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

[Wanchese_West]

Then I just have to thank my lucky stars, 'cause I'm going to be tuning and tweaking photos for the next 36 hours and LR 4.1 RC is working for me. A cyclist in Adobe kit rode past me during an event on april 14th. I yelled out "Hey Adobe, fix LR4!" He turned and siad that he was on the LR team and that they are working on it.

Maybe he shoulda' been off the bike and back in the office!

[CodeThought]

LR 4.1 RC2 is a pig compared to 3.6.  I'm seriously thinking about going back to 3.6 until Adobe remembers how to write software again.

Now I'm wondering if I could get CS 6 given the seeming decline in quality of the Lightroom line.

[Robbie2006]

Ditto, I don't really need the catalogue, I thought Lightroom would have sorted this out by now, do you think I would get a refund from Adobe for Lightroom 4 and put it towards CS6 and I would get all the extra features as well.

[Madscape]

I'm not going to bother with a refund.  I'm sure in time a well working version will materialize . The fact remains that this was in no way ready for release. But with that said I do like what I see from what I have used it just needs to be fixed. Untill then I have my 3.6 ..

[JustinDustin]

Somehow I stopped getting email updates on this thread for a few weeks, not that it seems to have mattered as nothing has changed. I'm not a professional photographer, but I have a serious backlog of work that I'd like to get done, and try as I might LR4 is just not making it easy. I've already complained about the slow slider response in the Develop module, and the speed by which Quick Develop changes happen in the Library module. But OH...MY...GOD...if I make a white balance change in quick develop...I...might...as...well...get...a...coffee. Right now I'm applying a tweak to a few hundred photos, and LR4 has basically shut down on me. It's doing its thing, but I can't browse photos, apply ratings, add keywords, or anything else constructive while it's applying the WB changes. WTF Adobe? Is anyone still working on this? It's been nearly a month since 4.1rc2 was released.

[Robbie2006]

Don't know if this will help anyone but Lightroom 4 was very slow on my machine which is not the highest spec in the world but I was in preferences / file handling and discovered that my cache memory  on my drive was

( drive N / Adobe raw cache ) so I had a look for the cache folder and couldn't find it so I created a cache folder, incresed its size to 20 gig and tried Lightroom 4 again and my PC is running much faster,I can go between grid and develop as quick as I could in Lightroom 3.6, I can now zoom instantly without a two second lag, certain sliders in the develop module are still a little bit jumpy ( I'll leave that one to Adobe ) but overall a huge improvement.

Hope this helps.

[rbphotog]

Wow! Some good news, finally. I'm sure going to check that one.

Thank you, Robbie!

[Robbie2006]

Let me know how you get on.

[MarceloTrad]

Did not work for me!!!

=(

Marcelo Trad

[Natsukashi53]

@robbie2006 did you happen to also change the location of your cache? maybe to a separate drive or anything?

Sent from my iPhone

[Robbie2006]

No I put my photo's, catalogue and scratch disc all on an external hard drive then went to LR4 preferences and if your preferences are the same as mine Adobe had allocated the scratch disc to my external hard drive and called the folder" Adobe raw cache" unfortunately they never created the folder on my hard drive so effectively when I ran out of RAM there was no scratch disc for LR to write to, I had only to create a folder called Adobe raw cache on the same hard drive and it worked a treat.

Regards.

[A_C_G]

Robbie,

Are you saying that your LR was trying to cache on a drive that did not exist?

You seem to have the magic solution. Please don't go away. Stay around and talk us through what you did so we can do it.

Signed - a most desparate LR4 user trying to work a couple of hundred images for a client.

Tony

[Jao vdL]

Putting the cache on a separate harddisk from your images and operating

system is an old and well-known way to increase camera raw's (and by

extension Lightroom's) performance. I've never seen the cache location

being assigned to a nonexisting disk, but I guess it is possible and should

be fixed if that's the case.

[Robbie2006]

Hi Tony,

I experienced all the symptoms described on the forum, I even tried RC2 with no success and uninstalled all LR4 stuff, I then did a clean install from DVD which improved the speed in the develop module but when editing a couple of photo's it started to get slow again. I then searched the net and came across an article about putting my photo's on a separate hard drive along with the catalogue (it said if these were on a partitioned drive the heads on the drive would be fighting against the operating system trying to read from the same drive, which to me made a lot of sense) he also said to put the scratch disc on the external hard drive which I did and got and instant big improvement then everything started to slow after about 5 minutes, I then checked the scratch disc and everything looked ok, the scratch disc was allocated to my external hard drive ie.,( N / Adobe camera raw ) I looked and was unable to find a folder with that name so I created one and went back to preferences and pointed the sctach disc to that folder and increased it to 20 gig and voila it works like LR3.6 does.

I spent this morning on LR4 editing photo's I took last Saturday and everything worked great including resource intensive things like adjustment brush and graduated filters to adjust the white balance (how good is that new addition to LR4)

Hope this works for you, let me know how you get on.

My PC has a quad core intel pentium Q 8300 and 4 Gig of ram and it works fine, my PC is about 3 years old.

[A_C_G]

Thanks for coming back so quickly Robbie.

Let me get this right a you mentioned cache and you mentioned scratch disc. Are you meaning the same.

I have my operating system on C: And currently the images that are current live the - plus the cache.

I have a 2tb internal disc called J:

You'd recommend I put my recently taken RAWs on J and a catalogue for them on J as well (I find this catalogue stuff an overhead I don't need but go with the flow as LR want me to have one). I then create a new cache on J. And I have a flying LR4?

Don't be offended if I don't respond as I have to go out soon (UK evening). But rest assured I'll be trying your advice Sunday morning.

Thanks again.

Tony

[Robbie2006]

Hi Tony,

If you have two drives on your PC yes you can do that, if it is a partitioned drive it won't work because your operating system and your photo's, catalogue and scratch disc are all operating from the same hard drive, you would then be better off putting them on an external hard drive.

[Natsukashi53]

I notice that it only happened when editing raw photos.

I edited a tiff and saw that it worked like a charm and was fast.

additionally I'm in SSD so I don't think there would be an issue with the "heads" since there are no moving parts.

I increased my cache to 4gb from the 1gb default. that increased the speed a little. but then I clicked purge cache. that's what sped it up the most, but it slowed down again eventually. I think the cache isn't being purged. I didn't check to see about the cache folder existing or not, so I am going to check that one tonight.

Sent from my iPhone

[Guest]

Guys, I'm gonna save you all some time.

There is a long thread on Adobe's support and feedback (and bug reports regarding the slowness of LR) and this is not a problem of "configuration". This is a problem of the software itself. There, are reports of people with powerful systems, older systems, Macs, PCs, and they all have the same problems.

I personally have a 3 GHz, 12 Gb Ram, 1 Gb dedicated VRam, Dedicated Hard Drive for the system, Dedicated HD for Catalogue and photos and Dedicated HD for Scratch (PS) and Cache (ACR/LR) and LR 4.0, 4.1 RC1 and 4.2 RC2 are simply IMPOSSIBLE to use.

Problems observed:

- Sloppiness and slow response of adjustment sliders on

- Performance decrease with using a second monitor

- Performance decrease when using Process 2012 vs Process 2010

- After editing (develop) or examining several photos in Loupe mode, LR becomes more and more slow some times becoming even unresponsive (Program not responding sign). This is usually accompanied by a black box where the info of the photo should appear.

- Long times zooming in and out. Long time loading (even minutes some times)

- LONG times importing and exporting

- Poor tethering (or non-working with cameras like the 5D-MkIII)

- Compatibilities issues with PS CS5 (exporting a photo to Photoshop and changing only one pixel and then saving it will yield a photo with different brightness and even contrast some times

- etc....

Many people have offered good insight and observations into what could be happening (memory leak, high cpu usage maybe due to non-optimum small numbers handling, maybe video driver , OpenGL compatibility issues, compatibility issues with third party plug-ins, and a series of other very specific things)

This is NOT an OS or system built specific problem. It is also not related to the size of the catalogue. This is a LR problem.

It is my opinions that this and other forums serve well as a way for users to exchange information and solutions and serve, in a way, as an unofficial support group. However, this is an ADOBE problem. and it is Adobe the one that needs to get their s... together and solve this problem. It is my opinion that they released LR 4.0 half-baked. It was "raw" and not ready to be released.

We are shooting blanks here. We are not, in general, IT specialist, we are not programmers and all we are doing is comparing our systems and a few other very basic stuff with each other. The problems with LR 4.0 are past the point of checking where our cache folder is. Adobe has the tools tod work and apparently solve this problem. Many of us collaborate with Adobe with the anonymous gathering of data on Adobe products usages and other details. They know what we do with the program, they know what problems we have and they know what systems we have. Unfortunately, they have no solution. In my opinion this is a major ball-drop from Adobe, first delivering a product that was far from finished and then having this problem unsolved after such a long time.

This issue with LR made me change my workflow and the way I depend on Adobe. First, I don't do any more DNGs conversions (as some of the alternatives to LR don't read or poorly read DNGs) and second, I've looked into alternatives and I'm looking into the possibility of replacing LR altogether. It really bothers me that there is no answer from Adobe's side. The number of frustrated users keep growing and all we got from Adobe is RC1 and RC2, which one is worse than the previous, well, I don't know. It seems to me that they have no clue what is causing this, and even less, how to solve it. Yet, they got my money for something that DOESN'T work.

I don't have the link to the other threat here (and the one that actually will influence more what Adobe will read or react to compared to this forum). If you guys are interested, I can post the link tomorrow when I am back to the office.

Cheers,

[rbphotog]

What HE said!! Let's just stop trying to figure out workarounds for software that's a worthless release for pros. Send Adobe back to the drawing board. I can wait.

[Natsukashi53]

well, I am actually an IT specialist. and I am trying to figure it out.

I noticed a few differences when using the software. when it isnt raw, it seems to work fine.

when I was trying to figure it out, I noticed editing on one photo worked incredibly fast. that's because it wasn't a raw image.

no offense, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that some of us here can't figure it out or that none of us here work in IT related fields. I don't focus specifically on software, but I do troubleshooting. and its a lot like this.

but anyway, yah they are working on it. I'm disappointe too, but getting mad doesn't make solving it any easier or faster. nor does blaming adobe and talking trash about their software, which I assume all of us have been using, even prior to the release of lr4. I don't see a lot of threads praising all the good work that people have made. only complaints...

some people have offered up suggestions to fix the issue and it's helped some and hasn't helped others. but at least there's some people who are able to find workarounds, solutions, etc.

anyways, yah. hope a permanent solution is found permanent or temporary, but any kind of forward movement is great.

Sent from my iPhone

[Guest]

@Natsukashi53

With all due respect:

I'm happy you are an IT specialist. However, if you read my post well, you will notice that I said "most". Usually "most" doesn't mean all, but a majority. Take a second read.

I do find it a bit pretentious on your side to think that you, a user with no access to LR code, routines, algorithms, etc... will diagnose and "cure" what the whole paid developing team of LR hasn't in over 2 months. If you do, Adobe should fire its whole LR developing team.

Your simple assumption of LR working better with no-RAW images than RAW images, given the information you gave, is of no help at all. Did you compared the same images? Same images size? (21 Mb RAW image vs Large 21 Mb Jpeg?) Did you apply the same treatment to both of them? Did they both have the same process version? Did you work with them at the same time (one after another), same editing session, different days? Simply suggesting that apparently RAW processing is slower than no-RAW images because on *one* photo it worked faster... Well... I could also claim that in the mornings it works better, because it is faster than in the afternoons (which is true, but that simple statement is very misguiding)

But I suggest you check first the thread I suggested before. There, a couple of *some* of the IT people that happen to be LR users give very good and deep observations (imho, better than "one photo was faster than the another one")

[Lee_Jay]

uphotography wrote:

This is NOT an OS or system built specific problem. It is also not related to the size of the catalogue. This is a LR problem.

Or something LR could fix, but why do the troubles only happen on some machines and not others?  Obvously, there's some other elements than a simple "LR4 doesn't work right".  It does work right on most machines, just not all.  So what's special about those machines on which it has trouble?  It doesn't appear to be platform-specific, and I haven't noticed a common confuguration (like a Wacom tablet or something) that triggers it, so what does?  I've processed over 12,000 images with LR4 - on four different machines - with none of the problems you report.  Why is that?

What I've been trying to do in this thread is to get people to post enough information that we can find the common element.  That's often met with resistance, oddly.  Adobe won't be able to fix this reliably if they can't reproduce it, and they probably can't reproduce it if they don't know what causes it.  They'll be shooting in the dark.  Perhaps they'll get lucky but having visiblity into the problem is better. 

Incidentally, not all of the things in your list are actual problems.  PV2012 will be somewhat slower than PV2010 and PV2003 because of the more sophisticated calculations behind it - the calculations that also make it better in most cases.  The 5DIII tethering isn't a bug because that camera is just not yet supported by the tethering module (in other words, it isn't supposed to work yet).

[Guest]

Lee Jay wrote:

uphotography wrote:

This is NOT an OS or system built specific problem. It is also not related to the size of the catalogue. This is a LR problem.

Or something LR could fix, but why do the troubles only happen on some machines and not others?  Obvously, there's some other elements than a simple "LR4 doesn't work right".  It does work right on most machines, just not all.  So what's special about those machines on which it has trouble?  It doesn't appear to be platform-specific, and I haven't noticed a common confuguration (like a Wacom tablet or something) that triggers it, so what does?  I've processed over 12,000 images with LR4 - on four different machines - with none of the problems you report.  Why is that?

What I've been trying to do in this thread is to get people to post enough information that we can find the common element.  That's often met with resistance, oddly.  Adobe won't be able to fix this reliably if they can't reproduce it, and they probably can't reproduce it if they don't know what causes it.  They'll be shooting in the dark.  Perhaps they'll get lucky but having visiblity into the problem is better. 

Incidentally, not all of the things in your list are actual problems.  PV2012 will be somewhat slower than PV2010 and PV2003 because of the more sophisticated calculations behind it - the calculations that also make it better in most cases.  The 5DIII tethering isn't a bug because that camera is just not yet supported by the tethering module (in other words, it isn't supposed to work yet).

Lee Jay.

The problem is that you are trying to do what Adobe should be doing but in a less efficient way. You cannot ask around to try to find the "common issue". If, and this is just a very simple example, any of the new code in LR has an "if [machine is powerful] {code 1} else {code 2}" That is a very simplified way of showing how something could work on one computer and not on another. Like that I could mention 1000 things. But that is exactly my point. We know NUTS of how LR is implemented and how the algorithms there work. Adobe on the other hand knows! So if they feel, for example, that the problem could be a compatibility issue with video cards, well, they don't even need to ask! they can pull that information right out of our system (if we said yes to that before) so for them it is easy. For us it is just a distraction and a waste of time.

There is a difference between slow and VERY slow. If you haven't experienced it then you cannot say what is a bug and what is not. Otherwise you could also claim that using two monitors is slower than using one. It shouldn't be! Specially not on a 3GHz pc, dedicated HDs, 12 GB ram, and 1 Gb video ram. Process 2012 cannot be THAT much slower than 2010.

I feel like making a video one of these days and blogging it. Then you will notice. I love LR and this is SO annoying I am seriously considering Corel Alternatives to LR.

[Natsukashi53]

uphotography,

regardless of what you think, you would expect that I did what you mentioned being in IT. I'm not gonna experiment every possibility of whichever photo type works because I too have photos to process my self. I'm not gonna try to "cure" the problem as you so simply state, I just think its arrogant of you to take such a negative spin on it when everyone here is just offering up their own problems and solutions.

the cache size change works, and it worked for me to some extent. I increased the size 1 GB at a time, and it reflected in performance.

after all the explanations everyone's offered do you also need an in depth explanation? cuz last time I checked, adobe wasn't paying me to sit here and solve their problems. if they were id give you a full breakdown. and why would you assume I wouldn't have access to the code? I could debug it, but to what avail? I didn't write the program, and I don't specialize in program writing. if I was getting paid to solve it, I'd provide you more details, but as the case with this thread is, we're all trying to help each other. if you don't like the answers here or don't want to rant here, then please use that other thread that you so highly recommend. if it was so great you wouldn't be on this one as it is. stop trying to disprove everyone's attempts at fixing the problem or finding workarounds. everyone here is just as frustrated as you are with LR4. you complaining that "most" of us are not IT and we're not gonna solve it, doesn't add any help one bit.

until you start paying me to be an IT for you, I can offer up whatever information I want about my troubleshooting steps even if they don't meet your "in depth" requirements.

just because most are not IT doesn't mean they can't stumble across a solution. more people trying is better than one person complaining in my opinion.

go complain to adobe directly in a forum they respond to. while the rest of us try to offer up some help to each other on settings/drive setup/file types/hardware, etc.

anyways you don't have to agree to what I said or respond because I frankly don't care about your stance at this point. I am going to still offer up suggestions and try everyone's work arounds to see if there's any success. for those that get theirs working, kudos to them. for those of us that are still having issues, either adobe will issue an update or we'll find a solution/workaround at some point.

Sent from my iPhone

[juw13]

This is not a problem with LR4. The software had been plagued with memory leaks and sluggishness from the start, LR3.6 being no exception. The architecture was not designed to scale with large catalogues and the bloat introduced with each new release.

Adobe is great at providing functionality but horrible at design. The only way to address this is with a major code overhaul, something which Adobe has put off. Management only think in terms of bells and whistles for the next release and refuses to see the benefits of improving underlying architecture. This has come back to bite them and the longer they put it off, the more risky / expensive it will be down the track.

Forget about the workarounds and meeting the unreasonabe system requirements. No amount of small fixes and tweaks are going to address the core problem. As users, we need to send a clear message to management: take the plunge and let the software engineers do their job!!!!