be cured with bug fixes. I mean this as general statement, which applies to all software.